If I remember rightly, it was front page news in full colour, then debates all week on banning boxing! Was you ok that week, Jim? Not in a coma or anything?Counter-puncher wrote:He receded into a Proustian netherworld of onanism under his sheets for a weekmickey1975 wrote:The bite fight? What did you do? Stay in all week with telly off and phone unplugged?Tuan_Jim wrote:If I was confident I could avoid the result I would watch it the next day. In the pre-internet era I managed to avoid the Holyfield/Tyson 2 result a full week so I could watch the free repeat on Sky Sports. I doubt I could pull that off in this modern era of the spoiler minefield. I'll set the alarm.
Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 22981
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
-
Tuan_Jim
- Heavyweight

Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
I remember I was on work experience in some dead end admin operation in Leeds that week. I was avoiding all news, newspapers, and conversations. All week I played old VHS tapes rather than risk watching any telly. I refused to answer any calls on the house phone (it was pre mobile phones obviously). My dad was banned from making any reference to the fight. It wasn't that difficult at work because they were all grown ups and had literally no interest in engaging the spotty, gangly, creepy work experience mutant in conversation, but I did have a couple of scares. At one point I was stood at the printer doing some mind numbing photocopying when suddenly I heard the table behind me discussing "Mike Tyson" and I had to promptly leg it to the other side of the room (I'm not kidding). Another time I glimpsed an old newspaper lying around with some sort of mysterious close up of Holyfield and I gasped and quickly jerked my head away from it. On lunch breaks I walked the streets with pure tunnel vision, avoided all newspaper outlets. Even when I finally watched the broadcast I had the short preamble on mute and was trying not to look directly at the screen because Paul fcking Dempsey had this sombre expression on his face and was obviously determined to give away the result. I was vaguely aware that Tyson had done something ghastly, I didn't know if he'd killed Holyfield and was the heavyweight champion of the world again. Anyway I finally watched the fight and realised none of that effort had been worth it.mickey1975 wrote:If I remember rightly, it was front page news in full colour, then debates all week on banning boxing! Was you ok that week, Jim? Not in a coma or anything?Counter-puncher wrote:He receded into a Proustian netherworld of onanism under his sheets for a weekmickey1975 wrote: The bite fight? What did you do? Stay in all week with telly off and phone unplugged?
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 22981
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
That was a tough week, I'd have just paid the tenner.Tuan_Jim wrote:I remember I was on work experience in some dead end admin operation in Leeds that week. I was avoiding all news, newspapers, and conversations. All week I played old VHS tapes rather than risk watching any telly. I refused to answer any calls on the house phone (it was pre mobile phones obviously). My dad was banned from making any reference to the fight. It wasn't that difficult at work because they were all grown ups and had literally no interest in engaging the spotty, gangly, creepy work experience mutant in conversation, but I did have a couple of scares. At one point I was stood at the printer doing some mind numbing photocopying when suddenly I heard the table behind me discussing "Mike Tyson" and I had to promptly leg it to the other side of the room (I'm not kidding). Another time I glimpsed an old newspaper lying around with some sort of mysterious close up of Holyfield and I gasped and quickly jerked my head away from it. On lunch breaks I walked the streets with pure tunnel vision, avoided all newspaper outlets. Even when I finally watched the broadcast I had the short preamble on mute and was trying not to look directly at the screen because Paul fcking Dempsey had this sombre expression on his face and was obviously determined to give away the result. I was vaguely aware that Tyson had done something ghastly, I didn't know if he'd killed Holyfield and was the heavyweight champion of the world again. Anyway I finally watched the fight and realised none of that effort had been worth it.mickey1975 wrote:If I remember rightly, it was front page news in full colour, then debates all week on banning boxing! Was you ok that week, Jim? Not in a coma or anything?Counter-puncher wrote:
He receded into a Proustian netherworld of onanism under his sheets for a week
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
Tuan_Jim wrote:I remember I was on work experience in some dead end admin operation in Leeds that week. I was avoiding all news, newspapers, and conversations. All week I played old VHS tapes rather than risk watching any telly. I refused to answer any calls on the house phone (it was pre mobile phones obviously). My dad was banned from making any reference to the fight. It wasn't that difficult at work because they were all grown ups and had literally no interest in engaging the spotty, gangly, creepy work experience mutant in conversation, but I did have a couple of scares. At one point I was stood at the printer doing some mind numbing photocopying when suddenly I heard the table behind me discussing "Mike Tyson" and I had to promptly leg it to the other side of the room (I'm not kidding). Another time I glimpsed an old newspaper lying around with some sort of mysterious close up of Holyfield and I gasped and quickly jerked my head away from it. On lunch breaks I walked the streets with pure tunnel vision, avoided all newspaper outlets. Even when I finally watched the broadcast I had the short preamble on mute and was trying not to look directly at the screen because Paul fcking Dempsey had this sombre expression on his face and was obviously determined to give away the result. I was vaguely aware that Tyson had done something ghastly, I didn't know if he'd killed Holyfield and was the heavyweight champion of the world again. Anyway I finally watched the fight and realised none of that effort had been worth it.mickey1975 wrote:If I remember rightly, it was front page news in full colour, then debates all week on banning boxing! Was you ok that week, Jim? Not in a coma or anything?Counter-puncher wrote:
He receded into a Proustian netherworld of onanism under his sheets for a week
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
I've just had the same experienceTuan_Jim wrote:I remember I was on work experience in some dead end admin operation in Leeds that week. I was avoiding all news, newspapers, and conversations. All week I played old VHS tapes rather than risk watching any telly. I refused to answer any calls on the house phone (it was pre mobile phones obviously). My dad was banned from making any reference to the fight. It wasn't that difficult at work because they were all grown ups and had literally no interest in engaging the spotty, gangly, creepy work experience mutant in conversation, but I did have a couple of scares. At one point I was stood at the printer doing some mind numbing photocopying when suddenly I heard the table behind me discussing "Mike Tyson" and I had to promptly leg it to the other side of the room (I'm not kidding). Another time I glimpsed an old newspaper lying around with some sort of mysterious close up of Holyfield and I gasped and quickly jerked my head away from it. On lunch breaks I walked the streets with pure tunnel vision, avoided all newspaper outlets. Even when I finally watched the broadcast I had the short preamble on mute and was trying not to look directly at the screen because Paul fcking Dempsey had this sombre expression on his face and was obviously determined to give away the result. I was vaguely aware that Tyson had done something ghastly, I didn't know if he'd killed Holyfield and was the heavyweight champion of the world again. Anyway I finally watched the fight and realised none of that effort had been worth it.mickey1975 wrote:If I remember rightly, it was front page news in full colour, then debates all week on banning boxing! Was you ok that week, Jim? Not in a coma or anything?Counter-puncher wrote:
He receded into a Proustian netherworld of onanism under his sheets for a week
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45213
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
Yeah canelo looks pretty shredded, id imagine he'll have a fairly significant weight advantage. Golovkin looks like he made weight pretty easy and wont put on that much.KiwiRider wrote:Canelo is going to swell up huge.
Look at him--
Both fighters looking in cracking shape
Are they doing in ring weights for this?
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45213
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
Just dont know whether to stay up or not. Im recording it, but its just not the same watching it when you know the result.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 16846
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
WHAT?!?!?!?!? Of course you're staying up. GGG is making history at 5am. You need to be up man.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Just dont know whether to stay up or not
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
Simply can't wait for this
GGG is about to box the performance of his life and show ODLH and Canelo why thinking they've cotch him at the right time is a big mistake
GGG is about to box the performance of his life and show ODLH and Canelo why thinking they've cotch him at the right time is a big mistake
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
Can anyone remember a bigger disparity in fighters' picks compared to betting odds and fan/media picks? Fans and media seem to be 50/50, maybe 60/40 for GGG, which is roughly how the bookies have it, but from what I've seen about 70%+ of fighters seem to be going with Canelo.
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
stolen from ossyrules's post....Sky 'experts' overwhelmingly favourng Canelo! Seems strange that it would be THAT one-sided (remnds me of that 23-0 poll for Porter over Brook). Nelson also says that Canelo showed impressive craft and power against Floyd
Froch - canelo
Brook - canelo
Nelson - canelo
Moore - canelo
Frampton - canelo
Coldwell - canelo
Joshua - canelo
Rhodes - canelo
Yafai - GGG
if this were a Sky broadcast i'd be expecting a one-sided commentary job too
Froch - canelo
Brook - canelo
Nelson - canelo
Moore - canelo
Frampton - canelo
Coldwell - canelo
Joshua - canelo
Rhodes - canelo
Yafai - GGG
if this were a Sky broadcast i'd be expecting a one-sided commentary job too
-
Tuan_Jim
- Heavyweight

Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
Everyone can see that El Freckles does everything better than Golovkin, and is in his prime whereas GGG is 35. The world has swung around to Tuan Jim's way of thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if the Kazakh is stretched on his back by the sixth round. All hail the Ginger Man, as JP Donleavy would have said.crusader wrote:stolen from ossyrules's post....Sky 'experts' overwhelmingly favourng Canelo! Seems strange that it would be THAT one-sided (remnds me of that 23-0 poll for Porter over Brook). Nelson also says that Canelo showed impressive craft and power against Floyd![]()
Froch - canelo
Brook - canelo
Nelson - canelo
Moore - canelo
Frampton - canelo
Coldwell - canelo
Joshua - canelo
Rhodes - canelo
Yafai - GGG
if this were a Sky broadcast i'd be expecting a one-sided commentary job too
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
I think GGG jabs significantly better, hits harder, has more stamina, and a higher workrate. His durability is as good or better than Canelo's.
Canelo also has cement feet and moves around the ring at about half the speed as Jacobs and Brook do.
Canelo also has cement feet and moves around the ring at about half the speed as Jacobs and Brook do.
Last edited by crusader on 16 Sep 2017, 13:59, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
This.crusader wrote:I think GGG jabs significantly better, hits harder, has more stamina, and a higher workrate. Canelo also has cement feet and moves around the ring at about half the speed as Jacobs does.
-
Tuan_Jim
- Heavyweight

Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
He certainly punches harder, but fights aren't won on who punches the hardest. That mongol will drive forward and feast on pasty white Mexican fists. Bet now, while you still can!crusader wrote:I think GGG jabs significantly better, hits harder, has more stamina, and a higher workrate. His durability is as good or better than Canelo's.
Canelo also has cement feet and moves around the ring at about half the speed as Jacobs does.
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
Based on their fights to this point, I can't see how Canelo has an advantage in any of those areas (jab, power, stamina, workrate, movement, durability). He's also about 2 inches shorter from what I've seen, and has almost entirely faced size bullied JMWs and blown up WWs.
I'm going for him to win a decision, but I would be pretty surprised if it's some one-sided beat down; I think his boxing skill has been overstated for this fight and I don't think he'll be good or busy enough to make it uncompetitive.
I'm going for him to win a decision, but I would be pretty surprised if it's some one-sided beat down; I think his boxing skill has been overstated for this fight and I don't think he'll be good or busy enough to make it uncompetitive.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
The Lemieux fight wasn't decided on 'who punches hardest'. Jab and small adjustments to the feet, distancing, pure ring generalship. GGG much better at those elements than those who characterise him as a pure puncher give him credit for.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
It amazes me that people talk of Canelos power, as though he has ever proved it against a competent boxer anywhere near 160lbs, he hasn't done it against that many NATURAL 154lbers. He has never knocked out a 160lb man, so it amazes me his power gets treated as anything more than an unproven commodity at 160lbs. Sure I guess he could prove he's a devastating puncher against GGG but that's hardly a given IMOcrusader wrote:Based on their fights to this point, I can't see how Canelo has an advantage in any of those areas (jab, power, stamina, workrate, movement, durability). He's also about 2 inches shorter from what I've seen, and has almost entirely faced size bullied JMWs and blown up WWs.
I'm going for him to win a decision, but I would be pretty surprised if it's some one-sided beat down; I think his boxing skill has been overstated for this fight and I don't think he'll be good or busy enough to make it uncompetitive.
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
Well he did KTFO Khan and Kirkland, two of the most durable fighters in boxing!
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
History?keithmoonhangover wrote:WHAT?!?!?!?!? Of course you're staying up. GGG is making history at 5am. You need to be up man.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Just dont know whether to stay up or not
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
And Josesito Lopezcrusader wrote:Well he did KTFO Khan and Kirkland, two of the most durable fighters in boxing!
Seems to me anyone he fought above 147lbs, whom he has actually managed to knock out, was either undersized/ chinny or both, or had such demonstrably woeful defence as to make the phrase 'walking punch ah' seem mild.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 16846
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
Today is history tomorrow.Covfefe wrote:History?keithmoonhangover wrote:WHAT?!?!?!?!? Of course you're staying up. GGG is making history at 5am. You need to be up man.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Just dont know whether to stay up or not
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
Back to tactics; if 3G falls in love with single shots tonight it is a recipe for a decision loss.
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
True.
To reduce GGG's output like that I think you either have to be a fast and effective mover or be landing the type of powerful shots that get his respect and make him hesitant. Jacobs had power and movement, but I think for Canelo the 'respect' option is the only realistic avenue.
To reduce GGG's output like that I think you either have to be a fast and effective mover or be landing the type of powerful shots that get his respect and make him hesitant. Jacobs had power and movement, but I think for Canelo the 'respect' option is the only realistic avenue.
Re: Golovkin v Alvarez tactics
I think he has to mix pushing him back with movement and traps but you are correct, without early respect GingerHead is done.crusader wrote:True.
To reduce GGG's output like that I think you either have to be a fast and effective mover or be landing the type of powerful shots that get his respect and make him hesitant. Jacobs had power and movement, but I think for Canelo the 'respect' option is the only realistic avenue.
