The boxing world eagerly awaits the proposed rematch between Chris Eubank Jr. and Conor Benn, a bout steeped in history and featuring two compelling fighters. Their first encounter, echoing the famous rivalry of their fathers, delivered significant drama and commercial success. Following that event, a second meeting was widely expected and even tentatively scheduled. However, recent comments from Benn`s promoter, Eddie Hearn, suggest that this highly anticipated sequel is far from a done deal, casting a notable shadow of uncertainty over the planned September 20 date.
The initial clash at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in London in April culminated in Chris Eubank Jr. securing a unanimous decision victory. The event itself proved to be a major draw, justifying immediate discussions about a return bout. Both camps initially seemed amenable to the idea, fueling anticipation among fans for another chapter in this unique narrative.
However, a critical and controversial element of the first fight looms large over rematch negotiations: a stringent 10lb rehydration limit. This clause restricted both fighters to a maximum weight of 170 lbs on the morning after the official weigh-in. The stipulation had a profound and arguably detrimental impact on Eubank Jr., the naturally larger man accustomed to campaigning at higher weight classes. Reports indicated he visibly struggled with the weight cut and required medical attention post-fight, suffering from severe dehydration after his hand was raised.
Despite a September 20 date in London being tentatively announced by key figures involved in major international boxing promotions, the path to signing the contract appears fraught with difficulty. Information suggests that Eubank Jr.`s team is engaging legal counsel in negotiations, seemingly aiming to modify the agreed-upon terms for the second bout. Hearn, representing Conor Benn, has publicly maintained that the rematch should proceed under the identical conditions as the first fight, pointedly including the contentious rehydration clause. The sticking point, therefore, appears to be a direct consequence of the physical toll the weight cap inflicted on Eubank Jr. the first time around.
Speaking recently, Hearn articulated his concerns publicly, applying pressure to the situation. He stated unequivocally that if Eubank Jr.`s side delays the process or ultimately fails to agree to the proposed terms, they will be compelled to explore alternative opponents for Conor Benn. Hearn further implied that the organizers behind the event have presented Eubank Jr. with an ultimatum regarding the September 20 date, emphasizing that they will not indefinitely postpone plans awaiting a signature. His stance is clear: accept the original terms or the fight is off.
This public stance raises several key questions regarding the current state of affairs. Is Eubank Jr.`s team genuinely hesitant about repeating the physically taxing process of adhering to the strict rehydration limit that clearly impacted him? Or are these ongoing negotiations and the reported involvement of legal teams a strategic maneuver designed to secure more favorable financial or contractual terms, potentially including a modification or removal of the controversial weight cap? From the promoter`s perspective, there is a pressing commercial and logistical need to finalize Benn`s next opponent and secure a major event date, which necessitates a prompt resolution.
The fate of the Eubank Jr. vs. Benn rematch now seemingly rests squarely on Chris Eubank Jr.`s willingness to accept the terms, particularly the controversial rehydration cap that caused him significant hardship in their first meeting. As the potentially critical September 20 date draws closer, the boxing world watches with interest to see if this high-stakes negotiation will ultimately pave the way for the highly anticipated rematch or force both fighters down separate, unplanned paths.
Tristan Blackwood