ggg fight ppl your own size cotto has business to takecare of in canelo funny how gg keeps calling out the money fights but hasn't earned a money fight ggg go earn it knocking out bums wont get you cotto
Comments Thread For: Golovkin: I Look Forward To Fighting Cotto-Geale Winner
Collapse
-
-
That's assuming it's not Geale being interviewed as the winner which is unlikely but not impossible.Comment
-
And that is the title they should be fighting for. I would have no problem with that at all. I would not even care if Cotto held on to the MW title while fighting Canelo for the 154, vacating it after defeating Canelo or defending it against GGG after losing the 154 to Canelo.
I only have a problem with Cotto defending the 160 title against anyone other than GGG after his voluntary defense against Geale.Comment
-
You are probably a fan boy because Cotto earned you respect earlier in his career - but everything is up for change and Cotto has certainly changed - Warrior to Diva-b*tch in just 3 years. Try revising your support - it's not warranted unless you like defending lost causes.Comment
-
then what?....Cotto just gonna look at him like a weirdo and STILL fight Nelo for big money...dude doesn't have that type of power outside of the ring....he has to wait until one of the stars feel like feeding him....he should be saying ish like "PLEASE Mr. Cotto, PLEASE Mr. Nelo, PLEASE Mr. Money...fight me so I can get some good bread before SOG takes my "0".....trying to bully his way in the mix won't helpComment
-
by the way , championship fights is how the less famous grab fame by beating the stars , you defending Cotto holding the MW title hostage is making you look like an idiot , at least Cotto knows why he does it , he fears GGG.Comment
-
Well between Canelo and GGG somebody will be left hanging. Also, does Canelo still want to fight Cotto for the name if Cotto loses? This is going to be interesting.Comment
-
Geale fought and got KO'ed by Golovkin in 3 and Cotto chose to fight the loser of that fight
do you understand what a logical fallacy is?Comment
-
Comment