the first one is unrealistic sure. don't see what is so unrealistic about the second one.
and again why do you bring everything back to golovkin. I would have written the same if Crawford had decided to keep his belts and would have to fight undeserving mandatories in rotation.
you are picking only selective points to reply to.
so one question: if it would be practical to get better mandatories for unified champions by having the mandatories fight against each other. would you be for or against it?
in the past a champion from one sanctioning body couldn't be the mandatory for another. lately kovalev became the mandatory for Stevenson (unfortunately didn't work out) and golovkin became mandatory for cotto and canelo.
so changes are possible, only incremental, but possible.
and again, don't care about golovkins situation, it's about a hypothetical future situation with a new dude unifying the belts. so please stop accusing me on relating everything back to defending golovkin.
and again why do you bring everything back to golovkin. I would have written the same if Crawford had decided to keep his belts and would have to fight undeserving mandatories in rotation.
you are picking only selective points to reply to.
so one question: if it would be practical to get better mandatories for unified champions by having the mandatories fight against each other. would you be for or against it?
in the past a champion from one sanctioning body couldn't be the mandatory for another. lately kovalev became the mandatory for Stevenson (unfortunately didn't work out) and golovkin became mandatory for cotto and canelo.
so changes are possible, only incremental, but possible.
and again, don't care about golovkins situation, it's about a hypothetical future situation with a new dude unifying the belts. so please stop accusing me on relating everything back to defending golovkin.
Comment