I am also a big fan of Pacquiao and wanted him to get his shot at Mosley or Mayweather after this fight -- as an aside, I wanted the Mayweather Pacquiao fight to happen first but the whole olympic-style drug testing thing derailed that. However, given the rematch clause (which I believe is one-way, i.e. only Mayweather gets the benefit of the rematch not Mosley if he loses), if Mosley wins there would have to be another fight and perhaps a third if Mayweather won the second fight.
The whole concept of a rematch clause intrigued me. I wondered if a rematch clause had ever been enforced and how so. It turns out there has been at least one such case that was right here in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. After Hasim Rahman took Lennox Lewis' belt in April 2001, he refused to honor his contractual obligation to give Lewis a rematch. Instead, Rahman was attempting to fight another fighter. In a deicision in June 2001, Judge Cedarbaum enjoined Rahman from fighting for 18 months unless he fought Lewis first. In effect, instead of forcing Rahman to fight (specific performance) she enjoined (stopped him) from fighting anybody else for 18 months unless he gave Lewis the rematch first. New York Times Article re the decision Thought that was interesting. I haven't seen the decision, but it also seems that nothing would have precluded Lewis from also seeking monetary damages. Bottom line, and tying this back to Mosley Mayweather (assuming the contractual provision is the same or similar and similar contract law in whatever jurisdiction the contract provides for), if Mosley wins, he will likely not be able to skip to Pacquiao without fighting Mayweather again first.
Finally, for those who watch 24/7, what did you think of the 6 year old "Cash Flow" hitting the pads--incredible.
