Tweet
My bad for getting you confused with someone else. But that doesn't make my arguments any less valid.
You keep insisting that GGG fight Lara or DeGale. But let me ask you this: were you okay with GGG/Eubank Jr? Because if you were, then your anger should be directed straight at Eubank for the GGG/Brook mismatch.
And it's been asked before: are you really serious that DeGale should abandon unifying against Jack just so he can fight GGG? That could possibly put his unification bid at danger. You're basically saying that DeGale abandon his career goals just so GGG critics like you can be satisfied. That's what you're saying. You simply have no regards for any other boxer, do you? Let's have the clear SMW champion abandon his own career goal just so you can be satisfied? The ego on you. There was no one closer to DeGale's situation then Hearn, & Hearn offered Brook...so, in that sense, shouldn't you be mad at Hearn as well? K2 didn't specifically request Brook...Hearn offered him.
And Lara was never going to be a viable opponent in the UK. You can't keep pressing that matchup despite it not making sense for a September fight in the UK. If Lara was a bigger draw, then maybe you'd have a case. But as it stands, the guy can't even fill up a venue in his own backyard. A fight with Lara makes more sense in MSG, rather than O2 Arena.
You keep insisting that GGG cherry-picked Brook. But in order to cherry pick, you need OPTIONS. GGG clearly has none. His team was at the mercy of Hearn to produce a British fighter. Otherwise, they would have had to scrap the whole UK event & made a lesser-money event in the US. GGG/Brook is a mismatch, not a cherry pick. Next thing you're going to say is that Wade was a cherry pick. Ha!
Look, if GGG was a huge ppv draw like FMJ, then finding opponents wouldn't be a problem. But as it stands, GGG's drawing power can barely hold FMJ's shoes, let alone fill them. So they can't entice every viable opponent to take the big money fight with him. It's good money. It's just not big money. That's why they had to settle for a mismatch. If you don't want to see the logic, that's on you.
You keep insisting that GGG fight Lara or DeGale. But let me ask you this: were you okay with GGG/Eubank Jr? Because if you were, then your anger should be directed straight at Eubank for the GGG/Brook mismatch.
And it's been asked before: are you really serious that DeGale should abandon unifying against Jack just so he can fight GGG? That could possibly put his unification bid at danger. You're basically saying that DeGale abandon his career goals just so GGG critics like you can be satisfied. That's what you're saying. You simply have no regards for any other boxer, do you? Let's have the clear SMW champion abandon his own career goal just so you can be satisfied? The ego on you. There was no one closer to DeGale's situation then Hearn, & Hearn offered Brook...so, in that sense, shouldn't you be mad at Hearn as well? K2 didn't specifically request Brook...Hearn offered him.
And Lara was never going to be a viable opponent in the UK. You can't keep pressing that matchup despite it not making sense for a September fight in the UK. If Lara was a bigger draw, then maybe you'd have a case. But as it stands, the guy can't even fill up a venue in his own backyard. A fight with Lara makes more sense in MSG, rather than O2 Arena.
You keep insisting that GGG cherry-picked Brook. But in order to cherry pick, you need OPTIONS. GGG clearly has none. His team was at the mercy of Hearn to produce a British fighter. Otherwise, they would have had to scrap the whole UK event & made a lesser-money event in the US. GGG/Brook is a mismatch, not a cherry pick. Next thing you're going to say is that Wade was a cherry pick. Ha!
Look, if GGG was a huge ppv draw like FMJ, then finding opponents wouldn't be a problem. But as it stands, GGG's drawing power can barely hold FMJ's shoes, let alone fill them. So they can't entice every viable opponent to take the big money fight with him. It's good money. It's just not big money. That's why they had to settle for a mismatch. If you don't want to see the logic, that's on you.
Comment