UNDER normal circumstances, a big-name fighter expressing a desire to do away with a rematch clause in a contract in favour of putting everything on the line on a single night would be deemed both refreshing and cause for celebration.
However, when the fighter advocating this happens to be Tyson Fury, and when the one-and-done fight to which he refers is Fury vs. Oleksandr Usyk, it is not quite so easy to embrace the idea as a pure and liberating concept.
Sadly, given the back and forth between these two heavyweights, and given the games they have both played in recent weeks, Fury’s declaration this morning (March 13) that they need only one fight to settle their differences could be viewed as yet another negotiation tactic – or potential stumbling block – rather than an honest effort to clear a path to April 29, the proposed date of their fight.
Either way, when taking to social media, here is what Fury said: “I’ve been speaking to the lawyers today and Usyk’s people are talking about rematch clauses and all that b****cks. Here’s one to up the ante: How about there is no f***ing rematch clause, for both of us.
“Let’s up the ante completely. Never worry about what’s in the future and how many more dollars you can get after you’ve been defeated. Worry about the fight: April 29th, no rematch clause, the winner takes the glory, the loser goes home with his d**k in his hand. How about that? Agree to that you f***ing b**ch.”
Ordinarily, despite the method and tone of delivery, this suggestion of Fury’s would be one most boxing fans would understand and support. After all, too often we find rematch clauses slowing down the progress of boxers and forcing upon us – and them – fights we could quite easily do without.
Here, though, because the suggestion follows Usyk’s declaration last week that he would accept a 70/30 purse split if Fury donated a portion of his money to the victims of the Ukrainian war, it is easy to be cynical about Fury’s latest idea-slash-demand. In an ideal world, yes, the removal of rematch clauses across the board could enable more so-called super-fights to happen and place more control in the hands of the fighters involved. Yet, with these two, Fury and Usyk, there remains a sense that the issue is not the prospect of the rematch clause – which, let’s face it, would be expected for a fight of this magnitude – but instead the waving of it as some kind of weapon or bargaining tool or potential stumbling block.
Seeing it this way, too, is Usyk’s manager, Alex Krassyuk, who responded to Fury’s comment today by telling TalkSport: “Let’s imagine Usyk accepts no rematch, Fury will (then) search for another thing to (use to) pull out. He bluffed and Usyk called his bluff, 100 per cent.
“His credibility is shot to pieces. The man is trying to escape. I’m really sorry for Tyson’s fans. It’s a shame for a fighter to behave like that. It’s not about money and not about boxing. It’s about fear.”
That, one hopes, is a suspicion wide of the mark; more a result of low expectations, a never-ending process of bluffing, and a natural fear of the worst. If, however, a measly rematch clause is to become the latest sticking point and the thing that ultimately prevents Fury vs. Usyk getting made, questions will need to be asked and at least two heads will need to be banged together.
For all the latest Sports News Click Here
