So now Canelo has to deal with his WBC mandatory challenger-Jermall Charlo ? Will Canelo get pampered by WBC ?

[apollo creed]

Such a surface-level non-intelligent, non-critical post.

EO has a short memory. He's probably an old man. But let me remind this old man these:

Before Golovkin got the World Boxing Association Super World Middleweight Title he fought at that time these top challengers like : Kassim Ouma, Grzegorz Proksa(no. 10 boxrec), Matthew Macklin(no. 6 boxrec), Curtis Stevens(no. 10 boxrec) and finally Daniel Geale(no. 4 boxrec).

It wasn't GGG's fault that champions of that time like Sturm, Martinez, Quillin and Cotto avoided him like plague and acted like GGG didn't exist at 160 lbs.

Not just that, his opponents actually showed up in the ring non-injured and ready to fight. Heiland was a freaking cripple.

Yup. Jermall should start with guys like Maciej Sulecki, Murray, Arias then challenge real champions.

[Enlightened-One]

Jermall has a poor resume at mw. He should fight Jacobs/Derevyanchenko winner to prove himself at mw.

Canelo vs GGG III on Cinco de Mayo. Until then Canelo vs Lemieux and GGG vs Murata in December.

Who did GGG defeat to earn the right to engage in his very first world title bout at 160lbs?

Is it reasonable to assume that the Jermall Charlo is currently more qualified to challenge for a world title than the 2010 version of Gennady Golovkin (who had only competed in 18 pro bouts)?

Should Jermall Charlo be deemed as being a better qualified title challenger than the likes of Lajuan Simon, Kassim Ouma and Nobuhiro Ishida who all fought GGG for his WBA championship, despite possessing losing records?

If Canelo elects to face Lemieux or GGG during his next outing, he’ll probably get stripped of one or more of his world titles. And if Mauricio Sulaiman sticks by his word, Jermall Charlo will probably face Martin Murray or Willie Monroe Jr. for the vacant WBC crown.

I strongly suspect that the Brit will be paid to step aside in order to allow two PBC stablemates to challenge for the WBC’s 160lbs title, because it’s been rumoured that Charlo was already planning to face Monroe Jr. during his next outing anyway.

Such a surface-level non-intelligent, non-critical post.

Are the questions I've posed difficult to answer?

They only require a simple "yes" or "no" type response.

[Enlightened-One]

Such a surface-level non-intelligent, non-critical post.

EO has a short memory. He's probably an old man. But let me remind this old man these:

Before Golovkin got the World Boxing Association Super World Middleweight Title he fought at that time these top challengers like : Kassim Ouma, Grzegorz Proksa(no. 10 boxrec), Matthew Macklin(no. 6 boxrec), Curtis Stevens(no. 10 boxrec) and finally Daniel Geale(no. 4 boxrec).

It wasn't GGG's fault that champions of that time like Sturm, Martinez, Quillin and Cotto avoided him like plague and acted like GGG didn't exist at 160 lbs.

Not just that, his opponents actually showed up in the ring non-injured and ready to fight. Heiland was a freaking cripple.

Everything I stated was fact. You don't have to remind me of a damn thing since not one single word you wrote directly addressed any of my claims.

You're just using diversionary debating tactics rather than conceding blatantly obvious real-world facts that every single human being that frequents this forum recognises as the objective truth of reality!

I asked rather simple questions but you've demonstrated your own inability to answer them!

And why the fûck are you mentioning BoxRec rankings anyway, they recently rated Jeff Horn amongst the pound-for-pound elite (he was recently ranked 9th)? FFS!

And did you really describe Kassim Ouma as a top middleweight title challenger? Really!!!

The fûckèr was a light middleweight that had tasted defeat five fûckîng times in the seven bouts he'd engaged in preceding his bout against GGG!

What a fûckîng morôn you are!!! Are you really stupid enough to argue against any of the points I've just raised in this post? I really hope you are!

[ewenhay]

Do you really have to sneer, mock and challenge people who disagree with your interpretation of 'facts'? You're making a habit of it these days and seem to draw an inordinate amount of pleasure from it.

You've got a poor attitude.

[ewenhay]

You disagree with me? (laughing emojis)

How dare you. I've got lots of 'facts' don't you know? (patronising emojis)

I dare you to challenge me, this will be fun (sneering emoji)

Makes me sound like a complete prick doesn't it?

[lazboy]

You disagree with me? (laughing emojis)

How dare you. I've got lots of 'facts' don't you know? (patronising emojis)

I dare you to challenge me, this will be fun (sneering emoji)

Makes me sound like a complete prick doesn't it?

Clearly he’s not well.

[Enlightened-One]

Do you really have to sneer, mock and challenge people who disagree with your interpretation of 'facts'? You're making a habit of it these days and seem to draw an inordinate amount of pleasure from it.

You've got a poor attitude.

I am allowed to retaliate if I receive an unprovoked attack.

How would you react in real life under precisely the same circumstances?

Establish both sides of the proverbial story rather than pass judgement in the future, otherwise you're defending trolls that are too stupid to be effective at it!

In terms of my so-called "interpretation of the facts", do you disagree with any of my descriptions of the real-world events or situations I've quoted?

[ewenhay]

Do you really have to sneer, mock and challenge people who disagree with your interpretation of 'facts'? You're making a habit of it these days and seem to draw an inordinate amount of pleasure from it.

You've got a poor attitude.

I am allowed to retaliate if I receive an unprovoked attack.

How would you react in real life under precisely the same circumstances?

Establish both sides of the proverbial story rather than pass judgement in the future, otherwise you're defending trolls that are too stupid to be effective at it!

In terms of my so-called "interpretation of the facts", do you disagree with any of my descriptions of the real-world events or situations I've quoted?

I'd hardly describe it as an unprovoked attack. It's an Internet forum, debate and sharing of opinions and viewpoints is the order of the day.

I think you stray too far with your 'facts'. Not everything people say in the media, including social, is a fact.

[Enlightened-One]

I'd hardly describe it as an unprovoked attack. It's an Internet forum, debate and sharing of opinions and viewpoints is the order of the day.

If someone challenges my opinions, then fair enough - I have no problem with that.

However, when someone dishes out a personal insult or has a proven track record of doing so over the course of multiple posts, then I'll inevitably retaliate at some point, regardless of whether this offends your sensitive nature or not.

You shouldn’t criticise people without making any effort whatsoever to understand whether or not they’ve been provoked into reacting aggressively.

[5burowz]

We don't really know how Jermall will react to being hit by Canelo.

Of course, Canelo doesn't have good feet and isn't as athletic as Jermall.

It's an interesting fight. Kind of a pick 'em for me at this point.

[jamamb]

We don't really know how Jermall will react to being hit by Canelo.

Of course, Canelo doesn't have good feet and isn't as athletic as Jermall.

It's an interesting fight. Kind of a pick 'em for me at this point.

canelos hands are every bit as fast and hes about as crisp a puncher as it gets, esp. with combos...charlo can be a bit more sloppy by comparision buts seemingly a very gifted fighter himself, longer and more fluid then ggg, and has been showing some impressive power with good jmws and 3rd tier mws. will it carry up to top level mws?

mall needs to make that step up to be that big name at 160, all the other big mws are doing or have done it. he could prove to be the man, but jumping up levels can change a lot

mw much better and deeper now then a few years ago, exciting times ahead hopefully

[ewenhay]

I'd hardly describe it as an unprovoked attack. It's an Internet forum, debate and sharing of opinions and viewpoints is the order of the day.

If someone challenges my opinions, then fair enough - I have no problem with that.

However, when someone dishes out a personal insult or has a proven track record of doing so over the course of multiple posts, then I'll inevitably retaliate at some point, regardless of whether this offends your sensitive nature or not.

You shouldn’t criticise people without making any effort whatsoever to understand whether or not they’ve been provoked into reacting aggressively.

Why would you want to react aggressively on a boxing forum?

Also, you can't expect everyone to be up to date with any long running feuds you might be engaging in. It's an Internet forum, not immediate family

[gilgamesh]

I'd be kinda surprised if he actually fought Jermall Charlo next. Mandatory or not.

[Counter-puncher]

You disagree with me? (laughing emojis)

How dare you. I've got lots of 'facts' don't you know? (patronising emojis)

I dare you to challenge me, this will be fun (sneering emoji)

Makes me sound like a complete prick doesn't it?

[Enlightened-One]

Also, you can't expect everyone to be up to date with any long running feuds you might be engaging in. It's an Internet forum, not immediate family

So, you’re essentially saying that it’s perfectly fine for you to adamantly and ignorantly support the actions of trolls and you are also willing to lash out at anyone that retaliates against them, regardless the situation, since you don’t really care about the events that have transpired or whether you’ve been personally provoked or not?

Double-standards or what? FFS!

[Counter-puncher]

Also, you can't expect everyone to be up to date with any long running feuds you might be engaging in. It's an Internet forum, not immediate family

So, you’re essentially saying that it’s perfectly fine for you to adamantly and ignorantly support the actions of trolls and you are also willing to lash out at anyone that retaliates against them, regardless the situation, since you don’t really care about the events that have transpired or whether you’ve been personally provoked or not?

Double-standards or what? FFS!

You disagree with me? (laughing emojis)

How dare you. I've got lots of 'facts' don't you know? (patronising emojis)

I dare you to challenge me, this will be fun (sneering emoji)

Makes me sound like a complete prick doesn't it?

he's already summed you up, 'kid'.

[Enlightened-One]

he's already summed you up, 'kid'.

Look “kid”, he was commenting on an obnoxious post I wrote, which was intentionally articulated that way, as I was retaliating against a troll. There was context for those words I wrote “kid”, but it seems that you were both too ignorant to understand that.

[Counter-puncher]

he's already summed you up, 'kid'.

Look “kid”, he was commenting on an obnoxious post I wrote, which was intentionally articulated that way, as I was retaliating against a troll. There was context for those words I wrote “kid”, but it seems that you were both too ignorant to understand that.

you get a lot of people having a go at you, don't you, EO? I'm sure, as self-aware and completely reasonable and balanced as you are, I'm sure you've considered why? I mean, there are maybe two basic possibilities, I guess:

(1) it's always them
(2) it's always you

and the range of possibilities would generally end up with it sometimes being them, and sometimes being you.

how often do you consider it might be (2), EO? I mean, the law of averages suggests, if 50 people a week call you a dick on an internet forum, all 50 of them can't be wrong, right? I mean, do you ever- (NOTE: this is a rhetorical question, I am positive you consider nothing of the kind, either because you're 'constitutionally-unable' to do so or your attitude is so invested in your self-perceived essential rightness, that considering otherwise would cause some kind of horrific breakdown)- do you ever consider that yours is not the only way of looking at a situation?

(await long post with 'ah but my posts are always factual', complete with the usual EO rhetorical display of over-used and/or redundant adjectives, emoticons, and generally abnormal self-absorption/intersocial communication disorder)

[Enlightened-One]

he's already summed you up, 'kid'.

Look “kid”, he was commenting on an obnoxious post I wrote, which was intentionally articulated that way, as I was retaliating against a troll. There was context for those words I wrote “kid”, but it seems that you were both too ignorant to understand that.

you get a lot of people having a go at you, don't you, EO? I'm sure, as self-aware and completely reasonable and balanced as you are, I'm sure you've considered why? I mean, there are maybe two basic possibilities, I guess:

(1) it's always them
(2) it's always you

and the range of possibilities would generally end up with it sometimes being them, and sometimes being you.

how often do you consider it might be (2), EO? I mean, the law of averages suggests, if 50 people a week call you a dick on an internet forum, all 50 of them can't be wrong, right? I mean, do you ever- (NOTE: this is a rhetorical question, I am positive you consider nothing of the kind, either because you're 'constitutionally-unable' to do so or your attitude is so invested in your self-perceived essential rightness, that considering otherwise would cause some kind of horrific breakdown)- do you ever consider that yours is not the only way of looking at a situation?

(await long post with 'ah but my posts are always factual', complete with the usual EO rhetorical display of over-used and/or redundant adjectives, emoticons, and generally abnormal self-absorption/intersocial communication disorder)

My flaw is that I’m pedantic, because I studiously and obsessively follow the sport of boxing and often feel compelled to correct those that convey false claims.

However, it’s not my fault that certain individuals are particularly sensitive in nature and often become hideously offended or triggered by facts. They have deeply emotional and over-the-top reactions to those that are simply articulating the truth.

It’s really strange that when people’s beliefs have been totally refuted, they flatly-refuse to revise their opinions and instead embrace confirmation bias type behaviour.

As the old saying goes “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts” and I’m not responsible for the behaviour of those that have to resort to ad hominem attacks, such as your good self, due to their inability to intelligently defend their own stance.

[lazboy]

(await long post with 'ah but my posts are always factual', complete with the usual EO rhetorical display of over-used and/or redundant adjectives, emoticons, and generally abnormal self-absorption/intersocial communication disorder)

You can set a clock to it.

[Counter-puncher]

(await long post with 'ah but my posts are always factual', complete with the usual EO rhetorical display of over-used and/or redundant adjectives, emoticons, and generally abnormal self-absorption/intersocial communication disorder)

You can set a clock to it.

I imagine a cuckoo clock would have greater variety and something more closely approximating a human personality, too.

[lazboy]

(await long post with 'ah but my posts are always factual', complete with the usual EO rhetorical display of over-used and/or redundant adjectives, emoticons, and generally abnormal self-absorption/intersocial communication disorder)

You can set a clock to it.

I imagine a cuckoo clock would have greater variety and something more closely approximating a human personality, too.

[apollo creed]

The only factual fact that I know is EO (empty one) is an old fart moron.

[Cent0089]

Damn imagine Alvarez vs Charlo at 15th december. That would be one entertaining fight. Unfortunately that b"tch De la Hoya will probably ruin that.

https://www.boxingnews24.com/2018/09/ch ... -15-fight/

He mentioned Charlo here but it is probably just fake talks :(

[boxing_rocks]

If Canelo fights on Dec 15th, it will be against Lemieux.