I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

apollo creed
Super Welterweight
Posts: 7254
Joined: 18 Aug 2014, 12:28

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by apollo creed »

Golovkin vs Mundine - let's get it on! :box:
bigjack
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by bigjack »

Stuarty wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 12:00 What a stupid fuckin thread :roll:
I gave up trying to read the title.
Stuarty
Super Welterweight
Posts: 27293
Joined: 20 Aug 2014, 10:28

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by Stuarty »

bigjack wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 12:03
Stuarty wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 12:00 What a stupid fuckin thread :roll:
I gave up trying to read the title.
Yeah it's a bit wordy isn't it
lazboy
Welterweight
Posts: 5563
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 21:00

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by lazboy »

Enlightened-One wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 09:14
lazboy wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 08:53 This is all opinion/speculation EO. The only one denying that is you.

Also I’m going to bed,
This isn't a religious argument where you're claiming I'm unable to prove that the universe wasn't created nor currently ruled by some sort that of divine omnipotent supreme being.

A contingency plan has never existed to cater for GGG's current predicament, because there's no evidence that proves that one was in place prior to Canelo's withdrawal from the Golovkin bout.

Are you seriously asking me to prove the existence of something that I claim does not exist? It's like asking me to provide evidence to prove that Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, reincarnation and the afterlife don't exist! :lol:
You’re out of your depth and it shows. That’s why you wrote the above tripe. You’re critical of Golovkin and co believing should have done things according to your standards and your limited experience in that world. You have applied your definition and standards to the word “contingency plan” and it makes no sense because you were happy with the google definition. Again you are pointing fingers, making assumptions Yet you do not know the facts of the situation. Did they have a plan that failed? What Is the cost of putting an opponent on guaranteed standby? What are the competing factors? All you know is that they don’t currently have an opponent. If you re-read the entire thread. Nothing you have argued would be considered persuasive. You have added nothing to this debate.

Where you like to point fingers and failures I have sympathy for Golovkin and the situation. It can’t be easy. On top of organising the mega event that was Canelo Golovkin two you expected that had a perfect foolproof plan for Golovkin to fight an acceptable replacement fighter on 4 weeks notice. Unfortunately life’s not perfect and any plan or plans they had seems to have fallen through. Is that the fault of his management? Maybe or maybe they did the best they could in the situation. A very unfortunate situation that begins with Canelo testing positive to PEDS.
Last edited by lazboy on 14 Apr 2018, 17:36, edited 1 time in total.
oogiebe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 32990
Joined: 01 Jul 2012, 19:35

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by oogiebe »

He's not on the decline as of yet. He may be looking for a soft opponent, but that would be cause he's been preparing for Cannelo and turning the wheel towards another fighter can be difficult. (see Witherspoon v. Smith; Lewis v. Klitchko). JMHO.
lazboy
Welterweight
Posts: 5563
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 21:00

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by lazboy »

I will read your response EO (if you have one). But if it isn’t persuasive I will not respond. Enough has been said by you unless you’re bringing some new facts or opinions to the table. If it’s the same recycled criticism I will not entertain it.
Last edited by lazboy on 14 Apr 2018, 17:05, edited 2 times in total.
oogiebe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 32990
Joined: 01 Jul 2012, 19:35

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by oogiebe »

lazboy wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 17:00 I will read your response EO (if you have one). But if it isn’t persuasive I will not respond. Enough has been said by you unless you’re bringing some new facts to the table.
Whom are you speaking to Lazboy?
lazboy
Welterweight
Posts: 5563
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 21:00

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by lazboy »

oogiebe wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 17:01
lazboy wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 17:00 I will read your response EO (if you have one). But if it isn’t persuasive I will not respond. Enough has been said by you unless you’re bringing some new facts to the table.
Whom are you speaking to Lazboy?
Enlightened one. EO. Not you I agree with your comment...except I think he’s slightly on the decline. He’s at that age.....
oogiebe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 32990
Joined: 01 Jul 2012, 19:35

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by oogiebe »

lazboy wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 17:03
oogiebe wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 17:01
lazboy wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 17:00 I will read your response EO (if you have one). But if it isn’t persuasive I will not respond. Enough has been said by you unless you’re bringing some new facts to the table.
Whom are you speaking to Lazboy?
Enlightened one. EO. Not you I agree with your comment...except I think he’s slightly on the decline. He’s at that age.....
Ok. Please try to be more specific so you don't open up an Eastern Front so to speak! LOL!
Enlightened-One
Super Lightweight
Posts: 14618
Joined: 19 Jul 2016, 05:12

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by Enlightened-One »

lazboy wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 16:56
Enlightened-One wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 09:14
lazboy wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 08:53 This is all opinion/speculation EO. The only one denying that is you.

Also I’m going to bed,
This isn't a religious argument where you're claiming I'm unable to prove that the universe wasn't created nor currently ruled by some sort that of divine omnipotent supreme being.

A contingency plan has never existed to cater for GGG's current predicament, because there's no evidence that proves that one was in place prior to Canelo's withdrawal from the Golovkin bout.

Are you seriously asking me to prove the existence of something that I claim does not exist? It's like asking me to provide evidence to prove that Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, reincarnation and the afterlife don't exist! :lol:
You’re out of your depth and it shows. That’s why you wrote the above tripe. You’re critical of Golovkin and co believing should have done things according to your standards and your limited experience in that world. You have applied your definition and standards to the word “contingency plan” and it makes no sense because you were happy with the google definition. Again you are pointing fingers, making assumptions Yet you do not know the facts of the situation. Did they have a plan that failed? What Is the cost of putting an opponent on guaranteed standby? What are the competing factors? All you know is that they don’t currently have an opponent. If you re-read the entire thread. Nothing you have argued would be considered persuasive. You have added nothing to this debate.

Where you like to point fingers and failures I have sympathy for Golovkin and the situation. It can’t be easy. On top of organising the mega event that was Canelo Golovkin two you expected that had a perfect foolproof plan for Golovkin to fight an acceptable replacement fighter on 4 weeks notice. Unfortunately life’s not perfect and any plan or plans they had seems to have fallen through. Is that the fault of his management? Maybe or maybe they did the best they could in the situation. A very unfortunate situation that begins with Canelo testing positive to PEDS.
There's a lot of emotion expressed within that post of yours, but it doesn't explain the reason why GGG Promotions, or its spokesman Tom Loeffler, didn't implement a suitable contingency plan to cater for the possibility of Canelo's potential withdrawal from the bout.

I'm not suggesting that Canelo is completely blameless in this situation, but Team GGG didn't implement a contingency plan... and that is something that is clearly not up for debate, since it simply didn't happen.

When I claim that Team GGG should have implemented a contingency plan, it's because competent promoters like GBP and Matchroom ensure one is in place for any events that are televised as PPV's.

Gennady is a great fighter, probably Hall-of-Fame worthy, but the people he employs to manage the promotions of his event shouldn't be considered as being immune from receiving criticism, simply because the Kazakh is one of your favourite fighters! :TU:
lazboy
Welterweight
Posts: 5563
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 21:00

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by lazboy »

Just because a plan doesn’t work, doesn’t mean that there is no plan. Just because other companies have successful plans, it doesn’t make them comparable to the current situation or make this an easy endeavour. You are well out of your depth and recycling the same tired argument.
tiny_acres
Middleweight
Posts: 9448
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by tiny_acres »

Enlightened-One wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 18:07
lazboy wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 16:56
Enlightened-One wrote: 14 Apr 2018, 09:14
This isn't a religious argument where you're claiming I'm unable to prove that the universe wasn't created nor currently ruled by some sort that of divine omnipotent supreme being.

A contingency plan has never existed to cater for GGG's current predicament, because there's no evidence that proves that one was in place prior to Canelo's withdrawal from the Golovkin bout.

Are you seriously asking me to prove the existence of something that I claim does not exist? It's like asking me to provide evidence to prove that Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, reincarnation and the afterlife don't exist! :lol:
You’re out of your depth and it shows. That’s why you wrote the above tripe. You’re critical of Golovkin and co believing should have done things according to your standards and your limited experience in that world. You have applied your definition and standards to the word “contingency plan” and it makes no sense because you were happy with the google definition. Again you are pointing fingers, making assumptions Yet you do not know the facts of the situation. Did they have a plan that failed? What Is the cost of putting an opponent on guaranteed standby? What are the competing factors? All you know is that they don’t currently have an opponent. If you re-read the entire thread. Nothing you have argued would be considered persuasive. You have added nothing to this debate.

Where you like to point fingers and failures I have sympathy for Golovkin and the situation. It can’t be easy. On top of organising the mega event that was Canelo Golovkin two you expected that had a perfect foolproof plan for Golovkin to fight an acceptable replacement fighter on 4 weeks notice. Unfortunately life’s not perfect and any plan or plans they had seems to have fallen through. Is that the fault of his management? Maybe or maybe they did the best they could in the situation. A very unfortunate situation that begins with Canelo testing positive to PEDS.
There's a lot of emotion expressed within that post of yours, but it doesn't explain the reason why GGG Promotions, or its spokesman Tom Loeffler, didn't implement a suitable contingency plan to cater for the possibility of Canelo's potential withdrawal from the bout.

I'm not suggesting that Canelo is completely blameless in this situation, but Team GGG didn't implement a contingency plan... and that is something that is clearly not up for debate, since it simply didn't happen.

When I claim that Team GGG should have implemented a contingency plan, it's because competent promoters like GBP and Matchroom ensure one is in place for any events that are televised as PPV's.

Gennady is a great fighter, probably Hall-of-Fame worthy, but the people he employs to manage the promotions of his event shouldn't be considered as being immune from receiving criticism, simply because the Kazakh is one of your favourite fighters! :TU:
I do agree with the fact that his promotional team appears to be inept at best.
oogiebe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 32990
Joined: 01 Jul 2012, 19:35

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by oogiebe »

I never really thought about who f'd up a contingency. I guess because I only wanted Cannelo for GGG. But...interesting points.
apollo creed
Super Welterweight
Posts: 7254
Joined: 18 Aug 2014, 12:28

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by apollo creed »

O'Sullivan speaking about the offer to fight GGG :

“Money-wise it’s not on PPV and the fight’s not worth the money that it should be. They dragged it out for over a week and we got nothing official. And the money kept on diminishing as well. They made an initial offer I agreed to then they came back with half of that," O'Sullivan told SiriusXM Boxing Radio.

“It’s better to stick to the plans we have now. I’d love to fight [Golovkin] down the road with a bit more notice and more money,” O'Sullivan said.

“I was very excited [when first asked about the fight]… Ken [Casey] called me and asked me would I take the fight and I said absolutely, but I think they were looking to get a junior middleweight instead of me looking toward a more safer option."


As I said they want a very soft opponent for GGG. Rod Salka is available atm.
Deleted_Scenes
Middleweight
Posts: 633
Joined: 29 Oct 2013, 17:02

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by Deleted_Scenes »

Isn't part of the problem the fact that HBO are refusing to pay more than $1m towards fighter purses for any replacement event?

Is so, how would team GGG pay any decent fighter an amount they would be willing to accept?

They couldn't even match Spike's demands.

Also, regarding contingency plans, I think it's slightly different a lead promoter having a reserve fighter in place (i.e. an undercard fighter promoted to main event), and the 'away' promoter having a similar one. Team GGG probably couldn't do much more than see who's available in the aftermath, as they would have no way of guaranteeing a fight to that reserve fighter (they aren't just going to go through camp and avoid signing for any other fight for free). It all seems a bit of a shambles, but there may not have been another option. We don't know.

The best option all along may have just been to ditch may 5th entirely, and set something up for June/July.
jamamb
Lightweight
Posts: 14329
Joined: 17 Sep 2017, 05:37

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by jamamb »

apollo creed wrote: 15 Apr 2018, 04:03 O'Sullivan speaking about the offer to fight GGG :

“Money-wise it’s not on PPV and the fight’s not worth the money that it should be. They dragged it out for over a week and we got nothing official. And the money kept on diminishing as well. They made an initial offer I agreed to then they came back with half of that," O'Sullivan told SiriusXM Boxing Radio.

“It’s better to stick to the plans we have now. I’d love to fight [Golovkin] down the road with a bit more notice and more money,” O'Sullivan said.

“I was very excited [when first asked about the fight]… Ken [Casey] called me and asked me would I take the fight and I said absolutely, but I think they were looking to get a junior middleweight instead of me looking toward a more safer option."


As I said they want a very soft opponent for GGG. Rod Salka is available atm.
spike is plenty soft, which is why he was in the running and got an offer
apollo creed
Super Welterweight
Posts: 7254
Joined: 18 Aug 2014, 12:28

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by apollo creed »

jamamb wrote: 15 Apr 2018, 05:45
apollo creed wrote: 15 Apr 2018, 04:03 O'Sullivan speaking about the offer to fight GGG :

“Money-wise it’s not on PPV and the fight’s not worth the money that it should be. They dragged it out for over a week and we got nothing official. And the money kept on diminishing as well. They made an initial offer I agreed to then they came back with half of that," O'Sullivan told SiriusXM Boxing Radio.

“It’s better to stick to the plans we have now. I’d love to fight [Golovkin] down the road with a bit more notice and more money,” O'Sullivan said.

“I was very excited [when first asked about the fight]… Ken [Casey] called me and asked me would I take the fight and I said absolutely, but I think they were looking to get a junior middleweight instead of me looking toward a more safer option."


As I said they want a very soft opponent for GGG. Rod Salka is available atm.
spike is plenty soft, which is why he was in the running and got an offer
He got lowballed.
jamamb
Lightweight
Posts: 14329
Joined: 17 Sep 2017, 05:37

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by jamamb »

its gonna be low, they have very little to go around, they were clearly after spike, and thats because hes soft

if you want to talk avoiding, mention guys like derev, andrade etc, not f@cking gary o sullivan
Deleted_Scenes
Middleweight
Posts: 633
Joined: 29 Oct 2013, 17:02

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by Deleted_Scenes »

jamamb wrote: 15 Apr 2018, 07:06 its gonna be low, they have very little to go around,
Exactly. HBO are offering peanuts, whoever the opponent is.

Unless they want to make a guaranteed loss, the fight has to be against someone who's willing to fight for almost nothing.

Nobody with any sense is going to put on an event where they're guaranteed to make a loss...
apollo creed
Super Welterweight
Posts: 7254
Joined: 18 Aug 2014, 12:28

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by apollo creed »

Mundine or Bundrage for GGG.
SenorPipino
Super Middleweight
Posts: 6055
Joined: 09 Jan 2013, 19:40

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by SenorPipino »

Deleted_Scenes wrote: 15 Apr 2018, 07:42
jamamb wrote: 15 Apr 2018, 07:06 its gonna be low, they have very little to go around,
Exactly. HBO are offering peanuts, whoever the opponent is.

Unless they want to make a guaranteed loss, the fight has to be against someone who's willing to fight for almost nothing.

Nobody with any sense is going to put on an event where they're guaranteed to make a loss...

What's peanuts for Spike?

$200,000 -$250,000?

That's terrific money for a guy who has no name, no title.

Desensitized fans have become so accustomed to Mayweather/Pacquiao paydays, that they blithely dismiss a few hundred thousand dollars as "peanuts."

Most fighters will never come anywhere close to making that much for a fight.

But I do understand that if Spike has been promised an even more lucrative Canelo fight within the next year by GB, why he would suddenly bolt.
Badhusker
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4902
Joined: 19 Jun 2010, 23:57

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by Badhusker »

They offered Spike a certain amount, and he agreed. Then they come back with a lower offer.

What is so hard to understand about why he declined it? Its not a future offer to fight Canelo.
oogiebe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 32990
Joined: 01 Jul 2012, 19:35

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by oogiebe »

Badhusker wrote: 15 Apr 2018, 15:31 They offered Spike a certain amount, and he agreed. Then they come back with a lower offer.

What is so hard to understand about why he declined it? Its not a future offer to fight Canelo.
Getting a bit tired, boyo? LOL! They love to banter!
tiny_acres
Middleweight
Posts: 9448
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43

Re: I think Golovkin is really on a decline way because they still looking for that soft opponent for him

Post by tiny_acres »

GGG has faced his 3 best fighters in his last 3 fights. He deserves an easy touch in this short negotiation period.
Brook, Jacobs and Canelo were all big tough fights.
I'm not going to be pissed if he fights Joe Schmo in this fight
Post Reply