BoxRec

Ricky_ wrote:

Kilsby wrote:^^^
It is up for debate unless GGG knocked Canelo down in this round or beat him from pillar to post.

If he did - I must have missed it.

No matter how loud you protest you have to realize people can have a different opinion to yourself.

Anyone who doesn't think Golovkin beat Canelo is an idiot.

You're right Sir, I bow to your superior eye and ability to recognize ring craft better than the professionals. With the one judge you deem competent scoring for only one round in GGGs favour.

With your GGG rose tinted glasses you failed to recognize GGG had no plan B and did the same thing for the full 12 rounds.

Abel Sanchez even recognised Canelo was stealing rounds in the last 30secs with his flurries yet GGG couldn't stop it.

This is why I expect you are ready to empty the bank and re-mortgage when the two meet again.

Good luck!

Albert Einsteins definition of insanity:-
"Doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results"

Take note GGG

Kilsby wrote:Albert Einsteins definition of insanity:-
"Doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results"

Take note GGG

$20,000,000 + X 2. I'll take a bit of that kind of insanity.

Tanzio wrote:

Kilsby wrote:Albert Einsteins definition of insanity:-
"Doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results"

Take note GGG

$20,000,000 + X 2. I'll take a bit of that kind of insanity.

Maybe if they do - I'd personally contact GGG and ask for some spare change so poor Ricky could buy his house back

I think Golovkin should be fighter of the year in terms of accomplishments, but I think Crawford is the best pound for pound. If Lomachenko knocks out Rigo, then maybe he should be considered for fighter of the year.

RScarf1 wrote:I think Golovkin should be fighter of the year in terms of accomplishments, but I think Crawford is the best pound for pound. If Lomachenko knocks out Rigo, then maybe he should be considered for fighter of the year.

. . . or at least fighter with the most victories over people from weight classes south of his.

Like every discussion about 130, berchelt is overlooked again. His year has been significantly better than lomachenkos.

Tanzio wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:I think Golovkin should be fighter of the year in terms of accomplishments, but I think Crawford is the best pound for pound. If Lomachenko knocks out Rigo, then maybe he should be considered for fighter of the year.

. . . or at least fighter with the most victories over people from weight classes south of his.

Tanzio you have to recognize what he has done this year, he went 1 win & 1 draw out of two fights. Won no belts, and knocked no one out for the first time in his 11 year pro career.

His draw has been debated and so was his win. This makes him the outstanding candidate to take the fighter of the year award.

Kilsby wrote:Over a 11 year professional boxing career 2017 is the only year so far GGG has failed to register a tko/ko.

He had two fights. 1 win & 1 draw.

Plenty of fans questioned his "wins" in both fights.

These are the facts.

Now - with the above truths layed out in black and white. Do you still think he deserves 2017 fighter of the year?

If anything, 2017 will be remembered as the year GGG showed his age and started to look human.

You're not wrong in your post kilsby, but you also have to be realistic concerning the golovkin vs Canelo fight

Ossyrules wrote:

Kilsby wrote:Over a 11 year professional boxing career 2017 is the only year so far GGG has failed to register a tko/ko.

He had two fights. 1 win & 1 draw.

Plenty of fans questioned his "wins" in both fights.

These are the facts.

Now - with the above truths layed out in black and white. Do you still think he deserves 2017 fighter of the year?

If anything, 2017 will be remembered as the year GGG showed his age and started to look human.

You're not wrong in your post kilsby, but you also have to be realistic concerning the golovkin vs Canelo fight

I am being realistic - it was a close fight. Could have gone either way. Whether you edge a fight like that or not, you don't deserve to be crowned fighter of the year.

If you pull off a unbelievable upset, stamp your authority over all your fights in the calendar year against good opposition or do something historic, then fair game.

He did none of the above

Kilsby wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:I think Golovkin should be fighter of the year in terms of accomplishments, but I think Crawford is the best pound for pound. If Lomachenko knocks out Rigo, then maybe he should be considered for fighter of the year.

. . . or at least fighter with the most victories over people from weight classes south of his.

Tanzio you have to recognize what he has done this year, he went 1 win & 1 draw out of two fights. Won no belts, and knocked no one out for the first time in his 11 year pro career.

His draw has been debated and so was his win. This makes him the outstanding candidate to take the fighter of the year award.

Hitman Jr is clearly fighter of the year so far, and P4P #1.

klitoris wrote:Still more than 3 months to go in the year. Everything will depend on the December fights.

True.
If AJ has a stormer against Pulev, it could sway things.

Kilsby wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

Kilsby wrote:Over a 11 year professional boxing career 2017 is the only year so far GGG has failed to register a tko/ko.

He had two fights. 1 win & 1 draw.

Plenty of fans questioned his "wins" in both fights.

These are the facts.

Now - with the above truths layed out in black and white. Do you still think he deserves 2017 fighter of the year?

If anything, 2017 will be remembered as the year GGG showed his age and started to look human.

You're not wrong in your post kilsby, but you also have to be realistic concerning the golovkin vs Canelo fight

I am being realistic - it was a close fight. Could have gone either way. Whether you edge a fight like that or not, you don't deserve to be crowned fighter of the year.

If you pull off a unbelievable upset, stamp your authority over all your fights in the calendar year against good opposition or do something historic, then fair game.

He did none of the above

- you say plenty of people dispute his wins. The minority do Jacobs, the minority do Canelo getting a draw also. The Canelo decision was a really poor one. You can disagree and therefore claim is a debate who won, but you are the big minority. That's a fact across the boxing world. How someone can say Canelo won I don't know. The fight weren't that close to say that.

- you say you need s big upset win, stamp your authority in all your fights in the calendar year against good opposition or do something historic.

Answer, remind yourself who won last year. Remind yourself who he fought, remind yourself the method of victory, remind yourself about the general spectacle of the first fight (he had 2), then come back to me.

Being realistic, the golovkin decision will be remembered as a bad one by anyone who has a care to follow boxing. Similar to people still quoting Lennox had a bad one be Holyfield and that Castillo did vs Floyd. People who truly follow the sport remember. Jacobs and Canelo are top opponents. Canelo is p4p and he was beaten and a couple dodgy cards shouldn't deny what actually happened

KiwiRider wrote:

klitoris wrote:Still more than 3 months to go in the year. Everything will depend on the December fights.

True.
If AJ has a stormer against Pulev, it could sway things.

I genuinely don't know if this is sarcasm or not

Kilsby wrote:

KiwiRider wrote:

klitoris wrote:Still more than 3 months to go in the year. Everything will depend on the December fights.

True.
If AJ has a stormer against Pulev, it could sway things.

I genuinely don't know if this is sarcasm or not

I don't do sarcasm in text. It never works.
I thought the Wlad fight was a great watch, maybe the Pulev one will be too? If it is then the two fights combined will make AJ a contender at least.

KiwiRider wrote:

Kilsby wrote:

KiwiRider wrote: True.
If AJ has a stormer against Pulev, it could sway things.

I genuinely don't know if this is sarcasm or not

I don't do sarcasm in text. It never works.
I thought the Wlad fight was a great watch, maybe the Pulev one will be too? If it is then the two fights combined will make AJ a contender at least.

I agree. Definite contender.

for me it's Joshua (Joshua vs Klitschko is fight of the year so far imo) or Crawford (for unifying all the belts)

Ossyrules wrote:

Kilsby wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:
You're not wrong in your post kilsby, but you also have to be realistic concerning the golovkin vs Canelo fight

I am being realistic - it was a close fight. Could have gone either way. Whether you edge a fight like that or not, you don't deserve to be crowned fighter of the year.

If you pull off a unbelievable upset, stamp your authority over all your fights in the calendar year against good opposition or do something historic, then fair game.

He did none of the above

- you say plenty of people dispute his wins. The minority do Jacobs, the minority do Canelo getting a draw also. The Canelo decision was a really poor one. You can disagree and therefore claim is a debate who won, but you are the big minority. That's a fact across the boxing world. How someone can say Canelo won I don't know. The fight weren't that close to say that.

- you say you need s big upset win, stamp your authority in all your fights in the calendar year against good opposition or do something historic.

Answer, remind yourself who won last year. Remind yourself who he fought, remind yourself the method of victory, remind yourself about the general spectacle of the first fight (he had 2), then come back to me.

Being realistic, the golovkin decision will be remembered as a bad one by anyone who has a care to follow boxing. Similar to people still quoting Lennox had a bad one be Holyfield and that Castillo did vs Floyd. People who truly follow the sport remember. Jacobs and Canelo are top opponents. Canelo is p4p and he was beaten and a couple dodgy cards shouldn't deny what actually happened

Ok, Frampton moved up in weight and won as an underdog against a unbeaten fighter on foreign soil.

You say I'm in the minority but I believe he won Jacobs but his performance wasn't stellar and it did warrant debate.

I do think GGG lost a close decision to Canelo at the weekend and will lose the rematch by a bigger margin. If GGG can't steam roll his opponents he doesn't show any variety to change the flow of a fight.

But I do not disagree with those of the opinion who think GGG won. Only the manner in the way they perceive he won.

After all it was a close fight. He didn't shine bright in either bout therefore does not deserve any award

Golovkin for me. He fought two hard styles and his p4p contemporary. Rungvisai wouldn't be a wrong choice either. He beat an ATG and stopped him in the remeatch.

Kilsby wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:

Kilsby wrote: I am being realistic - it was a close fight. Could have gone either way. Whether you edge a fight like that or not, you don't deserve to be crowned fighter of the year.

If you pull off a unbelievable upset, stamp your authority over all your fights in the calendar year against good opposition or do something historic, then fair game.

He did none of the above

- you say plenty of people dispute his wins. The minority do Jacobs, the minority do Canelo getting a draw also. The Canelo decision was a really poor one. You can disagree and therefore claim is a debate who won, but you are the big minority. That's a fact across the boxing world. How someone can say Canelo won I don't know. The fight weren't that close to say that.

- you say you need s big upset win, stamp your authority in all your fights in the calendar year against good opposition or do something historic.

Answer, remind yourself who won last year. Remind yourself who he fought, remind yourself the method of victory, remind yourself about the general spectacle of the first fight (he had 2), then come back to me.

Being realistic, the golovkin decision will be remembered as a bad one by anyone who has a care to follow boxing. Similar to people still quoting Lennox had a bad one be Holyfield and that Castillo did vs Floyd. People who truly follow the sport remember. Jacobs and Canelo are top opponents. Canelo is p4p and he was beaten and a couple dodgy cards shouldn't deny what actually happened

Ok, Frampton moved up in weight and won as an underdog against a unbeaten fighter on foreign soil.

You say I'm in the minority but I believe he won Jacobs but his performance wasn't stellar and it did warrant debate.

I do think GGG lost a close decision to Canelo at the weekend and will lose the rematch by a bigger margin. If GGG can't steam roll his opponents he doesn't show any variety to change the flow of a fight.

But I do not disagree with those of the opinion who think GGG won. Only the manner in the way they perceive he won.

After all it was a close fight. He didn't shine bright in either bout therefore does not deserve any award

He fought a guy who had moved up slightly before him, its funny how people twist stuff to support there stance.

Now I know you thought Canelo won I'll be checking out this convo as that is laughable. I'm not sure if you're trolling or a hater now

Ossyrules wrote:

Kilsby wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:
- you say plenty of people dispute his wins. The minority do Jacobs, the minority do Canelo getting a draw also. The Canelo decision was a really poor one. You can disagree and therefore claim is a debate who won, but you are the big minority. That's a fact across the boxing world. How someone can say Canelo won I don't know. The fight weren't that close to say that.

- you say you need s big upset win, stamp your authority in all your fights in the calendar year against good opposition or do something historic.

Answer, remind yourself who won last year. Remind yourself who he fought, remind yourself the method of victory, remind yourself about the general spectacle of the first fight (he had 2), then come back to me.

Being realistic, the golovkin decision will be remembered as a bad one by anyone who has a care to follow boxing. Similar to people still quoting Lennox had a bad one be Holyfield and that Castillo did vs Floyd. People who truly follow the sport remember. Jacobs and Canelo are top opponents. Canelo is p4p and he was beaten and a couple dodgy cards shouldn't deny what actually happened

Ok, Frampton moved up in weight and won as an underdog against a unbeaten fighter on foreign soil.

You say I'm in the minority but I believe he won Jacobs but his performance wasn't stellar and it did warrant debate.

I do think GGG lost a close decision to Canelo at the weekend and will lose the rematch by a bigger margin. If GGG can't steam roll his opponents he doesn't show any variety to change the flow of a fight.

But I do not disagree with those of the opinion who think GGG won. Only the manner in the way they perceive he won.

After all it was a close fight. He didn't shine bright in either bout therefore does not deserve any award

He fought a guy who had moved up slightly before him, its funny how people twist stuff to support there stance.

Now I know you thought Canelo won I'll be checking out this convo as that is laughable. I'm not sure if you're trolling or a hater now

Twist stuff? So the guy DID move up before him? Frampton WAS the underdog? Frampton was on foreign soil.... LSC is also physically taller than Carl with a longer reach. These are all facts.

I'm not hating or trolling. I merely recognise it was a close fight and accept people can have different opinions than I.

The judges pretty much agree with how I perceived the bout. Scores of 114-114 and 115-114 reflect this. Although I acknowledge the third card was wide. If it was scored closer but still for Canelo I'd have no issue with it.

Crawford, unified champs are rare

Tanzio wrote:

Kilsby wrote:

Tanzio wrote: . . . or at least fighter with the most victories over people from weight classes south of his.

Tanzio you have to recognize what he has done this year, he went 1 win & 1 draw out of two fights. Won no belts, and knocked no one out for the first time in his 11 year pro career.

His draw has been debated and so was his win. This makes him the outstanding candidate to take the fighter of the year award.

Hitman Jr is clearly fighter of the year so far, and P4P #1.

By unifying a weak division? It's not close between Crawford and Rungvisai/Golovkin. Both have a better argument then Crawford. Depending on how Rigondeaux looks, Lomachenko might be in the running.

Kilsby wrote:I can't pick who it should be but I can say definitely who it shouldn't be.

GGG - No, Jacobs fight was debatable, as with Canelo - no legitimate claim
Loma - No, again beating Sosa & Marriaga don't cut it - no legitimate claim
Canelo - same reason as GGG - no outstanding win - no legitimate claim
Joshua - Great fight Vs Klitschko but going life & death with a 41 year doesn't win you fighter of the year - no legitimate claim

Ward - Beat a monster twice in Kovalev who no-one wanted to touch (Contender)
Rungvisal - Beat a potential ATG twice, the second time convincingly (Contender)
Crawford - Unified the 4 belts (Contender)
Spence - Announced himself on the world stage beating a very good champion in his own backyard (Fringe Contender)

Good post.

Mexi-Box wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

Kilsby wrote: Tanzio you have to recognize what he has done this year, he went 1 win & 1 draw out of two fights. Won no belts, and knocked no one out for the first time in his 11 year pro career.

His draw has been debated and so was his win. This makes him the outstanding candidate to take the fighter of the year award.

Hitman Jr is clearly fighter of the year so far, and P4P #1.

By unifying a weak division? It's not close between Crawford and Rungvisai/Golovkin. Both have a better argument then Crawford. Depending on how Rigondeaux looks, Lomachenko might be in the running.

It is only a weak division relative to Hitman Jr.

If Rigo plants Lomassiah, he would likely win it.