BoxRec

I know that Cotto is trying to fight smaller guys, but if he fought Brook, who do you have and how do you see it going ?

I'd probably favor Brook by decision, but I mean Brook still has a lot to prove. His only particularly meaningful win is Porter, and his success against Golovkin is being exaggerated to the point that now just about everyone thinks he beats everyone not named Golovkin from Middleweight on down. That's a bit ridiculous.

I don't think there's enough money to motivate Cotto to face Brook. And who's going to pay for this bout?

The Puerto Rican has one fight remaining of his $50m three fight deal with Roc Nation.

He received a $15m purse for the Canelo fight, $7m to face Martinez (excl. PPV revenue) and $8m to fight Mayweather (rising to $10m incl. PPV revenue).

I’m guessing that Cotto would have received more to face the likes Trout and Geale than Golovkin’s $4m payday against Brook.

Also, in terms of sporting reasons, what does a near 36-year old veteran like Cotto stand to gain from taking a risk against the recently defeated Brook at 154lbs?

gilgamesh wrote:I'd probably favor Brook by decision, but I mean Brook still has a lot to prove. His only particularly meaningful win is Porter, and his success against Golovkin is being exaggerated to the point that now just about everyone thinks he beats everyone not named Golovkin from Middleweight on down. That's a bit ridiculous.

X2!

Enlightened-One wrote:I don't think there's enough money to motivate Cotto to face Brook. And who's going to pay for this bout?

The Puerto Rican has one fight remaining of his $50m three fight deal with Roc Nation.

He received a $15m purse for the Canelo fight, $7m to face Martinez (excl. PPV revenue) and $8m to fight Mayweather (rising to $10m incl. PPV revenue).

I’m guessing that Cotto would have received more to face the likes Trout and Geale than Golovkin’s $4m payday against Brook.

Also, in terms of sporting reasons, what does a near 36-year old veteran like Cotto stand to gain from taking a risk against the recently defeated Brook at 154lbs?

I disagree. Brook seems to be a better risk/reward ratio than Lara, the Charlos, Andrade, Golovkin, Eubank, Saunders, or Jacobs (all of whom would kill Cotto). Plus he's already fought Pacquiao and Trout, so you can mostly rule those out. Cotto's best bets for a decent risk-reward fight would be Brook, Bradley, Khan, or Thurman. Anything other than that and he'd be fighting nobodies who can't draw a crowd, like Omar Figueroa Jr, Michel Soro, Maciej Sulecki, etc.. Plus, British fighters like Brook and Khan are inherently good at selling tickets in England.

Lackeos wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:I don't think there's enough money to motivate Cotto to face Brook. And who's going to pay for this bout?

The Puerto Rican has one fight remaining of his $50m three fight deal with Roc Nation.

He received a $15m purse for the Canelo fight, $7m to face Martinez (excl. PPV revenue) and $8m to fight Mayweather (rising to $10m incl. PPV revenue).

I’m guessing that Cotto would have received more to face the likes Trout and Geale than Golovkin’s $4m payday against Brook.

Also, in terms of sporting reasons, what does a near 36-year old veteran like Cotto stand to gain from taking a risk against the recently defeated Brook at 154lbs?

I disagree. Brook seems to be a better risk/reward ratio than Lara, the Charlos, Andrade, Golovkin, Eubank, Saunders, or Jacobs (all of whom would kill Cotto). Plus he's already fought Pacquiao and Trout, so you can mostly rule those out. Cotto's best bets for a decent risk-reward fight would be Brook, Bradley, Khan, or Thurman. Anything other than that and he'd be fighting nobodies who can't draw a crowd, like Omar Figueroa Jr, Michel Soro, Maciej Sulecki, etc.. Plus, British fighters like Brook and Khan are inherently good at selling tickets in England.

Do you think that the British or American public are going to fund huge paydays, to satisfy the risk versus return ratio, in order to witness two men, who tasted defeats in their most recent outings to Canelo and Golovkin?

Brook isn’t a household name in the US and Miguel Cotto is a relative unknown (to casual fight fans) in the UK.

And who is going to pay for this?

I understand your sporting reasons, but from a commercial perspective, this bout doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

This contest might happen one day, but at the moment, I feel that both fighters need to get another win under their belt in order to make themselves marketable… and I think that this is the reason why the Puerto Rican will be facing Lamont Peterson early next year.

I can also see Kell Brook taking a fight against the likes of an Austin Trout type confidence building opponent.

If Miguel Cotto wants to cash-out before he retires, then he’s more likely to accept a mega-money payday to engage in a rematch against Canelo, as their first bout was a closely-contested affair, or even face Golovkin. Who’s to say that Pacquiao or Mayweather Jr. rematches at 154lbs are unfeasible?

Successful fighters that are in the final stages of their career are more likely to chase big paydays than to take relatively low-paid risks.

Lackeos wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:I don't think there's enough money to motivate Cotto to face Brook. And who's going to pay for this bout?

The Puerto Rican has one fight remaining of his $50m three fight deal with Roc Nation.

He received a $15m purse for the Canelo fight, $7m to face Martinez (excl. PPV revenue) and $8m to fight Mayweather (rising to $10m incl. PPV revenue).

I’m guessing that Cotto would have received more to face the likes Trout and Geale than Golovkin’s $4m payday against Brook.

Also, in terms of sporting reasons, what does a near 36-year old veteran like Cotto stand to gain from taking a risk against the recently defeated Brook at 154lbs?

I disagree. Brook seems to be a better risk/reward ratio than Lara, the Charlos, Andrade, Golovkin, Eubank, Saunders, or Jacobs (all of whom would kill Cotto). Plus he's already fought Pacquiao and Trout, so you can mostly rule those out. Cotto's best bets for a decent risk-reward fight would be Brook, Bradley, Khan, or Thurman. Anything other than that and he'd be fighting nobodies who can't draw a crowd, like Omar Figueroa Jr, Michel Soro, Maciej Sulecki, etc.. Plus, British fighters like Brook and Khan are inherently good at selling tickets in England.

I might replace Eubank Jr. with Julian Williams on the killing list.

I don't think Cotto could handle a fresher fighter. Brook, Bradley (with Teddy) and Thurman all win by UD.

Cotto should fight Kirkland.

Enlightened-One wrote:Brook isn’t a household name in the US and Miguel Cotto is a relative unknown (to casual fight fans) in the UK.

Cotto is an unknown in the UK? My God, have they heard of Felix Trinidad? Do they know who Hector Camacho is? I thought these people liked boxing.

Kell should take a break so I doubt we will see him in the ring anytime soon, when he does he shouldn't have any problem getting a name opponent if he wants one.

I was not asking about possibility of the fight, but rather about how it would go. Names associated with Cotto recently: Marquez, Gamboa and Peterson tell me that he is not gonna fight anybody bigger than him.

How would it go ?
Obviously there are circumstances but at this point in their careers if they come in 100% I'd take Brook at 154.

Brook late stoppage.

Brook wins this fight easily. I've said it for years now and i'll say it again. Cotto is the most overrated boxer there is in the sport. Cotto has lost every big fight he's been in aside from a 40 something year old Sergio Martinez that went into the fight with bad knees. If you gloss over his resume, you will see it yourself. He's lost to all the big names and those fights were not even close. PR has tremendous love for their boxers so that's why his popularity has been high in the sport but to me, he has never ever been remotely elite. Not even close.