Robbing fighters to force multiple rematches.

Who knows. What I do know is that both the Bradley and Horn fights happened when Manny's contract was nearing its end.

 

When the GGG / Canelo fight was first being talked about Oscar said that it could go to a trilogy. Golovkin lost 2 decisions he should have gotten, so maybe this is a thing.

 

Im so tired of rematches period.....

 

I do think there is some truth to it, by getting Horn that belt he was able to have 1st-last options on his next three fights. The last of which was to a former undisputed champion in Crawford. Arum/TR certainly made lemonade out of the situation.

 

They made lemonade out of lemons they got, not the lemons they bought.
It´s not like TR and Manny were done at that point.
Or at least they could have had someone from their own stable get that win.

 

Could you imagine other sports doing this rematch clause ****? Wimbledon final, Federer supposed to win gets beat by whoever. Ok, back next weekend....lol!

 

absolutely they do it

 

Bradley seems like a weird guy to set Pacquiao up with for a trilogy, at least from a risk vs. reward standpoint. Sure, having multiple wins over Bradley (an outstanding fighter) ends up being a bonus for Manny's legacy, but it's not like Bradley was a PPV star.

In fact, the first Bradley fight did ~900,000 ppv buys while the second did ~800,000 and the 3rd did 400,000. Those are all very successful, but I think the decline in sales shows that people saw through the idea that this was a competitive rivalry. Or maybe Manny's star was just in decline generally.

Trying to forced a trilogy with a robbery makes more sense for Canelo vs. GGG where both guys are legit stars.

 

You could add both the refs in the Robbie Peden Nate Campbell farce. That first fight the ref counted faster than a emeffer. Jack Reiss would be the opposite of him. The second Aussie ref became the second person in the ring against Nate Campbell. When Nate became champion of the world he cried: he been thru some stuff!

 

I've heard a lot of theories, but this is a new one - that Bob would conspire with the judges to rob his own fighter, his biggest fighter, to set up multiple rematches. That would be like DLH making a deal with the judges to give GGG a win he didn't deserve over his golden goose. That would be unfathomable to anyone on this board, but yet somehow Bob robbing Pacquiao is being taken seriously as a possibility in this topic?

The idea that any promoter would have backdoor deals with judges is a huge stretch. This kind of thing may have happened in the old days before technology when they could get away with it, but these days the fear of getting caught and exposed would dissuade any rational promoter from taking that kind of a risk - especially when the risk doesn't suit their interest.

 

i always felt that Bradley winning vs Pac was planned.. Gotta remember around this time Bradley has just signed a lucrative contract with TR and Pacquiao has fought every WW that TR had available and they simply were running out of opponents that could generate the PPV buys to pay Pac $25 million minimum. So what way to generate interest than to build up a new rivalry.

It backfired because although Bradley put up a great effort, the fight wasn’t viewed as close enough to justify another fight. Simply put Pac should have won 9-3 and moved on. This has to go down as one of the most unnecessary and least trilogies in history..