Page 2 of 2
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 28 Oct 2016, 08:57
by T w_savage
I like the Lara fight for GGG , it would pose questions of GGG that's he's never been asked in a pro ring and a fight between the two would show us whether he can deal with a awkward defensive fighter in Lara.
It would be intriguing imo, maybe not the 'big drama show' many want but would be a Intresting fight to watch from my PoV.
More Intresting than the brook fight imo, that was a clear mismatch.
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 28 Oct 2016, 10:30
by apollo creed
Stylistically, this fight is so intriguing. Lara and BJS have interesting styles.

Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 28 Oct 2016, 10:35
by boxing_rocks
T w_savage wrote:I like the Lara fight for GGG , it would pose questions of GGG that's he's never been asked in a pro ring and a fight between the two would show us whether he can deal with a awkward defensive fighter in Lara.
It would be intriguing imo, maybe not the 'big drama show' many want but would be a Intresting fight to watch from my PoV.
More Intresting than the brook fight imo, that was a clear mismatch.
GGG dealt with an awkward defensive fighter Monroe Jr just fine.
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 28 Oct 2016, 11:04
by T w_savage
boxing_rocks wrote:T w_savage wrote:I like the Lara fight for GGG , it would pose questions of GGG that's he's never been asked in a pro ring and a fight between the two would show us whether he can deal with a awkward defensive fighter in Lara.
It would be intriguing imo, maybe not the 'big drama show' many want but would be a Intresting fight to watch from my PoV.
More Intresting than the brook fight imo, that was a clear mismatch.
GGG dealt with an awkward defensive fighter Monroe Jr just fine.
Southpaw, but not as tricky as Lara imo.. Still Lara is not really a 160 fighter so..
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 28 Oct 2016, 15:46
by nuthin4sumpthin
Enlightened-One wrote:nuthin4sumpthin wrote:Enlightened-One wrote:
The video is only six months old, filmed a week before the Wade fight, then came the lengthy Eubank Jr. negotiations, next came the Brook fight and finally the long drawn out WBA-Jacobs mandatory contract negotiations.
I don't mind being proven wrong if you can backup your claims, but I personally doubt you can.
Both Lara and Golvkin's manager's have said that they've not made an effort to negotiate the fight and I believe them.
Yeah we know Lara's team hasn't done anything except talk about the fight on twitter to generate interest in whatever garbage fight Lara has next.
Tom Loeffler actually made a phone call about it.
DeCubas Jr says so himself at 45 sec here:
https://youtu.be/jqBpdwKIFHU?t=43
"Tom reached out to Al Haymon." I guess DeCubas doesn't realize that he can make outgoing calls on his "twitter machine"

That was a general enquiry K2 was making to discuss the future possibility of matching Golovkin against Haymon's guys. It wasn't a definite and specific offer to Lara to initiate contract negotiations. There's a difference.
Yeah and it's still more than Luis DeCubas Jr has done.
They DO NOT want any part of GGG
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 28 Oct 2016, 17:44
by Enlightened-One
nuthin4sumpthin wrote:Enlightened-One wrote:nuthin4sumpthin wrote:
Yeah we know Lara's team hasn't done anything except talk about the fight on twitter to generate interest in whatever garbage fight Lara has next.
Tom Loeffler actually made a phone call about it.
DeCubas Jr says so himself at 45 sec here:
https://youtu.be/jqBpdwKIFHU?t=43
"Tom reached out to Al Haymon." I guess DeCubas doesn't realize that he can make outgoing calls on his "twitter machine"

That was a general enquiry K2 was making to discuss the future possibility of matching Golovkin against Haymon's guys. It wasn't a definite and specific offer to Lara to initiate contract negotiations. There's a difference.
Yeah and it's still more than Luis DeCubas Jr has done.
They DO NOT want any part of GGG
Personally speaking, it's dishonest to award kudos when none has been earned.
Simply put, (by your own admission) what you had originally claimed never happened and no one should applaud or overstate the significance of meaningless gestures.
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 29 Oct 2016, 06:47
by caldo2025
Enlightened-One wrote:caldo2025 wrote:Enlightened-One wrote:
What about the WBC purse bid situation or aren't you aware about that?
I'm referring to the first go-round with talks. When a date was penciled in on the schedule and HBO was actively marketing the fight. Obviously, there's been multiple negotiations between the two boxers camps. But the first negotiation, the one that was closest to come to fruition, was without a doubt, blocked purposely from Stevenson. HBO/SHO's relationship was at the very worst stage at the time. It clearly killed the chances of the fight happening. That's common knowledge so let's here whatever garbage you can use to avert that?
Are you aware about Kovalev (as the mandatory challenger) withdrawing from the WBC's purse bid to face Stevenson?
Do you blame him? It's dangerous to hook your wagon up to a boxer that is unreliable and already backed out once. Look how much time Wlad has wasted with the unreliable Fury? It will be well over a year of inactivity as a result and zero dollars made in the ring. Adonis hasn't fought anyone worth watching for years. Williams was a fish and we all knew it so we can't count that. He'd prefer to continue to fight garbage in Canada so he run around the ring like an imbecile after knocking them out. He's the bottom of barrel.
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 29 Oct 2016, 07:13
by Enlightened-One
caldo2025 wrote:Enlightened-One wrote:caldo2025 wrote:
I'm referring to the first go-round with talks. When a date was penciled in on the schedule and HBO was actively marketing the fight. Obviously, there's been multiple negotiations between the two boxers camps. But the first negotiation, the one that was closest to come to fruition, was without a doubt, blocked purposely from Stevenson. HBO/SHO's relationship was at the very worst stage at the time. It clearly killed the chances of the fight happening. That's common knowledge so let's here whatever garbage you can use to avert that?
Are you aware about Kovalev (as the mandatory challenger) withdrawing from the WBC's purse bid to face Stevenson?
Do you blame him? It's dangerous to hook your wagon up to a boxer that is unreliable and already backed out once. Look how much time Wlad has wasted with the unreliable Fury? It will be well over a year of inactivity as a result and zero dollars made in the ring. Adonis hasn't fought anyone worth watching for years. Williams was a fish and we all knew it so we can't count that. He'd prefer to continue to fight garbage in Canada so he run around the ring like an imbecile after knocking them out. He's the bottom of barrel.
When Sergey was a TV network free agent, Kathy Duva petitioned HARD to make Kovalev the WBC's mandatory challenger to Stevenson's world title.
The WBC adhered to Duva's demands, by making Kovalev their mandatory challenger to Stevenson's world title and then ordered the bout to proceed to purse bids when both camps failed to agree the terms of the contract.
Kathy Duva subsequently withdrew Kovalev from the purse bid process and also renounced his mandatory challenger status after Krusher had decided to sign an exclusive contract with HBO, because Main Events would have refused or been unable to participate if they lost the purse bid.
Meanwhile, GYM, Haymon and Stevenson had already committed themselves to compete in the bout, regardless as to whoever won the purse bid.
The bottom line: Kovalev preferred to renew and remain tied to his exclusive contract with HBO in preference of a guaranteed shot at Stevenson.
Duva had no intention of matching Krusher against Stevenson, as her lobbying the WBC for the Russian to gain a shot at their world title, with the potential of Showtime covering the bout, was merely a ploy to help negotiate Sergey's exclusive contract renewal with HBO.
Kathy Duva now claims that Krusher is only able to face Stevenson under their stipulated terms alone, such as HBO being the only network allowed to televise the fight, regardless as to whether Haymon and Showtime are able to guarantee Kovalev a much bigger payday than if HBO and Main Events "owned" the staging of the fight.
Those are the facts! You're more than welcome to continue spreading your derogatory false claims, if that's what you're compelled to do, but at least people can evaluate the amount of "truth" and value contained within the content of your comments with an understanding of the events that actually took place in real-world.
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 29 Oct 2016, 08:33
by Ruthless-RKO
BitPlayer wrote:Enlightened-One wrote:Last year, Abel Sanchez claimed that Lara is a smaller name than Monroe Jr. and HBO couldn't sell that fight. He also says that Erislandy needs to compete in the 160lb weight division before Golovkin would consider facing him, because doing so now would make GGG vulnerable to receiving criticism for competing against a smaller man.
Lara still competes at 154lbs and despite Golovkin’s willingness to face smaller men, the situation hasn’t changed since Sanchez made those claims.
But not Kell Brook?

GGG didn't ask for Brook. Hearn offered Brook then offered GGG. Who else was really gonna fight GGG?
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 29 Oct 2016, 09:45
by apollo creed
Ruthless-RKO wrote:BitPlayer wrote:Enlightened-One wrote:Last year, Abel Sanchez claimed that Lara is a smaller name than Monroe Jr. and HBO couldn't sell that fight. He also says that Erislandy needs to compete in the 160lb weight division before Golovkin would consider facing him, because doing so now would make GGG vulnerable to receiving criticism for competing against a smaller man.
Lara still competes at 154lbs and despite Golovkin’s willingness to face smaller men, the situation hasn’t changed since Sanchez made those claims.
But not Kell Brook?

GGG didn't ask for Brook. Hearn offered Brook then offered GGG. Who else was really gonna fight GGG?
Yup, some people are acting really dumb. GGG was screwed by Eubanks and he had to take the Brook fight when the offer was made.
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 30 Oct 2016, 16:11
by Badhusker
apollo creed wrote:Ruthless-RKO wrote:BitPlayer wrote:
But not Kell Brook?

GGG didn't ask for Brook. Hearn offered Brook then offered GGG. Who else was really gonna fight GGG?
Yup, some people are acting really dumb. GGG was screwed by Eubanks and he had to take the Brook fight when the offer was made.
You have got to be kidding me?! GGG
HAD to take the Brook fight? What a load of BS. Make it sound like GGG HAD to fight a welterweight? Or what? lol Using that example to try to explain why he won't fight Lara is hilarious.
Lara is an interesting fight because he is such a different style. But go ahead, spin it how you want, fine.

Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 30 Oct 2016, 16:13
by crusader
He didn't have to fight Brook, but the $5m sure made it an attractive deal.
Would GGG get that to fight Lara?
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 30 Oct 2016, 19:07
by boxing_rocks
Badhusker wrote:apollo creed wrote:Ruthless-RKO wrote:
GGG didn't ask for Brook. Hearn offered Brook then offered GGG. Who else was really gonna fight GGG?
Yup, some people are acting really dumb. GGG was screwed by Eubanks and he had to take the Brook fight when the offer was made.
You have got to be kidding me?! GGG
HAD to take the Brook fight? What a load of BS. Make it sound like GGG HAD to fight a welterweight? Or what? lol Using that example to try to explain why he won't fight Lara is hilarious.
Lara is an interesting fight because he is such a different style. But go ahead, spin it how you want, fine.

GGG had a date with HBO and the arena booked. He had to take a fight if he didn't want to wait another 2-3 months. If WBA didn't rule that Jacobs has to be Golovkin's next opponent, Gennady would fight somebody else (including Lara if he agreed) on December 10th on HBO.
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 31 Oct 2016, 01:52
by apollo creed
boxing_rocks wrote:Badhusker wrote:apollo creed wrote:
Yup, some people are acting really dumb. GGG was screwed by Eubanks and he had to take the Brook fight when the offer was made.
You have got to be kidding me?! GGG
HAD to take the Brook fight? What a load of BS. Make it sound like GGG HAD to fight a welterweight? Or what? lol Using that example to try to explain why he won't fight Lara is hilarious.
Lara is an interesting fight because he is such a different style. But go ahead, spin it how you want, fine.

GGG had a date with HBO and the arena booked. He had to take a fight if he didn't want to wait another 2-3 months. If WBA didn't rule that Jacobs has to be Golovkin's next opponent, Gennady would fight somebody else (including Lara if he agreed) on December 10th on HBO.
Yup but some people are keep acting blind.

Also the GGG vs Jacobs fight would have been made if Jacobs wouldn't have chickened out. I really hope WBA strips Jacobs of his imaginary title and Golovkin vs BJS or Lara fights get made.

Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 31 Oct 2016, 04:58
by SaadOffTheDeck
Badhusker wrote:apollo creed wrote:Ruthless-RKO wrote:
GGG didn't ask for Brook. Hearn offered Brook then offered GGG. Who else was really gonna fight GGG?
Yup, some people are acting really dumb. GGG was screwed by Eubanks and he had to take the Brook fight when the offer was made.
You have got to be kidding me?! GGG
HAD to take the Brook fight? What a load of BS. Make it sound like GGG HAD to fight a welterweight? Or what? lol Using that example to try to explain why he won't fight Lara is hilarious.
Lara is an interesting fight because he is such a different style. But go ahead, spin it how you want, fine.

I'm a Lara fan, but he hasn't had a meaningful fight for years. Honestly I think al is concerned about him plucking off some of his more marketable fighters at 54. GGG doesn't appear to be hard to find.
Re: If not GGG vs Jacobs, why not Lara ?
Posted: 01 Nov 2016, 03:06
by nuthin4sumpthin
Badhusker wrote:apollo creed wrote:Ruthless-RKO wrote:
GGG didn't ask for Brook. Hearn offered Brook then offered GGG. Who else was really gonna fight GGG?
Yup, some people are acting really dumb. GGG was screwed by Eubanks and he had to take the Brook fight when the offer was made.
You have got to be kidding me?! GGG
HAD to take the Brook fight? What a load of BS. Make it sound like GGG HAD to fight a welterweight? Or what? lol Using that example to try to explain why he won't fight Lara is hilarious.
Lara is an interesting fight because he is such a different style. But go ahead, spin it how you want, fine.

And Lara doesn't want any part of Golovkin.
That is not spin, that is a fact. All Lara's team does is talk about it on twitter.
Lara wouldn't do any better against GGG than Willie Monroe Jr did and you people calling for this fight would be the first ones jumping on the internet to cry about "SMDH GGG be pickin on little fiters!" and call Lara a bum.