Fat Dan saying Saul vs Miguel is happening in Sept.

[sucracristo]

You also have this argument mixed up, I think.

I am saying that if a Floyd/Cotto fight is out there and can be made for Sept., it will be.

And it will be for the lineal middleweight title.

You think different, YOU prove it.

I presented you just one instance of many where it is proven the WBC doesn't give a damn.

Not about mandatories, or titles, or anything else.

But lineal doesn't mean WBC anyway, or didn't you know that?

The WBC will bandwagon the fight and collect it's sanctioning fees just like it always does.

i have nothing mixed up except for trying to straighten you out on facts and responding to your blather.
i wasn't the one that said they would fight for a title, you did. i explained to you why they won't
and you're worse than this other guy who used to loiter on here all day making these same
nonsense arguments. i think he got banned. now you're saying that you meant an imaginary
title will really boost the significance of this possible fight, even though you say nobody cares
about mandatories or titles. dude, you need to take your meds.
you have no ability to focus or follow linear thought.
abc titlists aren't under any obligation to fight any specific guy in the top 10 who isn't
a mandatory. that is how it works. i specifically mentioned mandatory for a reason.
that is also why i asked you for an example of a mandatory pushed aside and you
threw out a random name as spastic reflex argument. the reason you can't give
one example of a mandatory pushed aside without accepting voluntary compensation
to support your theory that the wbc can do whatever it wants to make more money
is because you are talking out of your ass.

[koolkc107]

You also have this argument mixed up, I think.

I am saying that if a Floyd/Cotto fight is out there and can be made for Sept., it will be.

And it will be for the lineal middleweight title.

You think different, YOU prove it.

I presented you just one instance of many where it is proven the WBC doesn't give a damn.

Not about mandatories, or titles, or anything else.

But lineal doesn't mean WBC anyway, or didn't you know that?

The WBC will bandwagon the fight and collect it's sanctioning fees just like it always does.

i have nothing mixed up except for trying to straighten you out on facts and responding to your blather.
i wasn't the one that said they would fight for a title, you did. i explained to you why they won't
and you're worse than this other guy who used to loiter on here all day making these same
nonsense arguments. i think he got banned. now you're saying that you meant an imaginary
title will really boost the significance of this possible fight, even though you say nobody cares
about mandatories or titles. dude, you need to take your meds.
you have no ability to focus or follow linear thought.
abc titlists aren't under any obligation to fight any specific guy in the top 10 who isn't
a mandatory. that is how it works. i specifically mentioned mandatory for a reason.
that is also why i asked you for an example of a mandatory pushed aside and you
threw out a random name as spastic reflex argument. the reason you can't give
one example of a mandatory pushed aside without accepting voluntary compensation
to support your theory that the wbc can do whatever it wants to make more money
is because you are talking out of your ass.

No, you brought mandatory into the argument.

I said the mandatory was and is irrelevant when it comes to who Cotto fights next.

And I argued that when he does fight in September it will be for the middleweight title.

It could be the lineal OR the WBC OR both.

And GGG will have not one say in it or get paid a coin to step aside, ride a unicycle or juggle cats.

It is as plain as I can say it.

You don't want to believe me or think I am wrong, that's your problem.

BTW, this thread is about a pretty accurate journalist speculating that Cotto will fight Canelo.

Is Kid Cinnamon Cotto's mandatory?

NO!

But you can bet THAT (if it happens) will be for a middleweight title as well.

Do the math, genius.

Does the WBC make more money collecting sanctioning fees from a Floyd/Cotto or Canelo/Cotto PPV?

Or a HBO fight with GGG/Cotto?

That is why Miguel's belt will stay right where it is.

Mandatory or no mandatory.

[sucracristo]

That is why Miguel's belt will stay right where it is.
Mandatory or no mandatory.

u r talkin out ur ass

[koolkc107]

That is why Miguel's belt will stay right where it is.
Mandatory or no mandatory.

u r talkin out ur ass

If by that you mean

A) I actually have a realistic take and am not afraid to talk about it , and
B) I am not stupid or naive enough to think mandatory defenses have ANYTHING to do the rest of Cotto's career

then yeah, you are right.

Your whole viewpoint has been full of weaksauce this entire thread but especially your last few posts.

You cannot name one example in a fight the magnitude we are discussing here (Floyd/Cotto or Cotto/Canelo) that a mandatory got in the way of it.

Try doing that before continuing to make a fool out of yourself.

[jezzamundo]

I think there's a roughly 50% chance that one of Canelo or (more likely) Cotto will lose their next fight, which would most likely put an end to the proposed matchup.

I think James' chances of an upset are being greatly exaggerated so you are either a big James fan or think Daniel is the favorite vs Miguel if you got it at a coin flip one loses.

I think Daniel has a decent shot & although I'm still trying to digest how much I feel the 157 catchweight I keep hearing about could affect things. Not super excited about that fight anyway so I'm not sure if the 157 is a real thing or not & haven't bothered to look into yet, but seeing it getting mentioned a lot.

I would rate Kirkland's chances of beating Canelo as being about 20%. I rate Geale's chance of beating Cotto as about 40%. Combining these, there would be a 52% chance that one of Canelo or Cotto will lose.