Originally posted by SpitLady
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Cotto vs. Clottey "Unification" Under Mandatory Threat
Collapse
-
-
This IS bull**** though, i mean 2 more months? actually since the mandatory date which is April 30th, thats 1 month 1/2. This is total ******ation, it really speaks the IBF for itself, they should get rid of that belt anyway.
Comment
-
deal breaker???
i dont expect clottey to be that ******...! Im pretty sure he will drop the ibf belt...he wont turn his back to the bigger purse of his life!!!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by vaborikua View Postwe get the point we are just saying they should allow him to fight cause its going to be to unify and a more dangerous opponent than clotteys mandatory. Also you say Cotto fought a joke. Well first of all who you expect him to fight after that brutal lost to mr plaster? Second it was for a belt what is he gon say no i rather fight someone tougher in my first fight back and not for a belt? Its an easy choice really. If you can get an easy fight in your first fight back since that loss and it would be for a title you would do it 2.
let the cotto fighting a "joke" thing go.......i was making a point that clottey had plenty of time to fight his mando, he could've had the fight the same time cotto had his........a champion doesn't hold on to a belt for nearly a year w/o fighting, and expect no ramifications.......if clottey has to give up the belt to fight cotto, he should.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Osirus022 View PostThis IS bull**** though, i mean 2 more months? actually since the mandatory date which is April 30th, thats 1 month 1/2. This is total ******ation, it really speaks the IBF for itself, they should get rid of that belt anyway.
clottey has been sitting on his ass for a year......i'm not arguing FOR the boxing commissions, but i don't understand why clottey himself isn't taking any heat for this......he knew he had a mando to get outta the way, and he had plenty time to do it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tyde13 View Postthe article said dude was supposed to make his defense on or before FEBRUARY 2.......which means they have given him an extra 2 months.....
clottey has been sitting on his ass for a year......i'm not arguing FOR the boxing commissions, but i don't understand why clottey himself isn't taking any heat for this......he knew he had a mando to get outta the way, and he had plenty time to do it.
Clottey has been on the shelf since the Judah fight and had plenty of time to make his defense.
It's a shame this organizations have to ruin unification, but I can't say they're entirely wrong here. Clottey hasn't done anything since Judah besides wait for Cotto.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dans01234 View Posti'm with you man. So don't feel like you're on your own.
Clottey has been on the shelf since the judah fight and had plenty of time to make his defense.
It's a shame this organizations have to ruin unification, but i can't say they're entirely wrong here. Clottey hasn't done anything since judah besides wait for cotto.
But bottom line is that the promoter's job is to get his fighters fights. Clottey just wasn't sittin on his a$$, he has been wanting a fight for awhile now and arum has paid him no mind!
Comment
-
This story is not 100% accurate. IBF rules ALLOW a unification bout to take priority over a mandatory defense. All you have to do is submit a request. Perhaps that hasnt been done by the promoter yet. In the IBF rules, Chapter 5.E (Unification Contests) Paragraph 2 CLEARLY states:
"For the purpose of unification of titles, the Champions of the WBA, WBC, and WBO may be designated as "elite contenders" and may be permitted to fight for the unified title. Any unification bout, if approved by the Championships Committee, will take priority over the mandatory. Despite the general prohibition in Rules 5.a.2 (b); B.2;, and D.1. (a) above, the Champion may box a WBC, WBA, or WBO Champion within 60 (60) days of the mandatory due date."
And for those that are saying the IBF stripped Margarito for fighting Mosley, that is not true. Margarito vacated the IBF title because Arum had already promised Clottey an IBF title shot. Margarito was not stripped, he voluntarily vacated at Arum's request ($$$).Last edited by OnePunch; 04-07-2009, 02:32 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OnePunch View PostThis story is not 100% accurate. IBF rules ALLOW a unification bout to take priority over a mandatory defense. All you have to do is submit a request. Perhaps that hasnt been done by the promoter yet. In the IBF rules, Chapter 5.E (Unification Contests) Paragraph 2 CLEARLY states:
"For the purpose of unification of titles, the Champions if the WBA, WBC, and WBO may be designated as "elite contenders" and may be permitted to fight for the unified title. Any unification bout, if approved by the Championships Committee, will take priority over the mandatory. Despite the general prohibition in Rules 5.a.2 (b); B.2;, and D.1. (a) above, the Champion may box a WBC, WBA, or WBO Champion within 60 (60) days of the mandatory due date."
And for those that are saying the IBF stripped Margarito for fighting Mosley, that is not true. Margarito vacated the IBF title because Arum had already promised Clottey an IBF title shot. Margarito was not stripped, he voluntarily vacated at Arum's request.
Comment
-
Originally posted by -Hyperion- View Posthe "vacated" it to fight cotto, not mosley....and i dont believe that, im pretty sure press releases around that time said he was basically forced to take a mandatory or be stripped.....i understand why you defend the IBF belt though, they did give Campbell a lot of love.....
And its not like I'm just "lovin" the IBF here. I happen to know that rule VERY well because that rule is what allowed Julio Diaz to sit on the title for 9 months waiting on Juan Diaz rather than to do his mandatory with Nate.Last edited by OnePunch; 04-07-2009, 02:45 PM.
Comment
Comment