BoxRec

Kalan wrote:

world ranked wrote:Now that the Canelo-GGG is all but done. If Canelo wins is there a legitimate argument to be made that GGG isn't in his prime. Though Canelo will get credit he won't get full credit so is GGG considered still in his prime.

It doesn't MATTER if he's in his prime or NOT in his prime.. He's going to beat the living sh!t out of CanYellow regardless.. The Irish kid should have knocked Chavez out in 3 or 4 rounds.. He apparently just wanted to pound on the fruitcake for the duration.. How do you go from fighting dicks like Khan, Chavez, Kirkland, Smith, and Dildo to fighting Gennady Golovkin??? ... I think the CanYellow team is going to search for a way out of this fight, or claim an injury.

That's your opinion who will or not. You been wrong before just like I have so.... It does matter because he wont get the credit that he deserve when
the fight happens. Any excuse will make for argument after the fight.

It's difficult for me to tell. Not sure if Jacobs was just that good, or if Golovkin had begun to slip.... or maybe both. Either way, I don't think he's getting any better at this stage. I'm glad this fight is happening this year. Would have been better had it happened last year though.... for G anyhow.

world ranked wrote:

Kalan wrote:

world ranked wrote:Now that the Canelo-GGG is all but done. If Canelo wins is there a legitimate argument to be made that GGG isn't in his prime. Though Canelo will get credit he won't get full credit so is GGG considered still in his prime.

It doesn't MATTER if he's in his prime or NOT in his prime.. He's going to beat the living sh!t out of CanYellow regardless.. The Irish kid should have knocked Chavez out in 3 or 4 rounds.. He apparently just wanted to pound on the fruitcake for the duration.. How do you go from fighting dicks like Khan, Chavez, Kirkland, Smith, and Dildo to fighting Gennady Golovkin??? ... I think the CanYellow team is going to search for a way out of this fight, or claim an injury.

That's your opinion who will or not. You been wrong before just like I have so.... It does matter because he wont get the credit that he deserve when
the fight happens. Any excuse will make for argument after the fight.

Canelo would get all the credit in the world.. I'll tell you how this works..

Ali got great credit for beating aging Sonny Liston... Leon Spinks got no credit for beating Ali... Johnson got little credit for beating Jeffries... Joshua is getting great credit for beating Klitschko... Fury didn't get a whole lot of credit for beating Klitschko... Charles got nothing for beating Louis... Pender got nothing but contempt for beating Robinson... Tunney got very little credit for his easy domination of a 31-year-old Dempsey... Mike Tyson was praised for his flattening for Holmes... Lewis got little credit for demolishing Tyson... Dempsey was praised to the skies for crushing 37-year-old punching bag Willard who you couldn't miss... Terry Norris got nothing for wiping the floor with 34-year-old Sugar Ray Leonard... Holmes got little respect for his complete domination of Ali

If you beat a national hero people don't like you.. If you crush a foreigner, or somebody fans don't like (such as Willard), or somebody there's divided opinion over like Golovkin -- whatever age they are it doesn't really matter -- people love you.. People didn't like Michael Moorer that much and they liked George Foreman a lot.. So when George did the opposite of what everybody expected he was an instant sensation.. After that George could write his own ticket and couldn't do anything wrong.. But whatever -- Canelo isn't going to beat GGG, and Triple-G is going to get more recognition out of this than any other fight -- because there's a significant number of fans out there who don't like Saul Alvarez a whole lot.

world ranked wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

world ranked wrote:
yep and you still ducking the question so you can be one of those people I see.

Have a day off mate, ducking the question.

Nobody can say with any certainty, Jacobs fight could be 1 bad fight or it could be the start of a drop.i don't see how that can be disputed. We'll find out more fight night

Stop ducking this answer.

I understand there no certain answer. I'm asking people opinions. You not understand what is your OPININON is GGG in his prime.

Understand this, it's irrelevant what you're asking.
Anyone's opinion is making big assumptions, and on fight night if GGG is some way off his intensity and looks slow and worn out, he's not at his best. People will say that regardless of you making a thread trying to get people to say yes or no before the fight

world ranked wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

darkstar81 wrote:He's 35. Not many boxers outside the heavyweights are still in their prime at 35. Maybe Bernard Hopkins is one.
2012/2013 was probably GGG in his prime. Still very good and if Canelo wins he should be lauded for it.

This^^^

But again there will be people to not give Canelo full credit because they considered GGG past prime. Is it a good win for Canelo yes but in some eyes it could have been a better win.

I think that Canelo wins this fight and I already take some credit away from the victory because of what we've recently seen from GGG in has last 2 fights. This guy was dynamic for years and deadly with both hands. He's looked slower and what really bothered me against Jacobs, he had a hard time pulling the trigger and when i thought he'd run away with the fight late, he never stepped up the pressure and just looked slow.

This will be a very tactical fight unless GGG feels Canelo's power and brushes it off. If that happens then it could be a very interesting battle. But Canelo will land more punches IMO and he's already been guilty of favorable scorecards so it's very doubtful that GGG's going to win on those cards unless he puts in an obvious beating on Canelo.

caldo2025 wrote:

world ranked wrote:

Tanzio wrote: This^^^

But again there will be people to not give Canelo full credit because they considered GGG past prime. Is it a good win for Canelo yes but in some eyes it could have been a better win.

I think that Canelo wins this fight and I already take some credit away from the victory because of what we've recently seen from GGG in has last 2 fights. This guy was dynamic for years and deadly with both hands. He's looked slower and what really bothered me against Jacobs, he had a hard time pulling the trigger and when i thought he'd run away with the fight late, he never stepped up the pressure and just looked slow.

This will be a very tactical fight unless GGG feels Canelo's power and brushes it off. If that happens then it could be a very interesting battle. But Canelo will land more punches IMO and he's already been guilty of favorable scorecards so it's very doubtful that GGG's going to win on those cards unless he puts in an obvious beating on Canelo.

Think you're being a bit harsh on GGG's last two performances. Brook moves faster and Jacobs is bigger than Canelo. Against Brook GGG seemed to not bother with defence and did stop him in 5. Against Jacobs he was quite cautious respecting Jacobs power. It could be similar story against Caneo. I agree I don't see a points win. Either GGG knock out or Canelo decision. But back on topic, if Canelo wins he should get credit, but as someone said perhaps not as much credit as if he would have in May 2016.

GGG will start cautiously against Canelo, but as soon as he feels that Canelo is not a big puncher, Golovkin will likely become more relaxed and aggressive.

Kalan wrote:Canelo would get all the credit in the world.. I'll tell you how this works..

Ali got great credit for beating aging Sonny Liston... Leon Spinks got no credit for beating Ali... Johnson got little credit for beating Jeffries... Joshua is getting great credit for beating Klitschko... Fury didn't get a whole lot of credit for beating Klitschko... Charles got nothing for beating Louis... Pender got nothing but contempt for beating Robinson... Tunney got very little credit for his easy domination of a 31-year-old Dempsey... Mike Tyson was praised for his flattening for Holmes... Lewis got little credit for demolishing Tyson... Dempsey was praised to the skies for crushing 37-year-old punching bag Willard who you couldn't miss... Terry Norris got nothing for wiping the floor with 34-year-old Sugar Ray Leonard... Holmes got little respect for his complete domination of Ali

If you beat a national hero people don't like you.. If you crush a foreigner, or somebody fans don't like (such as Willard), or somebody there's divided opinion over like Golovkin -- whatever age they are it doesn't really matter -- people love you.. People didn't like Michael Moorer that much and they liked George Foreman a lot.. So when George did the opposite of what everybody expected he was an instant sensation.. After that George could write his own ticket and couldn't do anything wrong.. But whatever -- Canelo isn't going to beat GGG, and Triple-G is going to get more recognition out of this than any other fight -- because there's a significant number of fans out there who don't like Saul Alvarez a whole lot.

I don't think that what you're saying here is very relevant.

You're comparing two performances between person A and person B at different times under different circumstances. There are a lot of factors to consider that would determine if the performance was good or not, or how much praise it deserved. You're talking about a prime 22 year old Tyson battering a 39 year old Holmes, and then comparing it to a unified Lewis beating a 14 year older Tyson whom was suffering from his own personal problems. Or comparing the Fury win over Klitschko, a relatively boring 12 round stalemate, to Joshua's 11th round knockout out of the same man. By the way, for the record, Fury did receive the plaudits he deserved for that win, but it was largely undone by his proceeding behaviour. You're comparing things as if either things achieve some kind of numerical value, and you can compare them in a linearly way. You're also forgetting that the casual fan will always prefer the hero over the villain.

I don't think he is. He's visibly slowing down, but if Canelo does manage to beat him, it'd still be a great win. I'd probably point to the Rubio fight as the last time we saw a near-prime Golovkin.

GGG is obviously past of his prime but he isn't like is shot or something. I'd say the best version of GGG was between Proksa and Macklin fights. But then again GGG had very good performaces against Murray, Monroe Jr and of course Lemieux.

Rob3_142 wrote:

Kalan wrote:Canelo would get all the credit in the world.. I'll tell you how this works..

Ali got great credit for beating aging Sonny Liston... Leon Spinks got no credit for beating Ali... Johnson got little credit for beating Jeffries... Joshua is getting great credit for beating Klitschko... Fury didn't get a whole lot of credit for beating Klitschko... Charles got nothing for beating Louis... Pender got nothing but contempt for beating Robinson... Tunney got very little credit for his easy domination of a 31-year-old Dempsey... Mike Tyson was praised for his flattening for Holmes... Lewis got little credit for demolishing Tyson... Dempsey was praised to the skies for crushing 37-year-old punching bag Willard who you couldn't miss... Terry Norris got nothing for wiping the floor with 34-year-old Sugar Ray Leonard... Holmes got little respect for his complete domination of Ali

If you beat a national hero people don't like you.. If you crush a foreigner, or somebody fans don't like (such as Willard), or somebody there's divided opinion over like Golovkin -- whatever age they are it doesn't really matter -- people love you.. People didn't like Michael Moorer that much and they liked George Foreman a lot.. So when George did the opposite of what everybody expected he was an instant sensation.. After that George could write his own ticket and couldn't do anything wrong.. But whatever -- Canelo isn't going to beat GGG, and Triple-G is going to get more recognition out of this than any other fight -- because there's a significant number of fans out there who don't like Saul Alvarez a whole lot.

I don't think that what you're saying here is very relevant.

You're comparing two performances between person A and person B at different times under different circumstances. There are a lot of factors to consider that would determine if the performance was good or not, or how much praise it deserved. You're talking about a prime 22 year old Tyson battering a 39 year old Holmes, and then comparing it to a unified Lewis beating a 14 year older Tyson whom was suffering from his own personal problems. Or comparing the Fury win over Klitschko, a relatively boring 12 round stalemate, to Joshua's 11th round knockout out of the same man. By the way, for the record, Fury did receive the plaudits he deserved for that win, but it was largely undone by his proceeding behaviour. You're comparing things as if either things achieve some kind of numerical value, and you can compare them in a linearly way. You're also forgetting that the casual fan will always prefer the hero over the villain.

I'm "forgetting" that people prefer the hero over the villian??? That's pretty much exactly what I said. "If you beat a national hero people don't like you.. If you crush a foreigner, or somebody fans don't like (such as Willard), or somebody there's divided opinion over like Golovkin -- whatever age they are it doesn't really matter -- people love you"

Mexi-Box wrote:I don't think he is. He's visibly slowing down, but if Canelo does manage to beat him, it'd still be a great win. I'd probably point to the Rubio fight as the last time we saw a near-prime Golovkin.

He Looked pretty damned good versus Lemieux... He looked great against Jacobs too... Jacobs is a great fighter who's very tough to beat.

Kalan wrote:

Mexi-Box wrote:I don't think he is. He's visibly slowing down, but if Canelo does manage to beat him, it'd still be a great win. I'd probably point to the Rubio fight as the last time we saw a near-prime Golovkin.

He Looked pretty damned good versus Lemieux... He looked great against Jacobs too... Jacobs is a great fighter who's very tough to beat.

Well, we all saw in his last fight what a good 1-2 and some movement does to Lemieux. Jacobs was a razor-close fight that could've gone either way. I was disappointed in his performance in that fight. He's been looking more and more beatable with each fight.

Mexi-Box wrote:

Kalan wrote:

Mexi-Box wrote:I don't think he is. He's visibly slowing down, but if Canelo does manage to beat him, it'd still be a great win. I'd probably point to the Rubio fight as the last time we saw a near-prime Golovkin.

He Looked pretty damned good versus Lemieux... He looked great against Jacobs too... Jacobs is a great fighter who's very tough to beat.

Well, we all saw in his last fight what a good 1-2 and some movement does to Lemieux. Jacobs was a razor-close fight that could've gone either way. I was disappointed in his performance in that fight. He's been looking more and more beatable with each fight.

Watch it again. There was a very light use of his right hand in the second half of the fight. It is hard to look monstrous with an injury.

Mexi-Box wrote:I don't think he is. He's visibly slowing down, but if Canelo does manage to beat him, it'd still be a great win. I'd probably point to the Rubio fight as the last time we saw a near-prime Golovkin.

The Rubio fight that long ago in your opinion?

world ranked wrote:

Mexi-Box wrote:I don't think he is. He's visibly slowing down, but if Canelo does manage to beat him, it'd still be a great win. I'd probably point to the Rubio fight as the last time we saw a near-prime Golovkin.

The Rubio fight that long ago in your opinion?

Once you're at his age, time is everything. He's 35 years old. Hell, people who have followed Lomachenko's career say he's slowed down since he was in the Olympics, and he's at ~30.

Personally I think he's slipped a little, which would make sense with his age. He seems a bit heavier on his legs (after I've looked back at some clips of old). Maybe the Ko's have gotten to his head a bit, or that pressure to KO, its been a bit easy when you have ppl like Wade folding after one or two rounds. Hopefully the Jacobs challenge has helped. Hopefully he isn't going to be head hunting against Canelo and concentrate on breaking him down, the stoppage will come if he returns to form. He has it in him. As for Brook exposing him that is absolute UK media BS. Brook won one round and is used to operating faster being a lighter weight, so it makes sense for him to start better.

Of course i will give Canelo credit if he wins, reluctantly. But...if he wins, convincingly, which I dont see happening, I will give him credit. Hoping for a good fight. A courageous performance by both is the most important for me though, it's the journey not the destination.

Most of the guys that Alvarez beat were past their best at the time he fought them. He's got some names on his resume like Cotto, Mosley, and Cintron, but they were past their prime. Father Time can reach boxers at different ages because of genetics, lifestyle, and also wear and tear. I don't think Golovkin has wear and tear like other boxers who have been in many brutal fights. Golovkin in his mid 30s is still better than Canelo. Canelo is not going to knock out Golovkin. The fight is in Las Vegas, so there could be a biased decision and I think Golovkin's team knows this which is why I think they will make a game plan for a win by knockout. Teddy Atlas is a hater. In this video, he talks about Golovkin's opponents as being not that great, but he does not mention Alvarez's opponents who were big names, but usually not at their best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzhAtbFNpvg