Yeah can't disagree lol. I thought it was a shameful duck on Stevensons part when he went to Showtime. I just saw a few posters say they wont be checking into to see Stevenson fight a no name and I thought Fonfara deserves more respect than that. But you're right, stylistically Fonfara is in trouble.
Boxings ****ed, back in the day guys were hungry and knew they had to fight the best to get paydays. Nowadays, once they reach a certain status they pick who they want and make a killing, which allows them to continue earning. I mean realistically would you jeopardize five future fights at a mil each in order to fight your toughest competition, which, if you lost, would send you back to earning dick all? Probably not. Sadly it's how things are now.
I'm talking now. Not last year. cloud wasn't a bad defense. impressive in how he beat him too. I'm talking his next fight and maybe the one after, and maybe the one after that. Do you think any of them will be Kovalev? The guy is chasing him. Have you convinced yourself that Stevenson is playing this straight? Has he shown you any indication he wants to lock horns with Kovalev? What is with the never ending stream of excuses? Kovalev blasts Sillakh. Calls out Stevenson in his own backyard, in front of his own fans. Stevenson's response is to offer up Froch or Hopkins. The excuses ? The people don t speak english. He wants revenge for Pascal's losses. With the boxing world clamoring for the fight, the timetable devolves from spring 2014, to definitely summer to definitely fall 2014, to maybe 2015, to he has to fight BHop 1st, to "but wait they're on different networks". Those would be soft touches on Golovkin's resume. But it certainly seems that the guy is trying to make the best fights out there. Martinez, Quillin , etc. He 's not voicing that last desperate shriek as he retreats from his biggest challenge trying to convince everybody he 's not .
Why are you accusing me of making a "stream of excuses" when A) I want Kovalev-Stevenson to happen as much as anybody else, and B) all I'm doing is explaining Stevenson's, or Haymon's train of thought I should say. The Money Mayweather era ladies and gentlemen: all business, minimum risk, money over legacy. Froch, huge draw in the UK and even in QC. Hopkins, very well known in QC for beating Pascal, ups potential revenues. Kovalev fought on Stevenson's undercard - it's sad for us fans to say but this fight could indeed be even bigger down the road, potentially for all the marbles which hasn't been done in years. The point of Golovkin and Stevenson's mandatories was that you shouldn't use them as a barometer for quality of opponents. Which is what you did.
Stevenson ducked Kovalev by going to Showtime. However, he will regret that decision as Hopkins will be the first to hand him his first defeat, not Kovalev. He would have at least had some kind of chance against Kovalev, but Hopkins will make him look outright foolish in the ring.
I didn't bring Golovkin into it. Their cases aren't similar at all other than neither is fighting great opposition at the moment. I agree that being a mandatory doesn't speak as to the quality of the opponent. Good or bad. It can be either. Mandatories have also been known to be sidestepped, or negotiated away. I also didn't bring mandatories into it. And I don't mean to put the entirety of the excuse making on you. You just happen to be the guy I'm talking to now. But there does seem to be alot of excuses in the coming from Stevenson fans in general.
Well then you have me permission to use it on other sites which may allow signatures. This is my expressed written consent, as opposed to my implied verbal consent.