If Abel Sanchez is SO vigilant with % for Jacobs, then how was GBP wrong?!

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Buckfever
    Undisputed Champion
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • May 2006
    • 1742
    • 24
    • 8
    • 10,197

    #31
    Originally posted by SugarKaineHook
    ''Golovkin Doesn't Need Jacobs.'' -Dirty Sanchez

    60/40 is what Abel & Loeffler wanted with Alvarez?! fugg outta here.

    We even said before HERE, and NOW Abel is saying it: Alvarez vs Golovkin ''Trilogy.''

    If that's the hope, then why not concede to GBP's INITIAL offer for such a venturous trilogy? Why not put it all on the line for the spotlight?

    You can't have it both ways... for whatever reason Abel gives regarding the current Jacobs' fiasco then there's simply no way in hell can ANYBODY eat Abel's justifications as to why Alvarez's fight didn't happen in 2016 or whenever...

    Lesson finished
    Are you suggesting that Golovkin is Canelo's mandatory? Because if not you're comparing apples and oranges. I do agree that Golovkin is mismanaged. But you can't ignore that Canelo vacated in this case.

    Comment

    • Lester Tutor
      Banned
      Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
      • May 2015
      • 17673
      • 365
      • 253
      • 22,224

      #32
      Originally posted by Buckfever
      Are you suggesting that Golovkin is Canelo's mandatory? Because if not you're comparing apples and oranges. I do agree that Golovkin is mismanaged. But you can't ignore that Canelo vacated in this case.
      there's no suggestion. what is clear is clear, and you just admitted or acknowledged the case regarding his mgmt, be it Abel...

      I'll make it clearer, Jacobs is not Alvarez. Whatever Jacobs is not content with, is as you said, apples to oranges, because the thread of the title includes GBP. With all that being said, Abel and team don't need to learn from this Jacobs mishap because they know bitter negotiations too well.

      Alvarez stole the Lineal strap from Cotto. It has nothing to do with Golovkin. Who's more accomplished, Cotto or Golovkin? that point is clear who's the A-side, and for anybody who thinks 60/40 is fair for an Alvarez vs Lil'G bout is straight trolling.

      Each to their own legacy. Alvarez isn't going anywhere for a while whereas mileage is against another

      Comment

      • Buckfever
        Undisputed Champion
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • May 2006
        • 1742
        • 24
        • 8
        • 10,197

        #33
        Originally posted by SugarKaineHook
        there's no suggestion. what is clear is clear, and you just admitted or acknowledged the case regarding his mgmt, be it Abel...

        I'll make it clearer, Jacobs is not Alvarez. Whatever Jacobs is not content with, is as you said, apples to oranges, because the thread of the title includes GBP. With all that being said, Abel and team don't need to learn from this Jacobs mishap because they know bitter negotiations too well.

        Alvarez stole the Lineal strap from Cotto. It has nothing to do with Golovkin. Who's more accomplished, Cotto or Golovkin? that point is clear who's the A-side, and for anybody who thinks 60/40 is fair for an Alvarez vs Lil'G bout is straight trolling.

        Each to their own legacy. Alvarez isn't going anywhere for a while whereas mileage is against another
        I think I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure. What I am sure about is that IMO it is a big mistake for team Golovkin to not make this fight if it is at all possible.

        Comment

        • !! Shawn
          !! Shown
          Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
          • Dec 2007
          • 9810
          • 670
          • 724
          • 31,455

          #34
          Originally posted by OnePunch
          There are no guarantees in boxing, so why should someone in GGGs position bend over in negotiations?

          Just ask Lennox how much money he made in the Tyson rematch. Oh, wait......
          Hahaha! People are so naive.

          Comment

          Working...
          TOP