"Let me make it crystal clear -- Saturday's fight was not part of a two-fight deal," duBoef said. "There was a plan that we had talked with Team Pavlik about to rebuild his career. We all agreed. It started in May. Then there was supposed to be the fight with Cunningham and then a big fight in the fall. We said we would do our best to plan it. I guess that wasn't acceptable to Kelly in the last week. "We had discussed the terms of a Bute fight, but that had no bearing on this. Is it a matter of, is Kelly going to fight regularly? Does he want to get back on track and knock that rust off? Apparently not." http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/6827430/kelly-pavlik-withdraws-bout-vs-darryl-cunningham
No one's lying. You're getting confused by the semantics. The Bute deal was discussed as part of the plan, but Pavlik was not going to be trapped as a result of fighting on Saturday. There's no rational defense of his withdrawal for financial reasons.
No one. The 2 fights were not a joint negotiation. Each fight was handled separately. In fact, Top Rank was against Pavlik taking a tuneup while they were negotiating the deal with Bute.
Your momma's tongue serves as my toilet maiden, and she had lots of prior experience on her resume. She answers to the name, Toilet tongue and talks shet all the time. you'd b shocked to hear the shet coming otta her mouth. :yep
Maybe you are right... Underline parts: "Arum said that Pavlik agreed to fight Cunningham for a minimum of $50,000 and then, if he was victorious, face IBF super middleweight titleholder Lucian Bute for $1.35 million as part of a 60-40 split in favor of Bute and his promoter, Jean Bedard." ANd this: "I am very disappointed, Arum said. (Top Rank President) Todd (duBoef) negotiated this deal at least a couple of weeks ago. So it's not like Kelly didn't know far in advance what he was getting in the entire deal. Don't tell me it doesn't at least, look a bit like it was sealed?
He didnt say "for a fact Dirrell is......" he just stated his opinion if you disagree then thats YOUR OPINION its not a fact either. And you just seem to be trying to defend Pavlik's undefendable actions by coming up with some ******ed unheard of situation where two fights are part of the same contract.
:huh Wow man... wtf are you on? There is no way to defend Pavlik's action on this!!! ANd please, lets agree to disagree about the "fact" things...:tired
You're just not going to let that go, are ya? Alcoholics are just not rational ! They've got all the excuses.
What do you mean "who's lying"??? Pavlik only said it was a "business decision". He didnt say it was because it a two fight contract.atsch You're an idiot and that a FACT.:good
Was not talking about what Pavlik said. I see you understand very well. Now get off my back ****. :good