Why you hate WBC for Canelos voluntary ?

[UNBIASED BOXING]

Let's have a hypothetical situation, here.

If Canelo loses his next fight, would the person that beats him be granted a voluntary defense? What if this person's mandatory is still Charlo? Does this person get a voluntary defense as well?

The irony here is the WBC was telling GGG if he didn't fight Canelo in a rematch that they would declare he needs to fight his mandatory in Charlo. Now that Canelo is wearing their belt, they're suddenly backpedaling and saying Canelo get's a voluntary. On the other hand, they are now saying Golovkin has to fight Charlo?

Honestly, this sounds more to me like the WBC wants to protect their golden goose. Probably hoping like hell Golovkin gets the victory and gets damaged & aged more before fighting Canelo against in a 3rd fight.


Charlo vs Heiland was the first WBC title eliminator to become mandatory against Canelo vs Golovkin. Then they ordered Charlo vs Centeno for WBC interim title.

If I was Jermall I would try to fight Golovkin, but I would also consider legal action against the WBC if that fight falls through (assuming it's even viable).

[Eff Pandas]

is right in here https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=794376

I don't see a whole lot of outrage there. More guys who wanna see Canelo fight better guys &/or aren't excited about the almost assured fight with Lemiuex. You can't act like outrage is the consensus opinion or a large segment of the opinions when its not.

People aren't excited for a voluntary that they feel isn't the most interesting fight for Canelo. Obviously I'm saying it in a more reasonable way, but thats what people are saying WHEN they are even opposed to it cuz plenty of people in that thread are okay with a voluntary fight &/or Lemiuex specifically.

[Canelo and GGG]

Let's have a hypothetical situation, here.

If Canelo loses his next fight, would the person that beats him be granted a voluntary defense? What if this person's mandatory is still Charlo? Does this person get a voluntary defense as well?

The irony here is the WBC was telling GGG if he didn't fight Canelo in a rematch that they would declare he needs to fight his mandatory in Charlo. Now that Canelo is wearing their belt, they're suddenly backpedaling and saying Canelo get's a voluntary. On the other hand, they are now saying Golovkin has to fight Charlo?

Honestly, this sounds more to me like the WBC wants to protect their golden goose. Probably hoping like hell Golovkin gets the victory and gets damaged & aged more before fighting Canelo against in a 3rd fight.


Charlo vs Heiland was the first WBC title eliminator to become mandatory against Canelo vs Golovkin. Then they ordered Charlo vs Centeno for WBC interim title.

If I was Jermall I would try to fight Golovkin, but I would also consider legal action against the WBC if that fight falls through (assuming it's even viable).

He dont have to fight Charlo ,he needs to do it if he wants a shot at Canelo.

guy who beats Canelo probably would get voluntary,and of course fact that Canelo is money maker matters ,it always mattered before Canelo and after him, there will be A side.

[boliodogs]

No outrage here. GGG wants to rematch in May so let Canelo fight Lemieux in December. Lemieux is a rated contender. Just don't jump on GGG for not fighting low paying Jermall when Canelo doesn't want to fight Jermall either for the same reason. Jermall is not a draw and brings in little money.