Originally posted by aboutfkntime
View Post
Ah fair enough... it's an argument you can have all day. You get a dude like Canelo or Floyd who brings enough to the table that he can and will fight who he pleases then the belts and defending mandatories become more of a hinderence than anything... for the rest of the boxing world who can't command $ multi mil purses regardless of who they fight the belts remain a significant selling point and income enhancer.
Maybe the IBF should do something like the WBC did and basically make Canelo a kinda sorta champion in perpetuity, but personally I think they should stick to their guns - they can't make Canelo do a damn thing and everyone knows it, but they can insist that if he wants their belt then he has to follow their rules, to me that shows more honesty and integrity even if they lose credibility by not having their title attached to the biggest fights.
Tough call though - I can see the problem from both sides - but I'm not a fan of everything revolving around the big money players and I am a fan of organisations following their own damn rules... the hells' the point of a sanctioning org if it doesn't enforce mandatories? Far as I'm concerned that's the only thing they ever were good for.
Besides, they ain't killed shit - what the hell does it matter to Canelo? He'll drop that strap in the bin without a second thought - it ain't gonna stand in the way of making whatever fight he pleases. Dude just won't be IBF champ any more.
What do you think the IBF should do though? Just ignore the dudes who've worked their way into mandatory slots when it's convenient... how is that fair?
Comment