So Golovkin beat Saunders

[techliam]

From your link

"provided, however, that the WBC Board of Governors may by a majority vote, authorize a modification of the division of purse offer proceeds between boxers in a purse offer in unusual or special cases, such as consideration of outstanding marketing value of one of the boxers, as the WBC shall determine in its sole discretion. The modification of the split of the remainder shall be limited to 60-40% and 55-45%, except in the most exceptional circumstances, in which the split may be modified to 50-50%."
2.17

http://wbcboxing.com/downloads/WBC_R...ember_2015.pdf

"Special cases", like the Champion vs Interim.

Seriously? Why not man up and just correct yourself on the matter. I'm sick of seeing the false 'fact' spread around that Golovkin was entitled to 45%. I couldn't care less about getting a 'one up' on a random poster on here, especially a desperate one.

So you're quoting the mandatory challenger rules, even though the interim challenger rules (that i've posted twice, btw) say an interim champion shall not be treat as a mandatory challenger, instead subject to the terms of the WBC, which i've already posted:

In its sole discretion, the WBC shall subsequently determine the timing and terms of any bout between a Champion and Interim Champion to determine a sole champion in the division, provided, however, that an Interim Champion shall never be deemed a mandatory challengeror entitled to greater share of proceeds of any purse offer beyond that of a challenger, without a specific prior written order to that effect from the WBC President or his designee

Even if the rule applied, you're claiming the WBC would vote to increase Golovkin's share, which is ridiculous. That rule is there in case mandatory challengers are far higher earners than the champions, but doesn't mean the champion is shafted. I've underlined it especially for you. Don't you find it depressing, that you're flying in the face of a literal rule, just to try discredit a fighter you don't like? I'm bored of it now..

[Mikhnienko]

Who did that info come from?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcd8gtTz8B8

[kafkod]

Handed? You try to downplay that he earned those titles fair and square. Sad, I understand you have an agenda against him that can't be reasoned with (same stupid people that try to act like Wade was a fight he should have ignored and get stripped, lol).




Nilson Tapia earned that fight when he schooled Jorge Heiland. Golovkin earned that Regular title when he schooled Tapia. What's your point? Should I point out every other interim champ that fought (hint, the vast majority of boxers who fought for an interim title fought no big names)?

LOL, you really are full of ****. After his win over Felix Sturm, Daniel Geale shot upwards for most rankings in the top of middleweight rankings.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th...eweight--2010s

There had been no WBA super champion at MW four 4 years when GGG was made mando for Felix Sturm, who was THE WBA MW champ.

But Sturm's promotors payed the WBA to bring back the "super" title and award it to Sturm so that he didn't have to fight Golovkin. When Golovkin won the title Sturm had held, which had been renamed "regular title" he should, if he'd been treated fairly, have become THE WBA MW champ.

Sturm held the WBA super title for 2 years, with Golovkin pushing to fight him the whole time, till he lost it to Daniel Geale.

Geale was then stripped of the super title for refusing to fight his mando. No prizes for guessing who his mando was!

[techliam]

He would have ALOT left to prove. His biggest wins would be Saunders, Murray and Lemieux. All three fringe top ten contenders who would rate right around the number ten spot. That's not a undisputed champion.

Who else is there to fight at middleweight? Jacobs? We may see that. But the bigger fights at 168 though right? I really don't get where you're coming from..

[Robbie Barrett]

Seriously? Why not man up and just correct yourself on the matter. I'm sick of seeing the false 'fact' spread around that Golovkin was entitled to 45%. I couldn't care less about getting a 'one up' on a random poster on here, especially a desperate one.

So you're quoting the mandatory challenger rules, even though the interim challenger rules (that i've posted twice, btw) say an interim champion shall not be treat as a mandatory challenger, instead subject to the terms of the WBC, which i've already posted:



Even if the rule applied, you're claiming the WBC would vote to increase Golovkin's share, which is ridiculous. That rule is there in case mandatory challengers are far higher earners than the champions, but doesn't mean the champion is shafted. I've underlined it especially for you. Don't you find it depressing, that you're flying in the face of a literal rule, just to try discredit a fighter you don't like? I'm bored of it now..

Your rule is saying they can't have a greater share than a challenger, the maximum share a challenger can have is 50% which it states in the rules i posted. All of boxing knows that Champion vs Interim is usually 55/45.

[Robbie Barrett]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcd8gtTz8B8

I don't understand that. Who was the source that provided the info to Mexican TV?

[kafkod]

No it's absolutely NOT like golf, tennis, football, soccer or basketball. Those are sports where the best must face the best every year and the cream rises to the top. Golovkin has been given his belts on technicalities except for Lemieux which is a B- level fighter anyway.

Golovkin was given his belts on technicalities?

What kind of stupid fuckwit comment is that?

Golovkin won the WBA title in the ring by beating Nilson Tapia. He won the IBF title in the ring by beating Lemieux, and he became the WBC champion by default when Canelo relinquished the title after being ordered to fight him. The reason he became champ by default was that he had already won the WBC interim title, in the ring, by beating Rubio.

He earned the right to fight for every title he won by beating all the other contenders for it, whenever they had the balls to fight him. of course.

[OnePunch]

Seriously? Why not man up and just correct yourself on the matter. I'm sick of seeing the false 'fact' spread around that Golovkin was entitled to 45%. I couldn't care less about getting a 'one up' on a random poster on here, especially a desperate one.

So you're quoting the mandatory challenger rules, even though the interim challenger rules (that i've posted twice, btw) say an interim champion shall not be treat as a mandatory challenger, instead subject to the terms of the WBC, which i've already posted:



Even if the rule applied, you're claiming the WBC would vote to increase Golovkin's share, which is ridiculous. That rule is there in case mandatory challengers are far higher earners than the champions, but doesn't mean the champion is shafted. I've underlined it especially for you. Don't you find it depressing, that you're flying in the face of a literal rule, just to try discredit a fighter you don't like? I'm bored of it now..

but the biggest point that idiot misses is that it doesnt even matter what the "purse bid" split would be, because everyone knew if it went to bid the fight was dead.

All that had to happen in the 15 days was for Golden Boy to present an offer to K2. That didnt happen.

Period.

[Cody8804]

Who else is there to fight at middleweight? Jacobs? We may see that. But the bigger fights at 168 though right? I really don't get where you're coming from..

Heiland, Saunders, Eubank jr, quillen, Jacobs, Andy lee, centeno, Ndam, khurtsidze, magomedov, Cotto, Canelo, Lara, jermell Charlo, jermall Charlo, martirosyan, Julian Williams, Andrade all come to mind. Those are just the ones that come to mind. So yes there are opponents he could face at middleweight to get some respect. Murray and Lemieux isn't enough for me to consider him the undisputed champion. Besides that Canelo is lineal.

[Jsmooth9876]

He would have ALOT left to prove. His biggest wins would be Saunders, Murray and Lemieux. All three fringe top ten contenders who would rate right around the number ten spot. That's not a undisputed champion.

Right....so 2 champions and one guy who really should have been the lineal champion in Murray... That's what you consider fringe top ten contenders ha...dumb as a bag of rocks I see...