Why would floyd not agree to Alvarez in September?

Respect to you for countering properly - if this were a 1 off then fine, but come on. Ortiz? Cotto was good on paper because it's Cotto but people who know boxing know Cotto was shot after the Pacquiao beating and he's fortunate Marg couldn't see in their second fight.

Just look at his resume, at 147 since 2006 - his only legitimately decent opponent was Judah who was champion at the time and Floyd was coming up so can't criticise that but the rest?...you can't get away from the fights he hasn't had in a division he's supposed to rule.

It's not a 1 off - people need to stop buying his fights until he gives fans what they want.

 

You need a new definition of shot.

You should really watch Cotto and look at the improvements in his game over the past couple of years.

Surprised someone would even bring that bout up. Judah lost to Baldomir before the Mayweather bout, and hadn't Mayweather already agreed to box Judah before that Baldomir bout?

 

Read before you post - I wasn't criticising the Judah fight, it was his first title at 147 and Judah still held the IBF...I don't criticise for the sake of it. Judah I give him a pass on because though he was coming off a loss, he still held a title and Floyd hadn't won a title at 147 at that point.

The rest after Judah was pure cherry pick

As for Cotto, he is slower and scared to get into a war. Improving your technique slightly means nothing if you don't have it in your head, heart and body - please do not join the bandwagon saying Cotto was a legit threat, the guy didn't throw a punch until round 7 - if he was a threat then Floyd wouldn't duck Canelo

 

The point I'm making is a point I made earlier in the thread. Boxing has it's unknowns, you should not agree to a bout in advance.

You will let him off because he beat Judah allowing him to pick up his first title at 147lbs, but ignore he lost a bout in an upset just before that? Then call a Hatton or a Mosley a pure cherry pick...how does that even make sense?

 

Don't join the bandwagon? Judging by your join date, you wasn't even around to view my debates about the bout? :think

You haven't seen the bout, this is the end of the debate.

 

I ignore it because Floyd never cared about resumes - a guy just comes up in weight I cut him slack, I'm not saying it was a huge fight and not a calculated pick, I'm saying I let it go because it's harder to criticise as he was still a novice at 147 fighting a legit 147 fighter - only his fans buy in to the "I fight guys at the top" bull so I don't go by that criteria.

Once established at 147 there were huge fights he could have made. Mosley was years too late - Hatton came up in weight to fight Mayweather who was much bigger...instead of cementing his legacy he chose carefully and then retired when ducking became difficult

 

Exactly!!! This is about Canelo wanting the Guarantee if HE LOSES.

 

That means Floyd will have to fight him even if he loses to Trout. He's trying to secure another title shot even if he loses. That sort of **** is unheard off.

 

Floyd wants assurances he is going to win before he signs to fight someone. Although I do think Canelo is demanding too much considering he is not at all close to the fighter Floyd has been. I think Canelo should have fought on the undercard for the exposure. Even if he didn't get to fight Floyd in Sept, he would have had bigger and bigger fights.

 

he's fought there 2 times his whole friggin career....you sayin Floyd is a legit 154lber?:blood He only moved up each time for money and it just so happens both times it was the number 1 guy.

Did Pac have an obligation to defend his? I bet you didnt expect him to defend that tittle did you? Or are you going to pick and chose now? I bet you still recognize his many tittles in many divisions too, no?

there is a double standard...Floyd gets shyt for facing Hatton at 147..when hatton won a damn tittle at 147. And if the case is hatton didnt look good well neither has Floyd at 154.

 

Once again:

Clause 1: Option to renege if either fighter loses
Clause 2: Canelo Alvarez must win by unanimous decision or within the distance
Clause 3: ....

Here's the deal also - Mayweather verbally AGREED to all this already and backed out when it came to sign - in other words he lied and never had intention of fighting Canelo

The deal was BOTH fighters had to win for it to get made - Floyd fans, stop spinning this endlessly to try and defend your coward fighter

 

Highlighted. Link? Or are you just going off Schaefer's words?

“If the Canelo fight versus presents itself or the Trout fight presents itself then we will make it happen.”

Like I have been saying, there is no need for a contract to be signed for this bout with immediate effect. Mayweather hasn't fought twice in the same calendar year since 2007, he may do this year, but with him being unbelievably predictable, why would he sign a contract? Or more so, why would you expect him to sign one?

You are calling a professional boxer a coward, your opinion is irrelevant. I won't reply again. :good