Why you hate WBC for Canelos voluntary ?

No outrage here. GGG wants to rematch in May so let Canelo fight Lemieux in December. Lemieux is a rated contender. Just don't jump on GGG for not fighting low paying Jermall when Canelo doesn't want to fight Jermall either for the same reason. Jermall is not a draw and brings in little money.

Let's have a hypothetical situation, here. If Canelo loses his next fight, would the person that beats him be granted a voluntary defense? What if this person's mandatory is still Charlo? Does this person get a voluntary defense as well? The irony here is the WBC was telling GGG if he didn't fight Canelo in a rematch that they would declare he needs to fight his mandatory in Charlo. Now that Canelo is wearing their belt, they're suddenly backpedaling and saying Canelo get's a voluntary. On the other hand, they are now saying Golovkin has to fight Charlo? Honestly, this sounds more to me like the WBC wants to protect their golden goose. Probably hoping like hell Golovkin gets the victory and gets damaged & aged more before fighting Canelo against in a 3rd fight. Charlo vs Heiland was the first WBC title eliminator to become mandatory against Canelo vs Golovkin. Then they ordered Charlo vs Centeno for WBC interim title. If I was Jermall I would try to fight Golovkin, but I would also consider legal action against the WBC if that fight falls through (assuming it's even viable). He dont have to fight Charlo ,he needs to do it if he wants a shot at Canelo. guy who beats Canelo probably would get voluntary,and of course fact that Canelo is money maker matters ,it always mattered before Canelo and after him, there will be A side.

Let's have a hypothetical situation, here. If Canelo loses his next fight, would the person that beats him be granted a voluntary defense? What if this person's mandatory is still Charlo? Does this person get a voluntary defense as well? The irony here is the WBC was telling GGG if he didn't fight Canelo in a rematch that they would declare he needs to fight his mandatory in Charlo. Now that Canelo is wearing their belt, they're suddenly backpedaling and saying Canelo get's a voluntary. On the other hand, they are now saying Golovkin has to fight Charlo? Honestly, this sounds more to me like the WBC wants to protect their golden goose. Probably hoping like hell Golovkin gets the victory and gets damaged & aged more before fighting Canelo against in a 3rd fight. Charlo vs Heiland was the first WBC title eliminator to become mandatory against Canelo vs Golovkin. Then they ordered Charlo vs Centeno for WBC interim title. If I was Jermall I would try to fight Golovkin, but I would also consider legal action against the WBC if that fight falls through (assuming it's even viable).

I think it's just very strange that if Golovkin would have won he would've been forced to fight Charlo by the WBC...while Canelo is getting a pass for a voluntary. Why is he an exception again ? Looking forward to see GGG and Charlo fight each other if that happens tho

I'm more disappointed in Canelo and Oscar. Of course they're going to fight Lemieux. Yea me too ,but thats not the point.

Where's the outrage? LOL some of you mfers are so silly. D- troll thread. People say that WBC is corrupt and GGG have to fight Canelo's mandos for him ,or that his duucking Charlo ,and more.

I'm more disappointed in Canelo and Oscar. Of course they're going to fight Lemieux.

Fighters that wins title usually get voluntary defense so why the outrage ? I have no problem with Canelo getting a pay day fight next. After that the WBC should be mandating he fight Charlo (as their number one guy) or Golovkin due to the controversy of the first fight. Whatever, at this stage in Canelo and Golovkin's careers they aren't going to follow what the WBC has to say. They'll do what they believe is best for them.

he deserves one. even then Lemule ain't that tomato of a choice.

Where's the outrage? LOL some of you mfers are so silly. D- troll thread. is right in here https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=794376

Fighters that wins title usually get voluntary defense so why the outrage ? He desrves one. He fought two fights back to back against the other guy rated with him as the best in the division. I think we all know.