Miguel Cotto vs. David Lemieux

Just read through the tone of this thread:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/cotto-vs-kirkland-possible-for-feb-25-hbo-ppv.577760/

 

Undoubtedly beating Kirkland is easier than beating Lemieux. The chin of the Lebanese-Armenian-French-Canuck is far sturdier than is the Mandingo Warrior's, for starters. He also probably has a better gas tank.

I'm not sure they're far apart in power, though?

And the bottom line here is that people are saying that skill doesn't matter; Lemieux is too big and powerful for Cotto and this is a dumb and dangerous idea on Cotto's part at his age. But my point is that earlier THIS SAME YEAR he was scheduled to face Kirkland and the majority of fans were deriding that PPV as being a mismatch (in Cotto's favor) and calling it a cherry-pick even though Kirkland is, same as Lemieux, a large natural middleweight that has competed at super middle (and both probably could stay there comfortably if they wanted to, although it robs both of them of the competitive edge of being able to outmuscle their opponents), and with vaunted massive one-punch KO power. I'm just weirded out by the double standard. If this is a suicide wish type match, then surely people should have been at least a little worried about Cotto heading in versus Kirkland. But they weren't.

 

Ahh, no way.

I can't see them pulling that bait and switch. They wouldn't dare.

Having a Cotto vs. Kirkland PPV in February was a whole different kettle of fish, for multiple reasons:

• February is smack in the middle of the slow season for boxing (from the xmas/nye holidays until early spring there's usually jackshit going on in the sport, that's when FNF used to have their offseason, historically there were very few PPV's, etc) so the standards for a PPV are lower because there isn't much to compete with.

• As of February, it was still only 1½ years removed from Kirkland vs. Canelo, so even though he was coming off a stoppage loss it was a loss to a peaking star of the sport on a very hot run (after Kirkland he beat Cotto, and then knocked out Khan and Liam Smith, and came into 2017 with a lot of hype and momentum and seeming all but invincible with a lot of buzz for a match with GGG brewing. His market value was high, and so a loss to him didn't seem that bad...and besides Cotto himself was coming off a 2015 loss to the very same guy) - now he is facing 2½ years of inactivity.

• Kirkland had very recently reunited with Ann Wolfe, which many felt raised his stock and his chances in a big fight considerably.

• It wasn't Cotto's farewell bout, so again lower standards applied. Fairly or not people expect a HOF boxer to go out with more of a bang than a whimper, which is why Mayweather copped so much flack for Berto when that was his "final" opponent.

• Cotto has gone twelve rounds and looked okay versus a reasonable contender. This puts him in a more advantageous position than someone that hasn't fought since being kayoed 31 months earlier. It was one thing when they had a similar amount of rust but now Cotto has shaken his and seems to still be able to mix at or at least near the heights of world class level, at least at 154lbs.

 

62-30-1

 

Stupid forum software.

 

Interesting. We have already seen allegations from CST that anybody giving Cotto a chance has a vicarious agenda of wishful thinking in wanting a Canelo leftover to be seen as superior to a GGG leftover. CST, your rebuttal?

Also, I really long for the day when boxing discussions are devoid of all this proxy bullshit and we can just treat each match on its own merit without dragging in a complex map of who's connected to whom and how everything can be used to enhance or denigrate someone ostensibly unrelated.

 

Niggling bit of semantics, but I would argue Margarito qualifies to your 2nd point. (then again, I rate Margarito lower than most)