Why does the WBA regular title not matter for anyone else but mattered for GGG?
Collapse
-
-
Who does the title not matter for?
GGG has said again and again that he wants to unify the titles, which in any other era would be regarded as exactly the right thing to do.
So please, tell us again what you are talking about? Give us examples.Comment
-
Comment
-
No, why don't YOU explain what you are blathering on about, you insecure little man.
Who does the title not matter for?
GGG has said again and again that he wants to unify the titles, which in any other era would be regarded as exactly the right thing to do.
So please, tell us again what you are talking about? Give us examples.Comment
-
Comment
-
If you're talking about anyone taking you seriously as a champion, then no, it does not matter for anyone. When Golovkin was 'regular' WBA champ, nobody knew who he was and nobody wanted to fight him. The only thing WBA 'regular' title gives you is the mandatory title shot against the 'super' holder.
-When Golovkin was WBA regular vs. Sturm, Sturm ducked him by paying off WBA.
-Now he's a super WBA title holder and wants to fight his mandatory challenger, Danny Jacobs, who holds the regular title. Jacobs is asking for more money, instead of embracing the opportunity to fight for 3 world titles.
You're trying to find double standards to suit your agenda, and the facts are just not there.Comment
-
-
... Golovkin has only had 6 defenses of the WBA's full world title (before that point, Felix Sturm had been the WBA's champion for nearly five years, before he was defeated by Daniel Geale, who then proceeded to vacate the belt to make a blockbuster Aussie vs Aussie fight in Australia); the other 10 defenses were basically of the interim wba belt.
HBO/Golovkin's camp have consistently tried to talk up approaching Hopkin's world title defense record (even though Hopkins' record was with the IBF's actual world title).Comment
Comment