Key points:
- Sanctioning bodies require champions to periodically defend against their highest-ranked available challenger, known as a mandatory defence
- A voluntary defence lets a champion choose any opponent, often a lower-ranked or lower-risk one
- Hamzah Sheeraz’s title defence against Simon Zachenhuber drew criticism as a “soft” voluntary defence
- Fighters sometimes avoid dangerous mandatory challengers by using step-aside deals or activity elsewhere in the division
The difference in one sentence
A mandatory defence is a fight a sanctioning body requires. A voluntary defence is the one the champion simply chooses. That distinction explains almost every argument you’ll see online about whether a title fight is a genuine test or a safe paycheck.
Why mandatories exist at all
Every major sanctioning body maintains rankings within each weight class, and periodically orders the champion to face their highest-rated available challenger. It’s a built-in mechanism meant to stop champions from avoiding the division’s most dangerous opponents indefinitely.
How champions still get around it
Fighters and promoters have several ways to sidestep an unwanted mandatory without technically breaking any rules. A voluntary defence can be scheduled first, buying time before the mandatory has to happen. A ranked contender can agree to a step-aside deal, voluntarily giving up their position in exchange for compensation. Or negotiations can simply drag on long enough that a sanctioning body eventually intervenes with a purse bid.
Where this played out recently
Duke McKenzie’s recent comments about Moses Itauma serve as a useful real-world example, even outside a formal mandatory situation. McKenzie argued Itauma should avoid dangerous, experienced names like Daniel Dubois and Agit Kabayel for now, choosing easier fights while he continues developing. That’s the voluntary logic in its purest form: picking opposition that manages risk rather than opposition that’s simply next in line.
Why fans use “soft” as an insult
The criticism isn’t really about the rules being broken, since none are. It’s about a mismatch between a champion’s marketing and their actual risk tolerance. Hamzah Sheeraz’s title defence against Simon Zachenhuber drew exactly this kind of pushback, seen by some as a second consecutive lower-risk voluntary defence rather than a fight that tested him against a genuine threat.
The honest defence of voluntary fights
Not every voluntary defence is duck-and-dodge behaviour. Building experience, staying active, and managing risk are all legitimate parts of a career, especially for younger fighters. The line between reasonable career management and avoiding real competition is often more a matter of opinion than fact, which is exactly why the “soft fight” debate never really goes away.