Comments Thread For: Jacobs vs. Derevyanchenko - Done Deal, To Fight in October

[Shadoww702]

He made a business choice. I don't hate on him for it but that is what he decided to do. He's an adult, no reason for people to make excuses for him. Idk why they do. On the bright side, we get this fight now.

Ive said many times that was the only choice buisness wise to make. Ppl just need to stop with the excuses and move on. I keep hearing how Vanes was worthy when he was not. He was a body to keep GGG warm thats it!

Yes, Im more excited than ever about this fight. I think its gonna go down as fight of the year.

[N/A]

Are you trying to suggest that the contract for the fight contained only details regarding the winning of the WBA belt?

I'm saying if there was any contractual obligation to weigh in, he would have weighed in. Clearly there was nothing in the bout agreement requiring Jacobs to fight for the IBF title.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the other belts held, including that of the mighty WBC and the rules or sanctions installed by all were not alluded to therefore not upheld by Jacobs's team?

Apparently you're unaware that the sanctioning body belts are commonly not a part of the contract between the fighters.

Every other sentence in the build up to that fight from JACOBS WAS " All the belts " .. are you trying to say he meant "all the belts but not the IBF due to the weigh in regulations" ?

I'm saying what belts he would and wouldn't fight for clearly wasn't part of his contract with GGG.

[KingHippo]

Good fight. Now get Charlo to step up and fight someone of note. That guy's resume is thinner than Karen Carpenter.

That could be easily fixed once Golovkin decides to fight him but I doubt it'll happen.

[Mammoth]

Ive said many times that was the only choice buisness wise to make. Ppl just need to stop with the excuses and move on. I keep hearing how Vanes was worthy when he was not. He was a body to keep GGG warm thats it!

Yes, Im more excited than ever about this fight. I think its gonna go down as fight of the year.

I actually like Vanes and if he wasn't plucked out of retirement I think he would have given a better account of himself. It is was it is. What it isn't though is a reason for GGG hardcores to say "He beat Vanes so that means he would beat Andrade, Lara, ect, ect the same way". They need to consider the circumstances of that fight.

[TonyGe]

Question...as a fight fan do you want to see Golovkin vs Charlo? I mean, never understood the "he fights bums" talk. What's its purpose? Don't you want to see two guys who can **** get in the ring together and fight? Or are you one of those who would rather see a boring Golovkin Sanders fight?

Charlo would get butally slaughtered by Golovkin. At least the Saunders fight would go past 6 rounds.

[Ake-Dawg]

good lord you are reaching.
Are you trying to suggest that the contract for the fight contained only details regarding the winning of the WBA belt?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the other belts held, including that of the mighty WBC and the rules or sanctions installed by all were not alluded to therefore not upheld by Jacobs's team?

**** off mate.. you're talking absolute waffle.

Every other sentence in the build up to that fight from JACOBS WAS " All the belts " .. are you trying to say he meant "all the belts but not the IBF due to the weigh in regulations" ?

Because if you are, that would be considered as using a turn of phrase as a defence, in which case id say anthony joshua stating in his IFL interview

" If you think the fight does 100 million dollars, give me 50 million dollars and il sign right now" is also a turn of phrase and is as inadmissible as you think anything regarding jacobs' desire for or against the ibf belt is.

Cant have it both ways.

I think he's saying that the contract doesn't address the belts, only the details related to the bout itself. The organizations "sanction" the bout and determine if a fighter is "ELIGIBLE" to be recognized as a champion based on the conditions of the bout. I figure if the IBF second day weigh in was in the contract, Jacobs was in breach of contract and could have been sued by Golovkin.

[Ake-Dawg]

Charlo would get butally slaughtered by Golovkin. At least the Saunders fight would go past 6 rounds.

So do you want to see the fight or just pop ***** about what you think would happen?

[Shadoww702]

He made a business choice. I don't hate on him for it but that is what he decided to do. He's an adult, no reason for people to make excuses for him. Idk why they do. On the bright side, we get this fight now.

Ive said many times that was the only choice buisness wise to make. Ppl just need to stop with the excuses and move on. I keep hearing how Vanes was worthy when he was not. He was a body to keep GGG warm thats it!

Yes, Im more excited than ever about this fight. I think its gonna go down as fight of the year.

[Madison Boxing]

lets see how good dereveyenchenko is then, seems to be the most highly rated fighter on the forum these days. im guessing he must be the favourite?

[yammy25]

I'm saying if there was any contractual obligation to weigh in, he would have weighed in. Clearly there was nothing in the bout agreement requiring Jacobs to fight for the IBF title.




Apparently you're unaware that the sanctioning body belts are commonly not a part of the contract between the fighters.




I'm saying what belts he would and wouldn't fight for clearly wasn't part of his contract with GGG.

I'll sum all of those in this..

Why did Haymon seek the sanctioning of that bout by allowing jacobs team / promoter so submit a signed bout agreement to the IBF following tentative sanction? why did they allow the IBF to sanction it without notifying them they had no intention of following their rules and keep all involved firmly under the notion they would follow that orgs rules before pulling out the day before, unless it was a tactic to gain an advantage the day before?

If it was predetermined by them to do that, prior to them gaining full sanction from ther IBF for that bout, or if it was decided by them on the day to do that.. then Haymon either advised them to do it in bad faith, or they did it to deliberately gain an advantage after months of dishonesty.

now **** off