The IBF Seek To Clarify Their Position On Tyson Fury.
 |
| The IBF Belt |
Whilst many think the decision to strip Tyson Fury of his IBF belt only a week after winning it, the IBF make a pretty clear case for why they did -
IBF Press Release (December 9, 2015):
"The IBF Heavyweight World
Title, which was won by Tyson Fury on November 28, 2015 when he beat the
reigning champion Wladimir Klitschko in an optional defense of this
title, was vacated on Tuesday, December 8, 2015 by the IBF as Tyson Fury
is unable to make the mandatory defense of the IBF title against
challenger Vyacheslav Glaskov because he is contractually obligated to a
rematch with Klitschko, which is in direct violation of the IBF/USBA
Rules Governing Championship Contests.
On November 30, 2015, the IBF reminded Tyson Fury via an email in care
of Hennessy Sports that the bout on November 28 was considered a
mandatory defense of both the WBA and WBO Heavyweight titles and that
his next bout was to be the IBF mandatory defense against Vyacheslav
Glazkov, the #1 contender and the leading available contender for the
IBF mandatory defense. This bout was due next in the rotation of
mandatory defenses of the titles. Furthermore, Fury was informed that
negotiations with Glazkov should commence immediately and be concluded
by December 30, 2015. He was advised that if an agreement was not
reached between the two parties by December 30, 2015, the IBF would call
for a purse bid. Glazkov’s promoter Main Events was copied on this
letter.
On December 1, 2015, the IBF received a letter via email from Patrick C.
English on behalf of Main Events indicating that Main Events was
unwilling to negotiate and requested that the IBF order an immediate
purse bid in accordance with Rule 10.A. of the IBF/USBA Rules Governing
Championship Contests. Rule 10.A. cites in part: “If the camps are
unable to come to an agreement as to the promotion of a title bout in
the initial thirty (30) day negotiation period, or if one of the camps
certifies in writing during the negotiation period that he is not
willing to participate in negotiations, the President of the IBF/USBA
shall notify each registered promoter that a purse offer will be held.”
Accordingly, the IBF ordered a purse bid to be held on December 11,
2015.
Following the title fight between Klitschko and Fury, the IBF became
aware for the first time that there was a contractual agreement between
both fighters for an immediate rematch. There were no provisions for any
rematch in the contracts which were submitted to the IBF prior to the
IBF agreeing to sanction the Klitschko vs. Fury bout. Rule 3.B. of the
IBF/USBA Rules Governing Championship Contests states:
“No contract for a Championship contest shall contain any clause or any
provision, whatsoever, guaranteeing or in any way assuring or promising
either contestant a return Championship contest where such clause or
provision interferes with the mandatory defense of a title.”
Had the IBF been aware of a clause in the contract that violated this
rule, the parties would have been mandated to agree in writing to stage
this rematch after the completion of the IBF mandatory defense. If the
parties did not agree, the title fight with Tyson Fury would not have
been sanctioned by the IBF.
In a letter sent to the IBF by Harbottle & Lewis, the legal counsel
retained by Hennessy Sports and Tyson Fury, the IBF was asked to
consider and exercise their discretion under the IBF’s regulations and
direct that an immediate rematch for the IBF Championship take place
between Fury and Klitschko. This rematch is in direct violation of an
IBF rule and the IBF will not order a rematch under these circumstances.
Wladimir Klitschko has exercised his right to the contractual option
agreed upon between himself and Tyson Fury for an immediate rematch,
thus rendering Tyson Fury unable to make the mandatory defense of the
IBF title next. The direct rematch between Wladimir Klitschko and Tyson
Fury interferes with the mandatory defense of the IBF Heavyweight title
and is in violation of Rule 3.B. of the IBF/USBA Rules Governing
Championship Contests. Consequently, the title has been vacated in
accordance to Rule 3.C.2. of the IBF/USBA Rules Governing Championship
Contests which states: “Upon violation of this Rule, the Championship
involved shall forthwith be declared vacant.”
On December 8, 2015 the IBF ordered #1, Vyacheslav Glazkov and #4,
Charles Martin to begin negotiations for the vacant Heavyweight title.
The IBF received a written certification from Warriors Boxing who
represents Martin, stating that he was not willing to participate in
negotiations and therefore requested an immediate purse bid according to
IBF Rule 10A. The purse bid had been scheduled Friday, December 18,
2015 at 12 Noon."
Is the decision a stupid one? In my opinion, yes it is, however I see why the IBF have taken the action they have. Caught between a rock and a hard place, they could be waiting till late summer for their sanctioning fees, which I believe to be the real issue here. After all money talks...
So now we have the possibility of 3 "World Champions", however Tyson Fury is the lineal and that is what counts, isn't it?
