Jump to content


Photo

The rematch clause


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Dolimite

Dolimite

    Heavyweight

  • Members
  • 6,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fresh Coast

Posted 26 November 2014 - 04:22 PM

I just finished reading on ESPN that Floyd is asking for a rematch clause if he fights Pacquiao. Aren't rematch clauses standard procedure in all major fights? Broner had one with Maidana, Pac had one with.Chris and Tim. Canelo had one with Mayweather.

Can someone explain the purpose of a rematch clause if it hardly gets exercised? And why is the media making it seem that this is a big deal?

#2 AZWildCat

AZWildCat

    Super Middleweight

  • Members
  • 3,488 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arizona

Posted 26 November 2014 - 05:46 PM

In "sum's" eyes its veiwed as a sign of doubt. Like he's not 100% confident of a win and wants a chance to redeem himself if a loss should occur.

#3 Dolimite

Dolimite

    Heavyweight

  • Members
  • 6,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fresh Coast

Posted 26 November 2014 - 05:49 PM

AZ I get that, but rematch clauses are a norm in most if not all major fights.

#4 flazi

flazi

    Junior Welterweight

  • Members
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LA, CA by way of Panama

Posted 26 November 2014 - 05:55 PM

i think its bs



#5 mgrover

mgrover

    Cruiserweight

  • Moderators
  • 5,440 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2014 - 05:59 PM

rematch clauses are there in case the underdog beats the favourite, incase the favourite had an off night or someshit. aka when Maidana beat Broner, but am pretty sure plenty of people told Broner not to exercise that clause.

 

ahhh Freddie Roach said this...Whens the last time Freddie Roach made sense? lol But my above point stands



#6 AZWildCat

AZWildCat

    Super Middleweight

  • Members
  • 3,488 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arizona

Posted 26 November 2014 - 06:32 PM

AZ I get that, but rematch clauses are a norm in most if not all major fights.

  

Yes your correct very understanding for a man putting his fan base,pay ,record ,an the mental damage of losing to an arch rival(ex. Rick hatton).



rematch clauses are there in case the underdog beats the favourite, incase the favourite had an off night or someshit. aka when Maidana beat Broner, but am pretty sure plenty of people told Broner not to exercise that clause.
 
ahhh Freddie Roach said this...Whens the last time Freddie Roach made sense? lol But my above point stands


I believe he took step aside money to let Floyd fight. He still wants it but he's about two good fights away from that being justified in my eyes.

Edited by AZWildCat, 26 November 2014 - 06:38 PM.


#7 Dolimite

Dolimite

    Heavyweight

  • Members
  • 6,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fresh Coast

Posted 26 November 2014 - 06:52 PM

rematch clauses are there in case the underdog beats the favourite, incase the favourite had an off night or someshit. aka when Maidana beat Broner, but am pretty sure plenty of people told Broner not to exercise that clause.
 
ahhh Freddie Roach said this...Whens the last time Freddie Roach made sense? lol But my above point stands


He said this in an interview with the Daily Mail, are they a credible paper?

#8 klonopinz

klonopinz

    Welterweight

  • Members
  • 1,700 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:philadelphia

Posted 26 November 2014 - 07:24 PM

this is a standard procedure, i wouldnt make much of it



#9 Dolimite

Dolimite

    Heavyweight

  • Members
  • 6,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fresh Coast

Posted 26 November 2014 - 07:38 PM

That is what I mean, this is standard procedure and they act like this is some new thing.

 

go to espn boxing site to see the dumb ass debate skip and steven A have. Pointless.



#10 Hotsauce

Hotsauce

    Junior Welterweight

  • Members
  • 1,482 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2014 - 08:07 PM

most people don't know shit about boxing.


Having a rematch clause is standard procedure




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users