That seems kind of odd to me..because he always defends all his belts..Why is it only one belt this time?

Because he doesn't want to pay sanctioning fee's to the other belt

He needs a belt, to attract, Trinidad, for a rematch.

after sturm beats bert hopkins he prob trash can the wbo to avoid fighting him

but why did he pay for sanctioning fees for the other fights like joppy dlh allen

jose has a point..at first i thought it was cuz maybe if he loses..he will have belt to have say in a rematch...but jose's reason is better...

i like the WBA BELT IS LOOKS BETTER I DONT LIKE THE WBC AND IBF DESIGN

but why did he pay for sanctioning fees for the other fights like joppy dlh allen
maybe to try to get as much attention from the public to help promote the fights, if it's for all the marbles and against name oppostion might make a few extras to cover the fee's and make more cash....just a thought. i mean, not a whole lot of people know who eastman is, but joppy,dlh, and allen have some exposure on US soil....

but why did he pay for sanctioning fees for the other fights like joppy dlh allen

Maybe because Eastman is the mandatory and has been forced on him by the WBC whereas the others were voluntary defenses.

yip its that and also the sancitoning fees i believe, we know the contempt that hopkins has for the institutions. and rightly so.

yip its that and also the sancitoning fees i believe, we know the contempt that hopkins has for the institutions. and rightly so.


That sanctioning fee excuse is bull****, He paid them for Hakkar and we know he made less money then he is now.

I call it bluff, just incase he loses he can have 3 other belts to defend for the "20th" time.

It doesnt matter though, if Eastman wins Eastman would get the Ring magazine belt and that would be more recognizable than any other belt out their.

If Hopkins loses, whether it be 1 or all 4 belts people will know who the middleweight champion is. Belts mean **** anymore.

I also think the WBC made a good move to put him against Eastman, that is a very good fight for both fighters who else would Hopkins have fighted?

I also think the WBC made a good move to put him against Eastman, that is a very good fight for both fighters who else would Hopkins have fighted?

It's about time it happened, Eastman's been waiting in the wings long enough. I'd never accuse Hopkins of ducking him but he's been fighting guys without a hope in hell or mega payday fights against smaller guys instead of the 2nd best middleweight out there.

Here here!

As for the belts, it'll create a weird situation if Howard does win. What will he have to do, kick Bernard's ass another three times to unify?

I wish I still had some Eastman on tape so I could upload it...

That sanctioning fee excuse is bull****, He paid them for Hakkar and we know he made less money then he is now.

I call it bluff, just incase he loses he can have 3 other belts to defend for the "20th" time.

It doesnt matter though, if Eastman wins Eastman would get the Ring magazine belt and that would be more recognizable than any other belt out their.

If Hopkins loses, whether it be 1 or all 4 belts people will know who the middleweight champion is. Belts mean **** anymore.

I also think the WBC made a good move to put him against Eastman, that is a very good fight for both fighters who else would Hopkins have fighted?

What is Eastman better at than Hopkins? If that has nothing to do with why you think he'll win, why do you think he'll win? EA sports curse?

That sanctioning fee excuse is bull****, He paid them for Hakkar and we know he made less money then he is now.


If 'them', you mean fees for two belts, yeah he did (Joppy had the WBA belt). Now he has four, which would be 10-12% of his purse. Plus, it doesn't matter if he made less money then than he will now since the sactioning bodies take out percentages of your purse. If you make more money, they just take out a bigger cut.

This Eastman fight is not even really his "20th defense of the IBF Middleweight title" cuz the one on the line is his WBC...It will be his 7 defense of the WBC...Tecnically speaking..

This Eastman fight is not even really his "20th defense of the IBF Middleweight title" cuz the one on the line is his WBC...It will be his 7 defense of the WBC...Tecnically speaking..


Wrong.

He is defending the Middleweight Championship. What belt it is has no affect especially when you have all the belts.

Is somebody hating? ::cough::borikua::cough::

Wrong.

He is defending the Middleweight Championship. What belt it is has no affect especially when you have all the belts.

Like I said.."Tecnically speakin"..the IBF is the only belt that he has defend 19 times. And that's a fact.

Is somebody hating? ::cough::borikua::cough::

I'm not hating...just posted a fact..

::cough::*****::cough::

I'm not hating...just posted a fact..

::cough::*****::cough::

That was cold..
You called me a Tito.