Anthony Joshua (WBA, IBF, WBO & IBO) vs. Oleksandr Usyk - September 25th 2021

  • Hi all, please be aware that CHB will NOT be closing on the 31st July, arrangements are being made to take over the website. Further details will be confirmed in due course. The new owners will be revealed/reveal themselves in the near future at a more appropriate time. TL;DR CHB IS SAVED!

Joshua vs. Uysk Winner and How?

  • Anthony Joshua Stoppage

    Votes: 20 31.7%
  • Anthony Joshua Decision

    Votes: 3 4.8%
  • Oleksandr Usyk Decision

    Votes: 23 36.5%
  • Oleksandr Usyk Stoppage

    Votes: 17 27.0%

  • Total voters
    63
Aug 19, 2020
879
445
United Kingdom
Except the offer isn't "very fair" if it was Usyk would have signed already without the need for an extension, I watched the IFL interview with Hearn today where he makes this statement but the interviewer failed to press him on what the sticking points were in the negotiations so I may need to find another interview he's done recently and hopefully someone's asked him because all I'm really looking for is confirmation that Hearn is indeed trying to force Joshua's mandatory challenger to sign a rematch clause and he's currently refusing to do so because Usyk knows that he can be fighting for undisputed himself if he can get past Joshua over 12 rather than having to risk it over 24.

I hope Usyk stands his ground here although I'd be picking Joshua to win anyway but I'm starting to wonder now if Joshua's ever defended against a mandatory challenger without a rematch clause given all the fuss now, this is probably the first time the opponent has said no to that but I'd actually like to see an Anthony Joshua performance where there's no security of a rematch built into the contract, winner takes all, now or never.
 
Reactions: wesshaw1985
May 22, 2013
5,176
3,727
Australia
Except the offer isn't "very fair" if it was Usyk would have signed already without the need for an extension, I watched the IFL interview with Hearn today where he makes this statement but the interviewer failed to press him on what the sticking points were in the negotiations so I may need to find another interview he's done recently and hopefully someone's asked him because all I'm really looking for is confirmation that Hearn is indeed trying to force Joshua's mandatory challenger to sign a rematch clause and he's currently refusing to do so because Usyk knows that he can be fighting for undisputed himself if he can get past Joshua over 12 rather than having to risk it over 24.

I hope Usyk stands his ground here although I'd be picking Joshua to win anyway but I'm starting to wonder now if Joshua's ever defended against a mandatory challenger without a rematch clause given all the fuss now, this is probably the first time the opponent has said no to that but I'd actually like to see an Anthony Joshua performance where there's no security of a rematch built into the contract, winner takes all, now or never.
I disagree about the rematch clause.
AJ has every right to the rematch if he were to lose in my opinion. Apart from the slip up with Ruiz he's been a unified champion for several years, he's probably number 1 or 2 star of the sport. He's the one bringing the big money to the table.
Sure Uysk cleaned house at cruiser but he's barely known he's not going to be a name the casuals eat up and get super excited for. He can force the mandatory or push for AJ to be stripped if no fight but even in picking up a vacant belt Uysk won't be recognised as the champ.

AJ is bringing everything to the table here. Usyk isn't. As long as the money is fair he should take what terms are given to him.
 
Aug 19, 2020
879
445
United Kingdom
I disagree about the rematch clause.
AJ has every right to the rematch if he were to lose in my opinion. Apart from the slip up with Ruiz he's been a unified champion for several years, he's probably number 1 or 2 star of the sport. He's the one bringing the big money to the table.
Sure Uysk cleaned house at cruiser but he's barely known he's not going to be a name the casuals eat up and get super excited for. He can force the mandatory or push for AJ to be stripped if no fight but even in picking up a vacant belt Uysk won't be recognised as the champ.

AJ is bringing everything to the table here. Usyk isn't. As long as the money is fair he should take what terms are given to him.
I would say that he has every right to ASK for a rematch clause but he's in no position to demand one and if the mandatory challenger says no then he should just accept that and fight.

Look at it from the challenger's point of view, he works his way up the rankings and pays his sanctioning fees along the way, he has to take a fixed amount of the purse which is in the champion's favour and in this specific case he will travel to the champion's backyard to fight him infront of his family and fans. He'll be worried about the judges no doubt since you rightly pointed out that AJ is the A-side and is the 2nd biggest draw in boxing and so it's on this basis AJ will be stripped if he doesn't agree the fight without a rematch clause. That tells us that he doesn't have any right to anything, the WBO will remove him as champion if he doesn't fight on their terms and those terms are a one fight deal.

Tell me though, why would AJ drop the belt rather than fight one a one fight deal? I was thinking about that after I watched the Hearn interview, it makes no sense. If he drops the belt rather than fight then he loses the belt and if he fights a one fight deal and loses he loses the belt. Therefore the only way for him to remain WBO champion is to fight and win, why drop the belt because he can't have his own way? I shouldn't put it on AJ just yet as it's only Hearn I've heard crying about it, perhaps the champion will fulfill his obligations with dignity after all and this talk of dropping the belt is just a negotiation tactic (hopefully).
 
May 22, 2013
5,176
3,727
Australia
I would say that he has every right to ASK for a rematch clause but he's in no position to demand one and if the mandatory challenger says no then he should just accept that and fight.

Look at it from the challenger's point of view, he works his way up the rankings and pays his sanctioning fees along the way, he has to take a fixed amount of the purse which is in the champion's favour and in this specific case he will travel to the champion's backyard to fight him infront of his family and fans. He'll be worried about the judges no doubt since you rightly pointed out that AJ is the A-side and is the 2nd biggest draw in boxing and so it's on this basis AJ will be stripped if he doesn't agree the fight without a rematch clause. That tells us that he doesn't have any right to anything, the WBO will remove him as champion if he doesn't fight on their terms and those terms are a one fight deal.

Tell me though, why would AJ drop the belt rather than fight one a one fight deal? I was thinking about that after I watched the Hearn interview, it makes no sense. If he drops the belt rather than fight then he loses the belt and if he fights a one fight deal and loses he loses the belt. Therefore the only way for him to remain WBO champion is to fight and win, why drop the belt because he can't have his own way? I shouldn't put it on AJ just yet as it's only Hearn I've heard crying about it, perhaps the champion will fulfill his obligations with dignity after all and this talk of dropping the belt is just a negotiation tactic (hopefully).
Fair enough, but I don’t think it’s just the case of the belt or not.

AJ is the champ. Having the WBO or not isn’t going to enhance or diminish his standings and his claim to the throne.

Uysk can not agree to the rematch and force AJ to vacate or fight. But if he vacates Uysk pics up a paper title that no one will regard as legit, he’ll not get the biggest fight of his career, his biggest pay day and the chance to legitimise himself.

It would lose a bit of shine not being for the “Undisputed Championship” but AJ can drop the WBO and move on to fight winner of Fury VS Wilder 3 no worries and leave Usyk out in the cold.
 
Jun 6, 2013
12,862
1,673
It would lose a bit of shine not being for the “Undisputed Championship” but AJ can drop the WBO and move on to fight winner of Fury VS Wilder 3 no worries and leave Usyk out in the cold.
Exactly. AJ is completely in the driver's seat here, and why shouldn't he be?

Usyk needs this fight BADLY.

- plus he's no spring chicken. Hard to believe he's already 34 years old.
For a fighter that relies so heavily on athleticism and reflexes, time is not going to be kind to him.
 
Reactions: Super_Fly_Sam
May 22, 2013
5,176
3,727
Australia
Exactly. AJ is completely in the driver's seat here, and why shouldn't he be?

Usyk needs this fight BADLY.

- plus he's no spring chicken. Hard to believe he's already 34 years old.
For a fighter that relies so heavily on athleticism and reflexes, time is not going to be kind to him.
Lets say AJ does move on and goes to take out winner of Wilder Fury.

He comes back with 3 belts to Uysk’s one. No on regards Uysk as the real champ and AJ comes in an even bigger star and bigger A side.

Uysk will still have to concede to rematch clauses etc. Uysk has no leg to stand on unless all he cares about is simply having a belt and not the throne that should come with it.
 
Aug 19, 2020
879
445
United Kingdom
Fair enough, but I don’t think it’s just the case of the belt or not.

AJ is the champ. Having the WBO or not isn’t going to enhance or diminish his standings and his claim to the throne.

Uysk can not agree to the rematch and force AJ to vacate or fight. But if he vacates Uysk pics up a paper title that no one will regard as legit, he’ll not get the biggest fight of his career, his biggest pay day and the chance to legitimise himself.

It would lose a bit of shine not being for the “Undisputed Championship” but AJ can drop the WBO and move on to fight winner of Fury VS Wilder 3 no worries and leave Usyk out in the cold.
That's an interesting perspective, I'm almost tempted to open a poll on that question of whether his standings will be diminished if he doesn't have the WBO title. See I can't see how it wouldn't diminish him, if he vacates that belt (rather than fight a guy who was just at Cruiserweight because he's scared he'll lose and won't get a rematch) I for one will be declaring that a duck. The ONLY explanation for vacating is because he believes he needs 24 rounds to ensure he remains WBO champ and has no faith that he can win first time of asking and if he's worried about Usyk then he really shouldn't be looking at Fury or Wilder anyway.

As for Usyk being left in the cold, that's it right there, the answer to my question of why would AJ drop the belt rather than fight. So OK it "punishes" Usyk and it does because instead of having an opportunity to win 3 championships he can now only fight for 1 vacant one and against someone who generates less money than AJ, sure. But if he's thinking longer term he'll know that if he picks that WBO belt up then NO ONE can be undisputed until they see him and if AJ is prepared to forgo being undisputed that's fine but if Fury or Wilder take his remaining belts off him in the meantime then they'll just end up fighting Usyk for undisputed and it'll be Joshua who is out in the cold, that's a net gain for Usyk in the end.

When we're talking about legacy and undisputed, A side and B side doesn't really come into it, whoever has a belt is A side.
 
Reactions: wesshaw1985
May 22, 2013
5,176
3,727
Australia
That's an interesting perspective, I'm almost tempted to open a poll on that question of whether his standings will be diminished if he doesn't have the WBO title. See I can't see how it wouldn't diminish him, if he vacates that belt (rather than fight a guy who was just at Cruiserweight because he's scared he'll lose and won't get a rematch) I for one will be declaring that a duck. The ONLY explanation for vacating is because he believes he needs 24 rounds to ensure he remains WBO champ and has no faith that he can win first time of asking and if he's worried about Usyk then he really shouldn't be looking at Fury or Wilder anyway.

As for Usyk being left in the cold, that's it right there, the answer to my question of why would AJ drop the belt rather than fight. So OK it "punishes" Usyk and it does because instead of having an opportunity to win 3 championships he can now only fight for 1 vacant one and against someone who generates less money than AJ, sure. But if he's thinking longer term he'll know that if he picks that WBO belt up then NO ONE can be undisputed until they see him and if AJ is prepared to forgo being undisputed that's fine but if Fury or Wilder take his remaining belts off him in the meantime then they'll just end up fighting Usyk for undisputed and it'll be Joshua who is out in the cold, that's a net gain for Usyk in the end.

When we're talking about legacy and undisputed, A side and B side doesn't really come into it, whoever has a belt is A side.
Nah I am gonna have to disagree again.

I don't see it as a lack of confidence in beating Uysk. I think it's more a care of AJ knowing he's in the driver seat and just making sure everything is in place to benefit him rathe than give up any advantage he doesn't have to. Why would he? Uysk needs AJ far more than AJ needs him at this stage. If he doesn't fight Uysk and goes on to fight winner of Wilder VS Fury 3 no one is gonna think he's ducking. Or he could go fight Whyte in what will surely be a bigger fight all round.

Lets say doesn't fight Uysk, drops the belt and fights Whyte instead. That locks up the middle of the year, he can get to winner of Wilder VS Fury 3 end of the year, win or lose their will surely be a rematch to that that takes him through to mid next year at least. Then he may finally circle back to Usyk who's been left without the big fight for over a year.

Losing to Fury or Wilder shouldnt be a concern for him because he'll sure as shit have rematch clauses in place for those fights. Not to mention the money involved in a rematch would pretty much guarantee it happens regardless of a clause or not. Losing twice to Fury or Wilder would put him on the outside regardless of what Uysk does.


I get your legacy point though. I do thin he should fight Uysk. It would be shit for him to vacate. But outside of looking at it as a fan. I can understand why he makes the demands of Uysk.... Uysk needs to realise his position here, agree to the rematch clause and just get the fight made.. It's hardly an outrages demand coming from a long time champion.
 
Aug 19, 2020
879
445
United Kingdom
Nah I am gonna have to disagree again.

I don't see it as a lack of confidence in beating Uysk. I think it's more a care of AJ knowing he's in the driver seat and just making sure everything is in place to benefit him rathe than give up any advantage he doesn't have to. Why would he? Uysk needs AJ far more than AJ needs him at this stage. If he doesn't fight Uysk and goes on to fight winner of Wilder VS Fury 3 no one is gonna think he's ducking. Or he could go fight Whyte in what will surely be a bigger fight all round.

Lets say doesn't fight Uysk, drops the belt and fights Whyte instead. That locks up the middle of the year, he can get to winner of Wilder VS Fury 3 end of the year, win or lose their will surely be a rematch to that that takes him through to mid next year at least. Then he may finally circle back to Usyk who's been left without the big fight for over a year.

Losing to Fury or Wilder shouldnt be a concern for him because he'll sure as shit have rematch clauses in place for those fights. Not to mention the money involved in a rematch would pretty much guarantee it happens regardless of a clause or not. Losing twice to Fury or Wilder would put him on the outside regardless of what Uysk does.


I get your legacy point though. I do thin he should fight Uysk. It would be shit for him to vacate. But outside of looking at it as a fan. I can understand why he makes the demands of Uysk.... Uysk needs to realise his position here, agree to the rematch clause and just get the fight made.. It's hardly an outrages demand coming from a long time champion.
But Usyk doesn't see it that way or else he would have agreed to the terms already and really unless Usyk feels that way then it isn't true, he doesn't need him, by the sounds of it he's happy to pick the belt up be it from AJ or from the bin should AJ put it there. The belt is what he needs as that makes him joint A-side later on when he's negotiating for the undisputed fight. The only way for Usyk to be involved in an undisputed fight is for him to take one of the belts and his best chance at doing that is having 1 fight with AJ not 2 because if he happens to win the first time his chances of repeating it will diminish greatly as all involved will be desperate to ensure somehow that AJ gets the nod in the rematch, there'll be all sorts of shenanigans and Usyk knows it.

Legacy seems to mean more to Usyk than money unlike most AJ opponents and so he'll take a little less now to secure far more later, he's backing himself and it's refreshing to see. He's trying to do what Evander Holyfield did before him. I just looked at the poll results on this thread thus far and I'm astonished to find Usyk with over 60% of the vote, see I think Joshua knocks him out but CHB doesn't and Hearn clearly has doubts too.

Let me ask about this comment too "I don't see it as a lack of confidence in beating Uysk. I think it's more a care of AJ knowing he's in the driver seat and just making sure everything is in place to benefit him rathe than give up any advantage he doesn't have to. Why would he?"

He (AJ) is already guaranteed 75% of the purse and can put the fight on wherever he wants to so how does not having a rematch clause in the contract decrease his advantage over Usyk in the first fight? (Remembering that the WBO don't require Usyk to sign any rematch clause). Sorry but all it does is make sure that if he loses like he thinks he might then Usyk can't shut the door on him and go and fight for undisputed (that too is why he'd rather drop one belt as that way he's still in the conversation by holding the other two). But if he is already confident he will beat Usyk anyway and can then fight for undisputed in his very next outing, what's the problem with a one fight deal?
 
Reactions: ISTILLSPEAKUMTROOTH
May 22, 2013
5,176
3,727
Australia
But Usyk doesn't see it that way or else he would have agreed to the terms already and really unless Usyk feels that way then it isn't true, he doesn't need him, by the sounds of it he's happy to pick the belt up be it from AJ or from the bin should AJ put it there. The belt is what he needs as that makes him joint A-side later on when he's negotiating for the undisputed fight. The only way for Usyk to be involved in an undisputed fight is for him to take one of the belts and his best chance at doing that is having 1 fight with AJ not 2 because if he happens to win the first time his chances of repeating it will diminish greatly as all involved will be desperate to ensure somehow that AJ gets the nod in the rematch, there'll be all sorts of shenanigans and Usyk knows it.

Legacy seems to mean more to Usyk than money unlike most AJ opponents and so he'll take a little less now to secure far more later, he's backing himself and it's refreshing to see. He's trying to do what Evander Holyfield did before him. I just looked at the poll results on this thread thus far and I'm astonished to find Usyk with over 60% of the vote, see I think Joshua knocks him out but CHB doesn't and Hearn clearly has doubts too.

Let me ask about this comment too "I don't see it as a lack of confidence in beating Uysk. I think it's more a care of AJ knowing he's in the driver seat and just making sure everything is in place to benefit him rathe than give up any advantage he doesn't have to. Why would he?"

He (AJ) is already guaranteed 75% of the purse and can put the fight on wherever he wants to so how does not having a rematch clause in the contract decrease his advantage over Usyk in the first fight? (Remembering that the WBO don't require Usyk to sign any rematch clause). Sorry but all it does is make sure that if he loses like he thinks he might then Usyk can't shut the door on him and go and fight for undisputed (that too is why he'd rather drop one belt as that way he's still in the conversation by holding the other two). But if he is already confident he will beat Usyk anyway and can then fight for undisputed in his very next outing, what's the problem with a one fight deal?

I get your point. I just don't agree that it is some kind of outrages demand from AJ to put a rematch clause in. But I do think it's outrages for Uysk to let that be a sticking point. Just agree and get the biggest fight of your career, if he backs himself to win he'll get the two biggest fights of his career and then another biggest fight when he can unify with Wilder/Fury.

Getting a belt by beating AJ levels out the negotiations. Getting a vacant belt if AJ moves on, sure as shit does nothing to bring him to the A side in negotiations against AJ, Fury or Wilder
 
May 22, 2013
5,176
3,727
Australia
For what it's worth. I do hope the fight can be made. As Wilder and Fury are out, hopefully AJ can get Uysk out of the way for the big one later this year or early next year.
 
Reactions: 46 Wins
Aug 19, 2020
879
445
United Kingdom
For what it's worth. I do hope the fight can be made. As Wilder and Fury are out, hopefully AJ can get Uysk out of the way for the big one later this year or early next year.
That's the best way, AJ gets past Usyk first time of asking and then we don't have to worry about anything else, that must be his only focus now.

Funny though how AJ and Fury are handling their next fights, Fury (who imo is at greater risk of coming unstuck in his next fight) isn't trying to force a rematch clause on Wilder, the arbitrater said on Thursday they have to fight a third time and on Saturday Fury signed to fight, if he loses that's it for his hopes of becoming undisputed but he's sure that he's gonna get the job done, he's gonna handle the business and then go to Saudi for undisputed, that's a true champion's mentality right there, Gypsy King showing the division who's boss, number 1 in the world for me
 
May 22, 2013
5,176
3,727
Australia
That's the best way, AJ gets past Usyk first time of asking and then we don't have to worry about anything else, that must be his only focus now.

Funny though how AJ and Fury are handling their next fights, Fury (who imo is at greater risk of coming unstuck in his next fight) isn't trying to force a rematch clause on Wilder, the arbitrater said on Thursday they have to fight a third time and on Saturday Fury signed to fight, if he loses that's it for his hopes of becoming undisputed but he's sure that he's gonna get the job done, he's gonna handle the business and then go to Saudi for undisputed, that's a true champion's mentality right there, Gypsy King showing the division who's boss, number 1 in the world for me
That's the best way, AJ gets past Usyk first time of asking and then we don't have to worry about anything else, that must be his only focus now.

Funny though how AJ and Fury are handling their next fights, Fury (who imo is at greater risk of coming unstuck in his next fight) isn't trying to force a rematch clause on Wilder, the arbitrater said on Thursday they have to fight a third time and on Saturday Fury signed to fight, if he loses that's it for his hopes of becoming undisputed but he's sure that he's gonna get the job done, he's gonna handle the business and then go to Saudi for undisputed, that's a true champion's mentality right there, Gypsy King showing the division who's boss, number 1 in the world for me
Bit of a different situation though with Fury and Wilder. Fury has absolutely no leg to stand on in denying Wilder as the courts have ruled he must fight him again.

The Wilder 3 was already pre-negotiated and locked in before their second fight. Didn’t matter who won the terms were set for the third fight regardless.

Fury simply cannot not fight Wilder or he’ll face a lawsuit. AJ can drop his belt, walk away Uysk and still move into bigger fights.
 
Aug 19, 2020
879
445
United Kingdom
Bit of a different situation though with Fury and Wilder. Fury has absolutely no leg to stand on in denying Wilder as the courts have ruled he must fight him again.

The Wilder 3 was already pre-negotiated and locked in before their second fight. Didn’t matter who won the terms were set for the third fight regardless.

Fury simply cannot not fight Wilder or he’ll face a lawsuit. AJ can drop his belt, walk away Uysk and still move into bigger fights.
Dynamito and I were debating this earlier on in thread, like you he said Fury has to fight Wilder no matter what, I on the other hand was saying if he drops his WBC title then he won't have to fight him, his dad John Fury later said the same thing in an interview after the ruling (that his son should just drop the belt and fight AJ), so there's obviously a need for clarification (although since they've signed to fight now it's probably not important enough an issue for us to get it now). I maintain if he dropped the belt he would have been free of this obligation, what if he retires for example? Will he sued because he didn't fight Wilder? I'm pretty confident WIlder would prefer to fight someone else for the title than have to rematch Fury anyway, I think if Fury dropped the belt Wilder would be delighted, I don't believe he would still be pursuing a rematch with Fury, he's failed to beat him on two previous attempts it doesn't make sense
 
Aug 19, 2020
879
445
United Kingdom
I ended that last post prematurely (forgetting the actual issue being discussed) so back to my point, if I'm right and Fury could drop the belt instead of fighting him then he could have done the same as AJ and said let's add a rematch clause for me if I lose or else I'll vacate the belt. The only problem if Fury did that though is unlike AJ he only has the one belt so undisputed could go ahead without him so long as the WBC belt was relinquished. So I guess you're right either way, he doesn't have the same leverage as AJ as his position isn't as strong