One of the immediate reactions many people had yesterday when they heard the news that heavyweight champion Tyson Fury had pulled out of his rematch with Wladimir Klitschko for a second time, was to demand that Fury be stripped of his heavyweight titles. This November 18th will of course mark a full 12 months since Fury became world champion, and due to inactivity and of not granting Klitschko his rematch clause-enforced rematch, Fury should, many people say, be stripped.
But there is more to the story. In fact, from what Peter Fury says, a whole lot more.
“I think a lot of people will feel rather embarrassed at their outbursts when the full story is revealed,” Peter, uncle of Tyson wrote on Twitter today.
Peter has also declared that in no way should Tyson be stripped of the belts.
“With Tyson’s condition he can not be held culpable. Detailed statement coming soon on health. He will not and should not be stripped of belts,” Peter also posted on social media.
If Fury has suffered a nervous breakdown or something equally serious, then Peter is correct on two things: people who lashed out at Fury will indeed feel bad for this, and the belts should not be stripped from Fury. If Fury is in a terribly bad way, then of course he cannot fight; as any decent governing body would hopefully agree. Each organisation has its own way of operating, but let’s say for example, Fury is made “Champion in recess,” or the equivalent to this, until he gets better. This would be a far more understanding thing to do than simply stripping a sick man of his titles.
Everyone will surely agree that mental health issues are very, very serious. We all hopefully agree that no mentally ill person should ever be forced to fight; nor should he be threatened with being stripped of the titles he won fair and square when he was in good health. Despite what you think of Tyson Fury, he at least deserves some breathing space with this one.
Should Fury be stripped? No. Should the belts he holds be contested while he is forced to remain inactive if this proves to be a a substantial period of time? Yes.
