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

[Sorrow]

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?

That would make no sense he isn't only the Mandatory he is the interim champion that means if the Champion vacate's or is stripped of his belt the Interim is automatically upgraded to full champion,Obviously there is a lot of politics going around but by the ruling Alvarez shouldn't be able to fight for the belt now that Cotto has been stripped.

[SchoolTheseCats]

hey Miguel, you didnt seem to mind when for financial reasons the WBC allowed Martinez to fight YOU (even though you were not even ranked at 160)

That was just peachy. But now its a problem? lol

The biggest ********** in the sport is whining because other people think about money too.

Laughable........


p.s. and Im sure GGG's attorneys appreciate you admitting that you agreed to pay him the $800k. That statement will be quite helpful to them......

He agreed to pay 800k to defend belt WBC made boo boo of stripping him he's no longer defending belt therefore is not obligated to pay step aside fee for the mando they going have to sue WBC to get some money then WBC going strip them of that mando spot and go back to abiding by own rules lol

[King_]

Wow Cotto stays ducking GGG

[Kagami Taiga]

That would make no sense he isn't only the Mandatory he is the interim champion that means if the Champion vacate's or is stripped of his belt the Interim is automatically upgraded to full champion,Obviously there is a lot of politics going around but by the ruling Alvarez shouldn't be able to fight for the belt now that Cotto has been stripped.

Except as cotto said and according to its own rules, Golovkin can't be interim champ. That's a fact.

[j0zef]

Smh its not at all the same thing.

You are correct, OnePunch used the wrong term. It's not equivalent to an option contract, but a future contract.

A future contract mandates that you are obligated to make/take delivery of the goods at a certain time no matter what happens. Even if the market goes against you, you're still obligated to perform your duties.

Cotto's not off the hook because he ran into issues with WBC.

[Eastcoast]

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?

Incorrect, they've already stated that as their interim champion he will be elevated to full champion status should Saturday's winner not fight him. Even so, then that's a title fight Golovkin's been deprived and thus suffered monetary damage.


Also remember, the WBC, WBA, and IBF ratified some of their rules this spring in regards to unifications and they agreed to make it a goal of having a single unified champion. Which is why you now see Kovalev & Golovkin as WBC interim champions while holding other titles.

[Cinci Champ]

Catch weights are ruining boxing. They shouldn't be allowed. Especially in a title fight. Cotto won't face. He's scared of him. So is canelo. Both these guys need to grow a set.

no belt organization politics is whats ruining boxing

[Kagami Taiga]

Incorrect, they've already stated that as their interim champion he will be elevated to full champion status should Saturday's winner not fight him. Even so, then that's a title fight Golovkin's been deprived and thus suffered monetary damage.


Also remember, the WBC, WBA, and IBF ratified some of their rules this spring in regards to unifications and they agreed to make it a goal of having a single unified champion. Which is why you now see Kovalev & Golovkin as WBC interim champions while holding other titles.

They made that agreement but that has not been at all reflected in the rules.

[OnePunch]

You are correct, OnePunch used the wrong term. It's not equivalent to an option contract, but a future contract.

A future contract mandates that you are obligated to make/take delivery of the goods at a certain time no matter what happens. Even if the market goes against you, you're still obligated to perform your duties.

Cotto's not off the hook because he ran into issues with WBC.

nope, an options contract is the proper comparison. A futures contract would indicate that GGG's step aside deal would have required that Cotto actually defend the title. Cotto actually "defending" had nothing to do with it. The step aside deal was to allow Cotto to bypass GGG's rightful position. GGG allowed that, thus fulfilling the agreement. Thats where the obligation ended.....

Im sure glad none of you guys are representing any of my interests.......lol

[Kagami Taiga]

You are correct, OnePunch used the wrong term. It's not equivalent to an option contract, but a future contract.

A future contract mandates that you are obligated to make/take delivery of the goods at a certain time no matter what happens. Even if the market goes against you, you're still obligated to perform your duties.

Cotto's not off the hook because he ran into issues with WBC.

Not the same thing either. U are referring to a contract for the sale of goods. Totally different from a contract for performance of services.