Comments Thread For: Cotto Saw Golovkin's WBC Spot as Financially Motivated

[MrRolltide91]

He's right

[Kagami Taiga]

Thats because you dont want it to be.

The step aside money was to allow Cotto-Canelo to be negotiated and signed without Cotto being stripped. That happened. GGG held up his end.

The fact that a subsequent event (Cotto not wanting to pay his sanctioning fee) caused him to get stripped is irrelevant.

It might not be legally. There was no performance. It's a contract that was incomplete. I don't expect u to understand but I think it comes down to the language of the contract.

[Kagami Taiga]

He was stripped because he refused to pay his sanctioning fee - that in itself has nothing to do with his previous agreement with Golovkin. Golovkin would currently be the WBC champion otherwise because Cotto would have had to fight him or be stripped for refusing to fight him.

Golovkin would not currently be anything. He would still have to fight for a vacant title. Smh u guys really don't know much about the rules huh?

[OnePunch]

I'm u do know the difference between a mandatory and a voluntary. The Martinez fight was a voluntary for Sergio. What he's talking about is different. Golovkin was made a mandatory by an organization where he shouldn't have been ranked at all since he is technically a champion for another org. That is the WBC bending it's own rules.

Cotto could have avoided that by fighting Rubio, his mandatory at the time. But he didnt. Instead he let GGG fight Rubio, while Miguel sat on his arse

[Kagami Taiga]

Cotto could have avoided that by fighting Rubio, his mandatory at the time. But he didnt. Instead he let GGG fight Rubio, while Miguel sat on his arse

By its own rules tho Golovkin should not have been allowed to even challenge for the interim title. Period. This is where Cotto is in fact right. AND in any potential litigation, this is a strong argument.

[Daddy T]

In short "I thought I could hold onto the title forever without anybody forcing me to fight GGG. I was wrong. So I'm outta here."

[OnePunch]

It might not be legally. There was no performance. It's a contract that was incomplete. I don't expect u to understand but I think it comes down to the language of the contract.

You are the one who doesnt understand, so let me dumb it down for you.

Lets say I have a contracted option to buy a certain house for say $1million. You want that house. So I agree to sell you my option for $100k.

But then a month later the bank finds out you are a deadbeat and wont lend you the money to buy the house. Guess what, you still owe me my $100k.......

Its not really that complicated.

[-Antonio-]

What Cotto did here was slick as hell, and I see why Oscar is so mad. Having the WBC title allowed Cotto to have a big edge in negotiations. He waited until now to say **** it. He knew he was going to do this the whole time. Now whether he wins or loses he will probably go back down to 154.

[North Star]

What Cotto did here was slick as hell, and I see why Oscar is so mad. Having the WBC title allowed Cotto to have a big edge in negotiations. He waited until now to say **** it. He knew he was going to do this the whole time. Now whether he wins or loses he will probably go back down to 154.

I don't think he planned this the whole time. He wanted to negotiate the fee on top of the step aside money, and WBC said no. The WBC should have made the concession and negotiate a smaller fee. Had that happened, the title would still be on the line and GGG would still be in line for the winner.

[Kagami Taiga]

You are the one who doesnt understand, so let me dumb it down for you.

Lets say I have a contracted option to buy a certain house for say $1million. You want that house. So I agree to sell you my option for $100k.

But then a month later the bank finds out you are a deadbeat and wont lend you the money to buy the house. Guess what, you still owe me my $100k.......

Its not really that complicated.

Smh its not at all the same thing.