Why is it ok for "superstars" to not fight mandatory opponents?

[Thread Stealer]

Daisy Marie is mos def one of my favorites to wank to and I would never wash my hand again if I got to grab that ass.
But aren't the fans wishes being put above what obscure fighters actually deserve?Is this being done in excess more recently? I mean I understand a mega fight now and again but it seems like they are trying to make everyone fight with the stars a mega fight. This is good for fans, but there are fighters who deserve their shots and have to wait until all this p4p mess is sorted out or until enough fighters retire.

Basically, yeah, it's not right for the mandatory challengers.

That happened to Mike McCallum when he was the mandatory for Duran's 154 lb. title. Duran was stripped when he fought Hearns, the other champ at 154, instead of McCallum. McCallum won the vacant title but never got a shot at Duran nor Hearns.

McCallum split from the Kronk after that.

[Danny Gunz]

Well the mandatory fighters are usually pretty ****ty, i.e. gary lockett, and mike jennings.

[Spray_resistant]

Basically, yeah, it's not right for the mandatory challengers.

That happened to Mike McCallum when he was the mandatory for Duran's 154 lb. title. Duran was stripped when he fought Hearns, the other champ at 154, instead of McCallum. McCallum won the vacant title but never got a shot at Duran nor Hearns.

McCallum split from the Kronk after that.

If McCallum had fought and beat Duran he would be more well know today from the exposure. I mean hardcore fans know who he is but I doubt even on this forum no more than about 35% of posters are familiar with him and who he fought.

[Spray_resistant]

Well the mandatory fighters are usually pretty ****ty, i.e. gary lockett, and mike jennings.

I know they usually are, but it doesn't matter they still deserve their chance to get beaten up too.