Comments Thread For: A new entry in the Canelo Alvarez derby: Diego Pacheco

[garfios]

So much whining from these haters man ,bunch of grown ass men btching n moaning over 1 fighter lmao.

Pacheco a solid dude , sulecki will be a good test to see if hes ready for the big dogs. Canelo- Pacheco would be a fun one.

You have no shame man. What was munguia's, ryder, yildrim and Berlanga's test?
ps. You know I have other names waiting on the wings.

[factsarenice]

Yeah, they're quick to strip guys like Fundora but not Bud or Canelo, unless the belts goes to a more profitable fighter, like Tim.

A couple of important facts you didn't mention.

1. The IBF stripped Crawford of his belt just months after winning it in the ring.
2. The IBF Knew that Crawford had a rematch clause and then told him to either breach contract with Spence and pay him 20 million or hand the IBF belt to Jaron Ennis so that he could also be a champion.

There were plenty of rumors and many speculations that the IBF knew they were going to strip Crawford prior to Spence / Crawford fight, but the IBF needed to wait a few months so that stripping Crawford without exception would not appear suspect. For the record, I always thought the IBF was the least corrupt, and all of this was just circumstantial ...but... it would be ridiculous to believe the IBF didn't know about the rematch clause.

I knew it, you knew it, they dam well knew it.

[garfios]

A couple of important facts you didn't mention.

1. The IBF stripped Crawford of his belt just months after winning it in the ring.
2. The IBF Knew that Crawford had a rematch clause and then told him to either breach contract with Spence and pay him 20 million or hand the IBF belt to Jaron Ennis so that he could also be a champion.

There were plenty of rumors and many speculations that the IBF knew they were going to strip Crawford prior to Spence / Crawford fight, but the IBF needed to wait a few months so that stripping Crawford without exception would not appear suspect. For the record, I always thought the IBF was the least corrupt, and all of this was just circumstantial ...but... it would be ridiculous to believe the IBF didn't know about the rematch clause.

I knew it, you knew it, they dam well knew it.

Anyone who follows boxing knows that the IBF has to follow its rules; if not, it is game over for them. The FBI already went after them back in the 90's and his founder was found guilty of racketeering among other charges. I didn't have to mention the IBF because they're not guilty of what I posted. WBO, WBA, and WBC are. And if they knew, IBF, about the rematch clause and didn't follow their rules they will be in trouble now.

[factsarenice]

Anyone who follows boxing knows that the IBF has to follow its rules; if not, it is game over for them. The FBI already went after them back in the 90's and his founder was found guilty of racketeering among other charges. I didn't have to mention the IBF because they're not guilty of what I posted. WBO, WBA, and WBC are. And if they knew, IBF, about the rematch clause and didn't follow their rules they will be in trouble now.

Not sure where you are going with this because anyone who follows boxing can easily verify that everything I wrote is factual. Are you insinuating that the IBF didn't know about the rematch clause?

[garfios]

Not sure where you are going with this because anyone who follows boxing can easily verify that everything I wrote is factual. Are you insinuating that the IBF didn't know about the rematch clause?

I just reply to your post giving you my reason why I didn't mention the IBF. If you want to make a big deal out of that, be my guest. Just to answer your question, I'm not insinuating nothing, I don't know if they knew or not and I do not care.

[factsarenice]

I just reply to your post giving you my reason why I didn't mention the IBF. If you want to make a big deal out of that, be my guest. Just to answer your question, I'm not insinuating nothing, I don't know if they knew or not and I do not care.

The rematch clause was announced, evidently just you and the IBF didn't know about the rematch clause and I guess that's possible. No need to get salty because you didn't know, you're not the IBF but to think the IBF missed the multitude of run up articles just isn't intellectually honest. That's all I'm saying.

[garfios]

The rematch clause was announced, evidently just you and the IBF didn't know about the rematch clause and I guess that's possible. No need to get salty because you didn't know, you're not the IBF but to think the IBF missed the multitude of run up articles just isn't intellectually honest. That's all I'm saying.

What makes you think I'm salty? I didn't know about the clause because I don't care about the contracts, how much they get paid, or whatever manipulations they do in the back room. If it were announced, then the IBF would have known for sure. Now I'm asking you, where are you going with this argument?

[factsarenice]

What makes you think I'm salty? I didn't know about the clause because I don't care about the contracts, how much they get paid, or whatever manipulations they do in the back room. If it were announced, then the IBF would have known for sure. Now I'm asking you, where are you going with this argument?

Argument? No, I'm simply stating the obvious based upon observation of the event in context.

[garfios]

Argument? No, I'm simply stating the obvious based upon observation of the event in context.

It is your opinion, when you're talking about me you're not stating the "obvious". For some reason you had taken a sentence and run with it, should have ended when I posted I didn't know about the clause. Be safe

[factsarenice]

It is your opinion, when you're talking about me you're not stating the "obvious". For some reason you had take a sentence and run with it, should have ended when I posted I didn't know about the clause. Be safe

Its certainly a possibility, sorry about that..