do you rate ggg's draw/loss to canelo higher now?

[margaret thatcher]

i had ggg winning first fight , losing second to canelo

i think, no matter who we thought won, we can all agree that golovkin was ultra competitive with canelo

since then, canelo has handily run through smw and even up at 175. the much bigger callum smith hardly won a round. bjs had his face broken. kovalev was left totally folded out, etc.

does it make you rate ggg's perfomrances higher now? canelo is looking like a great fighter. and is mw, with ggg/andrade/charlo.....where the most talent is for canelo?

[Cent0089]

Golovkin was freakingly impressive in first fight, that was hell of a performance. He was very good in rematch too, but Canelo won that. What matter to me as a fan, it were 2 very entertaining fights, boxing at his best. Too bad Golovkin was avoided by Sturm, Martinez and Quillin years ago. He should have those guys in his resume. I am still thinking he should try to get at least one big win before retiring. Maybe Andrade ?

[Enlightened-One]

do you rate ggg's draw/loss to canelo higher now?

Nope. And here's the reason why...

When Canelo faced GGG 3½ years ago, the Mexican was making the jump to being a fully-fledged middleweight, after typically weighing 155lbs or less.

He dared to be great by facing a bigger man that was also considered as true top-ten pound-for-pounder. And the outcome was controversial.

However, Canelo had only just turned 27 years of age and hadn’t reached his physical or pugilistic peak yet. He’s improved enormously since then and is now in his prime.

The Mexican has fully-matured, is bigger, stronger, more experienced and possesses a better skill set.

Simply put, GGG faced a weaker version of Canelo. And I’m not being intentionally derogatory about that either. In my mind, it’s a statement of fact that no one could refute.

The one thing that disappoints me about GGG is his refusal to take risks against world-rated opposition that are bigger than himself. He isn't brave enough to do what Canelo did during 2017.

He’s spent his entire career boasting about his ability to beat the best in heavier weight classes, but made no effort whatsoever to prove it. And that’s something that even the most fervent die-hard GGG fan couldn’t dispute.

In my mind, the first Canelo bout was Golovkin’s last hurrah. That was his career defining moment. The final time he looked like a beast.

Since then, he lost the rematch against Alvarez, was beaten by Derevyanchenko and the Martirosyan, Rolls and Szeremeta bouts were appalling mismatches.

GGG is now risk averse and refuses to face opposition more threatening than Jaime Munguia (likely his next opponent), because he’s trying to avoid tasting defeat, before he inevitably cashes out with one final lottery-winning Canelo mega payday.

[DrDuke]

No, I rate them the same.

Golovkin won the first one, the second one was either-way going.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Canelo has improved

He is more accurate with power shots and his power is better at 168

His defense has always been good but has also improved

What GGG was able to do that no other fighter has was land his jab on canelo.

[vostok]

do you rate ggg's draw/loss to canelo higher now?

Simply put, GGG faced a weaker version of Canelo. And I’m not being intentionally derogatory about that either. In my mind, it’s a statement of fact that no one could refute.

With the same logic, Canelo faced a weaker version of GGG too.. 160 vs. 160, so what?
Besides; GGG was not precisely at his prime either. Besides, that was a "Mexican Beef" version of Canelo that was built like a tank, afterwards..

And none of them was enough! Judges were(!)
Canelo simply, clearly lost the first match. Arguably lost the second. Unofficialy of course..

So if your case depends on "prime Canelo excuse", you have to equalize them both in that department. Forwards or backwards..

The actual equation is already there: Regarding first and the second clashes as a whole or respectively, which one of them was in "relatively" better condition, overall? ..Me says: Canelo!

[emallini]

I think GGG performance in the 2nd fight is hugely underrated. He boxed a brilliant fight.

[Counter-puncher]

I think GGG performance in the 2nd fight is hugely underrated.

He boxed a brilliant fight.

I think they both did. Absolutely a fight where both men’s legacies were improved. The level of boxing was such that only two ATG’s could possibly be fighting.

[gilgamesh]

I rate them as I always did. The defining wins of Golovkin's career that he was robbed of.

[Ruthless-RKO]

I think GGG performance in the 2nd fight is hugely underrated. He boxed a brilliant fight.

I had the second fight a wider win for GGG than the first. Just because Canelo did a better job in himself in the 2nd bout, like you said, GGG’s performance goes a bit unnoticed.

[gregregegg]

It’s messed up how people including myself forget robberies. If you remember it’s a robbery you should credit the loser more than the winner, I personally had GGG winning fight one and an even fight 2 but am ok with canelo winning that.

Crazy how we let judges define people careers even if we saw it and knew it was wrong. I often find myself crediting canelo for 1-0-1 vs GGG even though how I saw it is 0-1-1. Hard to have the memory to ignore all roberies easier just to read the record books, but important ones like GGG vs canelo 1 shouldn’t be forgotten when evaluating career.

[margaret thatcher]

It’s messed up how people including myself forget robberies. If you remember it’s a robbery you should credit the loser more than the winner, I personally had GGG winning fight one and an even fight 2 but am ok with canelo winning that.

Crazy how we let judges define people careers even if we saw it and knew it was wrong. I often find myself crediting canelo for 1-0-1 vs GGG even though how I saw it is 0-1-1. Hard to have the memory to ignore all roberies easier just to read the record books, but important ones like GGG vs canelo 1 shouldn’t be forgotten when evaluating career.

ya great points, it's something ive noticed a lot

ppl will also acknowledge that a fighter won by robbery, but then move them up the ranks over the person who got robbed

basically, over 2 fights ggg fought basically even terms with canelo, and canelo is proving to be a bit of a great --better than i thought he'd be---so it makes me rate ggg a bit higher too even setting aisde the official results and just looking at how competitive geej was with him

[Enlightened-One]

do you rate ggg's draw/loss to canelo higher now?

Simply put, GGG faced a weaker version of Canelo. And I’m not being intentionally derogatory about that either. In my mind, it’s a statement of fact that no one could refute.

With the same logic, Canelo faced a weaker version of GGG too.. 160 vs. 160, so what?

I don't understand the point you're making here.

Golovkin had spent his entire professional career at 160lbs and also competed at 165lbs during his time as an amateur.

In stark contrast, for the first fight, Canelo was making the jump to competing as a fully-fledged middleweight, after typically weighing 155lbs or less for the previous twelve years of his time competing as a pro.

In 2017, Golovkin was facing a naturally smaller man.

Besides; GGG was not precisely at his prime either.

For the first Canelo fight, Golovkin was 35 years of age (about the same age as some of today's top fighters: Deontay Wilder, Artur Beterbiev, Mairis Briedis, Oleksandr Usyk etc.), had an 89% knockout ratio and his career was at his peak, because (on a pound-for-pound basis) he was considered the second best fighter on the planet (behind Andre Ward and ahead of the then undisputed champ, Terence Crawford).

No one considered GGG past-his-prime during the first Canelo bout. And there wasn't much mileage on the clock either, because Gennadiy had enjoyed a relatively easy ride since he turned pro.

And finally, Golovkin was the betting favourite for the first fight against Canelo.

Besides, that was a "Mexican Beef" version of Canelo that was built like a tank, afterwards..

Speculation on your part.

Canelo didn't fail any VADA tests prior to the first bout, otherwise the event wouldn't have been allowed to take place.

Also, the Mexican had to engage in rigorous out-of-competition testing and was regularly tested during training camp for the rematch. And he managed to keep GGG on the back-foot for the entirety of the second fight.

So if your case depends on "prime Canelo excuse", you have to equalize them both in that department. Forwards or backwards..

I don't have to "equalize" anything.

What I've written is based on fact. You counter-argument is based on feelings.

Let me ask you one simple question, do you agree with my assertion of the 2017 version of Canelo being a much inferior fighter (both physically and pugilistically) than today’s iteration?

[gregregegg]

I don’t think canelo was naturally lighter than ggg love to see the fight night weights.. Mabey use to fighting lighter fighters, but I think it’s evedent in how canelos true prime seems to be 168 that he wasn’t too small for the 160 lb division at the time of the 1st fight. I bet he never goes below 168 again he is massive.

Admitadly he has put on weight quick, Travis could be a result of taking some restrictions of his diet, or mex beef, either way he wasn’t fighting a much heavier man in either ggg bout.

[skanksta]

I voted "No" - 'cos I rated it highly to start with.

In any just world GGG won that and retired as unbeaten HOF ATG type guy.

[pg_1]

Just watched Golovkin-Canelo II again. It was a close fight, a good fight, high quality and hard-fought, a better bout than the first one.
Canelo was significantly better in the rematch, boxed in the centre of the ring much more and showed a great chin. Golovkin used a jabbing/boxing style more but still won six rounds in the rematch for me, 1, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11. I gave Canelo the others for 6 rounds each for a 114-114 score, but some of the rounds were tough to score as both men had their moments in several of them.
As I thought Golovkin won the first fight 8 rounds to 4, 116-112, I don't think Canelo has definitively beaten him yet to this day. I feel GGG was a little unlucky to lose his titles overall, but it is what it is.

[ironbeard]

Just watched Golovkin-Canelo II again. It was a close fight, a good fight, high quality and hard-fought, a better bout than the first one.
Canelo was significantly better in the rematch, boxed in the centre of the ring much more and showed a great chin. Golovkin used a jabbing/boxing style more but still won six rounds in the rematch for me, 1, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11. I gave Canelo the others for 6 rounds each for a 114-114 score, but some of the rounds were tough to score as both men had their moments in several of them.
As I thought Golovkin won the first fight 8 rounds to 4, 116-112, I don't think Canelo has definitively beaten him yet to this day. I feel GGG was a little unlucky to lose his titles overall, but it is what it is.

+1

[Cyclops]

I thought GGG won both, although Canelo's body shots in the 2nd made it close enough that I could accept the decision. GGG being given a draw in the first fight still puts me off staying up late to watch big fights in the US, where I know the away fighter has to get a definitive KO win or risk being robbed by the money guy. I mean, even Fury clearly beat Wilder in the first fight and got a draw, and we have never heard the end of how he 'cheated' to get the KO he needed, even now.

I hope history is kind to GGG. He was openly avoided, and people are saying he ducked the best even today when he was clearly chasing them and they didn't want to know until he looked vulnerable.

[lazboy]

I think GGG performance in the 2nd fight is hugely underrated.

He boxed a brilliant fight.

I think they both did. Absolutely a fight where both men’s legacies were improved. The level of boxing was such that only two ATG’s could possibly be fighting.

This is how I feel. Those were fights at the highest level.

I also don't hear as much about Canelo-Jacobs. Jacobs was very competitive. Jacobs deserves credit for his great effort.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Jacobs never pushed himself to win. Seemed co tent to lose and be close

[margaret thatcher]

jacobs-ggg was a weird reaction, rright after the fight like half of ppl cried robbery or had jacobs winning, thesee days it's just accepted as a straightfoward ggg win

[lazboy]

Jacobs never pushed himself to win. Seemed co tent to lose and be close

Completely agree Jacobs coasts and is somewhat of a passive fighter but in this instance he put in the effort to win (in my opinion) and showed heart and skill. I felt he really came on down the stretch i.e from rd 6 on-wards. Given how tricky it is to fight Canelo, I believe he must have tried, as he was landing some big shots including combos. I just think it took him a while to figure out Canelo - and he said so in the post fight interview.

It's a really good technical fight with action, and worth re-watching. I rarely hear it mentioned.

[margaret thatcher]

i did think canelo won it fairly comfy, but i remember jacobs landing a huge flush power shot on canelo and canelo not even flinching, that ginger tank thick necked bastard

[Cent0089]

Jacobs never pushed himself to win. Seemed co tent to lose and be close

If he push himself to win he would get stopped. Canelo won that fight comfortably by outboxing him. Danny won 3 rounds, 4 if i am kind to him. Still i am fan of him

[lazboy]

4 rds sounds about right to me. In between some close rounds. Overall competitive in my opinion - I didn't see it as a comfortable out-boxing or easy night for Canelo although he deserved the nod, without controversy. I could be wrong though...but that's unlikely. I'm almost never wrong.