BoxRec

I think they don't want to lose that big payday from a future rematch with Canelo or a BJS unification fight.

Canelos not a soft opponent and why can’t he have a full camp and time to study a serious contender? Everyones gunning for the champ. He’s the champ. Giving him less than 6 weeks to prepare for a serious opponent is a disservice to him, the fans and maybe even his opponent who would most likely want to fight the best and most prepared Golovkin.

He's spent most, if not all his training camp preparing for Canelo..

Derev's style is much different than Canelo's, I think GGG would like a full training camp vs. Derev, or any other top contender.. Most of the names mentioned.. Derev, Andrade etc..

Jacobs and Jermall didn't put there names forward, because 1, they had fights scheduled and also, I take it they would want a FULL training camp to prepare for GGG..

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 04:51 He's spent most, if not all his training camp preparing for Canelo..

Derev's style is much different than Canelo's, I think GGG would like a full training camp vs. Derev, or any other top contender.. Most of the names mentioned.. Derev, Andrade etc..

Jacobs and Jermall didn't put there names forward, because 1, they had fights scheduled and also, I take it they would want a FULL training camp to prepare for GGG..

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 04:51 He's spent most, if not all his training camp preparing for Canelo..

Canelo's PED test failure was announced on the same day the Mexican started his training camp. Golovkin's training camp probably commenced around the same time and he definitely wouldn't have started sparring yet.

GGG should have anticipated the possibility that the bout may not necessarily go ahead and implemented a contingency plan that ensured another orthodox fighter was on stand-by should the fight fall through.

His team did mention at the time that they were considering alternative opponents, so they at least acknowledged the possibility that Canelo may not fight.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 05:52

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 04:51 He's spent most, if not all his training camp preparing for Canelo..

Canelo's PED test failure was announced on the same day the Mexican started his training camp. Golovkin's training camp probably commenced around the same time and he definitely wouldn't have started sparring yet.

GGG should have anticipated the possibility that the bout may not necessarily go ahead and implemented a contingency plan that ensured another orthodox fighter was on stand-by should the fight fall through.

His team did mention at the time that they were considering alternative opponents, so they at least acknowledged the possibility that Canelo may not fight.

Sounds like you are saying Golovkin should have been training for Canelo and any number of other available opponents for the 6 week training camp. Is that fair? What about prior to the 6 weeks? Should he have been studying and training for Canelo and any number of other available opponents just to be safe? Do you think that’s a bit unrealistic?

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 06:24

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 05:52

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 04:51 He's spent most, if not all his training camp preparing for Canelo..

Canelo's PED test failure was announced on the same day the Mexican started his training camp. Golovkin's training camp probably commenced around the same time and he definitely wouldn't have started sparring yet.

GGG should have anticipated the possibility that the bout may not necessarily go ahead and implemented a contingency plan that ensured another orthodox fighter was on stand-by should the fight fall through.

His team did mention at the time that they were considering alternative opponents, so they at least acknowledged the possibility that Canelo may not fight.

Sounds like you are saying Golovkin should have been training for Canelo and any number of other available opponents for the 6 week training camp. Is that fair?

I'm saying that GGG should just train for Canelo as he normally would, but also have a suitable substitute opponent on stand-by. After all, his team did mention the potential need for a replacement opponent at the time the test failure was announced.

Other promoters have ensured that they have stand-by opponents to cover for the fighters competing in the main events headlining their PPV's, such as when Joshua had Takam and Povetkin as replacements for Pulev and Parker.

I can provide more examples.

If other promoters ensure they have contingency plans are in place for their PPV events, is it really so unreasonable of me to question the reason why GGG didn't, despite his team even mentioning the need for alternative opponents for the Cinco de Mayo fight date in case Canelo withdrew?

All I've done is point out out one of Team GGG's mistakes - it doesn't mean that I have a general dislike for Gennady Golovkin.

Spike O’Sullivan was a suitable opponent. Unfortunately he declined. The other Mexican was more or less suitable but was not sanctioned. Unfortunately team ggg have been unlucky this whole situation in A) Canelo withdrawing from the fight and B) suitable opponents not being available (for whatever reason).

The Joshua Takam example is a bit hard to take as I imagine the A side Joshua would bring a lot more money and exposure to fighters than a Golovkin. Not really sure I can remember a case where the B side (golovkin) had to stage an event where the A side left on such short notice. Notable that B side is still a dangerous fighter.

The thing is GGG has to fight a decent name and blast him out to look good and keep his stock high. A good example would be Anthony Mundine.

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 07:12 Spike O’Sullivan was a suitable opponent. Unfortunately he declined. The other Mexican was more or less suitable but was not sanctioned. Unfortunately team ggg have been unlucky this whole situation in A) Canelo withdrawing from the fight and B) suitable opponents not being available (for whatever reason).

The Joshua Takam example is a bit hard to take as I imagine the A side Joshua would bring a lot more money and exposure to fighters than a Golovkin. Not really sure I can remember a case where the B side (golovkin) had to stage an event where the A side left on such short notice. Notable that B side is still a dangerous fighter.

Team GGG didn't start seeking opponents until Canelo withdrew and the offer they proposed to O'Sullivan was apparently "small".

His team haven't attempted to make fights against any of the middleweight division's top ten fighters.

For the record, GGG is promoting his own event. It's ultimately his own fault for deciding against the implementation of a contingency plan, especially considering his assertion that he was competing on the 5th May fight date, regardless as to whether it was against Canelo or not.

He said this before the Mexican's withdrawal.

Anthony Mundine would be a smart choice for GGG.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 07:20

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 07:12 Spike O’Sullivan was a suitable opponent. Unfortunately he declined. The other Mexican was more or less suitable but was not sanctioned. Unfortunately team ggg have been unlucky this whole situation in A) Canelo withdrawing from the fight and B) suitable opponents not being available (for whatever reason).

The Joshua Takam example is a bit hard to take as I imagine the A side Joshua would bring a lot more money and exposure to fighters than a Golovkin. Not really sure I can remember a case where the B side (golovkin) had to stage an event where the A side left on such short notice. Notable that B side is still a dangerous fighter.

Team GGG didn't start seeking opponents until Canelo withdrew and the offer they proposed to O'Sullivan was apparently "small".

For the record, GGG is promoting his own event. It's ultimately his own fault for deciding against the implementation of a contingency plan, especially considering his assertion that he was competing on the 5th May fight date, regardless as to whether it was against Canelo or not.

He said this before the Mexican's withdrawal.

Seems like they had a contingency plan but because of complications it has stalled....for now. Things can be very complicated in business. It’s a real shame for Golovkin and his fans who would have wanted him to fight however the real travesty is the rematch being called off.

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 07:25

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 07:20

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 07:12 Spike O’Sullivan was a suitable opponent. Unfortunately he declined. The other Mexican was more or less suitable but was not sanctioned. Unfortunately team ggg have been unlucky this whole situation in A) Canelo withdrawing from the fight and B) suitable opponents not being available (for whatever reason).

The Joshua Takam example is a bit hard to take as I imagine the A side Joshua would bring a lot more money and exposure to fighters than a Golovkin. Not really sure I can remember a case where the B side (golovkin) had to stage an event where the A side left on such short notice. Notable that B side is still a dangerous fighter.

Team GGG didn't start seeking opponents until Canelo withdrew and the offer they proposed to O'Sullivan was apparently "small".

For the record, GGG is promoting his own event. It's ultimately his own fault for deciding against the implementation of a contingency plan, especially considering his assertion that he was competing on the 5th May fight date, regardless as to whether it was against Canelo or not.

He said this before the Mexican's withdrawal.

Seems like they had a contingency plan but because of complications it has stalled....for now. Things can be very complicated in business. It’s a real shame for Golovkin and his fans who would have wanted him to fight however the real travesty is the rematch being called off.

What contingency plan did they have in place?

A contingency plan is something that actually exists, it isn't a notion or intention. Negotiations should have been performed between all interested parties and contracts drawn up and signed.

You can't claim that Team GGG had a contingency plan in place if the other parties weren't notified and hadn't agreed terms, simply because Golovkin's people thought about "something".

Team GGG should have started the implementation of a contingency plan almost seven weeks ago. It doesn't take that long to arrange for a replacement opponent.

Perhaps they did have one with the other Mexican. Perhaps there was something with spike. Perhaps they were waiting to assess the situation in real time. Get real-time feedback from the public to see if there was still public interest in ggg fighting. It’s complicated and the information isn’t available to me. Do you have all the facts? Or do you merely have info released to the media?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 07:31

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 07:25

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 07:20
Team GGG didn't start seeking opponents until Canelo withdrew and the offer they proposed to O'Sullivan was apparently "small".

For the record, GGG is promoting his own event. It's ultimately his own fault for deciding against the implementation of a contingency plan, especially considering his assertion that he was competing on the 5th May fight date, regardless as to whether it was against Canelo or not.

He said this before the Mexican's withdrawal.

Seems like they had a contingency plan but because of complications it has stalled....for now. Things can be very complicated in business. It’s a real shame for Golovkin and his fans who would have wanted him to fight however the real travesty is the rematch being called off.

What contingency plan did they have in place?

A contingency plan is something that actually exists, it isn't a notion or intention. Negotiations should have been performed between all interested parties and contracts drawn up and signed.

You can't claim that Team GGG had a contingency plan in place if the other parties weren't notified and hadn't agreed terms, simply because Golovkin's people thought about "something".

Team GGG should have started the implementation of a contingency plan almost seven weeks ago. It doesn't take that long to arrange for a replacement opponent.

Have you not created an entire other thread on this subject which you seem to have abandoned because nobody agreed with your interpretation of events?

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 07:42 Perhaps they did have one with the other Mexican. Perhaps there was something with spike. Perhaps they were waiting to assess the situation in real time. Get real-time feedback from the public to see if there was still public interest in ggg fighting. It’s complicated and the information isn’t available to me. Do you have all the facts? Or do you merely have info released to the media?

Team GGG are currently in the midst of implementing a disaster recovery plan, which clearly isn't the same as a contingency plan.

I think you need to understand the distinction between those two type of plans prior to repeatedly using the word "perhaps".

When you understand the difference between those terms, then you'd inevitably find it categorically impossible to refute my beliefs.

I don't want to portray myself as being condescending in nature, but these are obviously basic concepts that you shouldn't even be debating.

Your argument/claims would hold more weight if you were in possession of the facts. Your opinions (which these are) would hold more weight if you were able to see all sides of the equation.

Unfortunately you haven’t convinced me that Golovin and co have behaved incompetently. I believe the situation is a difficult and complicated one and is very unfortunate. Perhaps it’s best Golovkin doesn’t fight on the date (which I’m sure has been factored) and this is maybe the best case scenario.

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:17 Your argument/claims would hold more weight if you were in possession of the facts. Your opinions (which these are) would hold more weight if you were able to see all sides of the equation.

Unfortunately you haven’t convinced me that Golovin and co have behaved incompetently. I believe the situation is a difficult and complicated one and is very unfortunate. Perhaps it’s best Golovkin doesn’t fight on the date (which I’m sure has been factored) and this is maybe the best case scenario.

Exactly. We had this debate on the other thread.

They've tried to arrange 4 bouts that we know about in the last 3 weeks. 2 were turned down by various bodies/authorities, Saunders said he would fight but in June and Osullivan turned it down as he wanted more time to prepare and possibly more money.

These are just the ones we know about.

ewenhay wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:20

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:17 Your argument/claims would hold more weight if you were in possession of the facts. Your opinions (which these are) would hold more weight if you were able to see all sides of the equation.

Unfortunately you haven’t convinced me that Golovin and co have behaved incompetently. I believe the situation is a difficult and complicated one and is very unfortunate. Perhaps it’s best Golovkin doesn’t fight on the date (which I’m sure has been factored) and this is maybe the best case scenario.

Exactly. We had this debate on the other thread.

They've tried to arrange 4 bouts that we know about in the last 3 weeks. 2 were turned down by various bodies/authorities, Saunders said he would fight but in June and Osullivan turned it down as he wanted more time to prepare and possibly more money.

These are just the ones we know about.

Yea mate. Just an unfortunate situation for Golovkin. Hopefully he can get a good fight soon but on 6 weeks notice, people need to get real.

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:17 Your argument/claims would hold more weight if you were in possession of the facts. Your opinions (which these are) would hold more weight if you were able to see all sides of the equation.

Unfortunately you haven’t convinced me that Golovin and co have behaved incompetently. I believe the situation is a difficult and complicated one and is very unfortunate. Perhaps it’s best Golovkin doesn’t fight on the date (which I’m sure has been factored) and this is maybe the best case scenario.

A contingency plan could not have possibly existed, because GGG doesn't have an opponent yet.

I listed tonnes of facts in this thread, which clearly proves that I've researched my opinion.

Have you bothered to understand the definition of a contingency plan?

Has anyone from Team GGG stated that they'd already agreed terms with a particular stand-by opponent (with negotiations having taken place between all interested parties and contracts drawn-up and signed), prior to Canelo's withdrawal and that the aforementioned fighter broke the terms of the agreement, hence the reason why Gennady doesn't have a replacement opponent lined-up yet?

ewenhay wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:20

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:17 Your argument/claims would hold more weight if you were in possession of the facts. Your opinions (which these are) would hold more weight if you were able to see all sides of the equation.

Unfortunately you haven’t convinced me that Golovin and co have behaved incompetently. I believe the situation is a difficult and complicated one and is very unfortunate. Perhaps it’s best Golovkin doesn’t fight on the date (which I’m sure has been factored) and this is maybe the best case scenario.

Exactly. We had this debate on the other thread.

They've tried to arrange 4 bouts that we know about in the last 3 weeks. 2 were turned down by various bodies/authorities, Saunders said he would fight but in June and Osullivan turned it down as he wanted more time to prepare and possibly more money.

These are just the ones we know about.

A disaster recovery plan is not the same as a contingency plan.

Please understand the definition between both terms prior to raising points that fail to support your own argument.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:28

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:17 Your argument/claims would hold more weight if you were in possession of the facts. Your opinions (which these are) would hold more weight if you were able to see all sides of the equation.

Unfortunately you haven’t convinced me that Golovin and co have behaved incompetently. I believe the situation is a difficult and complicated one and is very unfortunate. Perhaps it’s best Golovkin doesn’t fight on the date (which I’m sure has been factored) and this is maybe the best case scenario.

A contingency plan could not have possibly existed, because GGG doesn't have an opponent yet.

I listed tonnes of facts in this thread, which clearly proves that I've researched my opinion.

Have tou bothere to understand the definition of a contingency plan?

Has anyone from Team GGG stated that they'd already agreed terms with a particular stand-by opponent (with negotiations having taken place between all interested parties and contracts drawn-up and signed), prior to Canelo's withdrawal and that the aforementioned fighter broke the terms of the agreement, hence the reason why Gennady doesn't have a replacement opponent lined-up yet?

You haven’t stated any facts other than listing some timelines, none of which required any research on your part. You then applied some theories and opinions which aren't supported by the actions of the Golovkin camp who are clearly trying to source alternative opponents

ewenhay wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:31

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:28

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:17 Your argument/claims would hold more weight if you were in possession of the facts. Your opinions (which these are) would hold more weight if you were able to see all sides of the equation.

Unfortunately you haven’t convinced me that Golovin and co have behaved incompetently. I believe the situation is a difficult and complicated one and is very unfortunate. Perhaps it’s best Golovkin doesn’t fight on the date (which I’m sure has been factored) and this is maybe the best case scenario.

A contingency plan could not have possibly existed, because GGG doesn't have an opponent yet.

I listed tonnes of facts in this thread, which clearly proves that I've researched my opinion.

Have tou bothere to understand the definition of a contingency plan?

Has anyone from Team GGG stated that they'd already agreed terms with a particular stand-by opponent (with negotiations having taken place between all interested parties and contracts drawn-up and signed), prior to Canelo's withdrawal and that the aforementioned fighter broke the terms of the agreement, hence the reason why Gennady doesn't have a replacement opponent lined-up yet?

You haven’t stated any facts other than listing some timelines, none of which required any research on your part. You then applied some theories and opinions which aren't supported by the actions of the Golovkin camp who are clearly trying to source alternative opponents

Please explain to me the definition of a contingency plan?

Also please explain what a disaster recovery plan is?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:31

ewenhay wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:20

lazboy wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 08:17 Your argument/claims would hold more weight if you were in possession of the facts. Your opinions (which these are) would hold more weight if you were able to see all sides of the equation.

Unfortunately you haven’t convinced me that Golovin and co have behaved incompetently. I believe the situation is a difficult and complicated one and is very unfortunate. Perhaps it’s best Golovkin doesn’t fight on the date (which I’m sure has been factored) and this is maybe the best case scenario.

Exactly. We had this debate on the other thread.

They've tried to arrange 4 bouts that we know about in the last 3 weeks. 2 were turned down by various bodies/authorities, Saunders said he would fight but in June and Osullivan turned it down as he wanted more time to prepare and possibly more money.

These are just the ones we know about.

A disaster recovery plan is not the same as a contingency plan.

Please understand the definition between both terms prior to raising points that fail to support your own argument.

Which fighter, who wasn't already fighting, do you suggest they should have asked to be on standby just in case the fight fell through that would have been happy to do that and would have been acceptable to the sanctioning bodies? You're just not being realistic.

..I surely wouldn't mind seeing statistics showing how typical it is to have a contingency plan in a similar situation shall we say over the last 5-10 years..