BoxRec

That will make him familiar to casual fans and possibly even make him a PPV star, but that is not what what I would like to discuss.

Will it make his ATG MW standing significantly better or Canelo will immediately become a "blown up JMW", "limited", "bum", etc. ?

No question it will boost GGG's legacy...Canelo is his first legit, undisputed world-class, in-his-prime fighter. Without a win over Canelo I dont think GGG deserves HOF standing given his relatively shallow resume.

Is Half mil Boxing Rocks alter ego?

GGG will enhance his legacy by 10 fold by beating Canelo in impressive fashion.

Yes it would be a significant boost to his reputation in every way.

Canelo was humiliated by little Floyd and Lara and had an even fight with Trout. Who exactly did he convincingly beat to be considered better than Lemieux or Jacobs, especially at 160 ?

Of course it would help his legacy. Getting your biggest win will do that for you.

boxing_rocks wrote:Canelo was humiliated by little Floyd and Lara and had an even fight with Trout. Who exactly did he convincingly beat to be considered better than Lemieux or Jacobs, especially at 160 ?

Lemieux sucks.

boxing_rocks wrote:Canelo was humiliated by little Floyd and Lara and had an even fight with Trout. Who exactly did he convincingly beat to be considered better than Lemieux or Jacobs, especially at 160 ?

Nobody, and it still doesn't matter. He's a bigger star than Jacobs and Lemieux combined so beating him means more. Whether he's actually a better fighter or not he's a more well known fighter so beating him will mean more to most people.

For instance: DLH and Tito never beat anyone of major significance at Middleweight, but it doesn't change the fact that DLH and Tito are the biggest wins of Hopkins' Middleweight title reign does it?

gilgamesh wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:Canelo was humiliated by little Floyd and Lara and had an even fight with Trout. Who exactly did he convincingly beat to be considered better than Lemieux or Jacobs, especially at 160 ?

Nobody, and it still doesn't matter. He's a bigger star than Jacobs and Lemieux combined so beating him means more. Whether he's actually a better fighter or not he's a more well known fighter so beating him will mean more to most people.

For instance: DLH and Tito never beat anyone of major significance at Middleweight, but it doesn't change the fact that DLH and Tito are the biggest wins of Hopkins' Middleweight title reign does it?

The difference is that Canelo doesn't have any significant wins at 154/5 or below.

boxing_rocks wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:Canelo was humiliated by little Floyd and Lara and had an even fight with Trout. Who exactly did he convincingly beat to be considered better than Lemieux or Jacobs, especially at 160 ?

Nobody, and it still doesn't matter. He's a bigger star than Jacobs and Lemieux combined so beating him means more. Whether he's actually a better fighter or not he's a more well known fighter so beating him will mean more to most people.

For instance: DLH and Tito never beat anyone of major significance at Middleweight, but it doesn't change the fact that DLH and Tito are the biggest wins of Hopkins' Middleweight title reign does it?

The difference is that Canelo doesn't have any significant wins at 154/5 or below.

Erislandy Lara, Austin Trout, Miguel Cotto, Amir Khan...I'd call those significant wins.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:Canelo was humiliated by little Floyd and Lara and had an even fight with Trout. Who exactly did he convincingly beat to be considered better than Lemieux or Jacobs, especially at 160 ?

Lemieux sucks.

Maybe, but I had a whole lot of respect for his courage during that fight with GGG. Before that I never paid him much heed.
His skills might be a bit basic but his heart is definitely there and you have to admire that.

gilgamesh wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Nobody, and it still doesn't matter. He's a bigger star than Jacobs and Lemieux combined so beating him means more. Whether he's actually a better fighter or not he's a more well known fighter so beating him will mean more to most people.

For instance: DLH and Tito never beat anyone of major significance at Middleweight, but it doesn't change the fact that DLH and Tito are the biggest wins of Hopkins' Middleweight title reign does it?

The difference is that Canelo doesn't have any significant wins at 154/5 or below.

Erislandy Lara, Austin Trout, Miguel Cotto, Amir Khan...I'd call those significant wins.

How is beating a 140-pounder at 155 a significant win? Cotto is smaller too. Lara and Trout were too close to be significant.

boxing_rocks wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
The difference is that Canelo doesn't have any significant wins at 154/5 or below.

Erislandy Lara, Austin Trout, Miguel Cotto, Amir Khan...I'd call those significant wins.

How is beating a 140-pounder at 155 a significant win? Cotto is smaller too. Lara and Trout were too close to be significant.

I thought the Trout fight was close, I thought he beat Lara clearly. Cotto was the Middleweight Champion when Canelo beat him. Khan is a skilled Welterweight.

If you can give GGG credit for beating Kell Brook (and I do), you should give Canelo credit for beating Khan (and I do)

gilgamesh wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Erislandy Lara, Austin Trout, Miguel Cotto, Amir Khan...I'd call those significant wins.

How is beating a 140-pounder at 155 a significant win? Cotto is smaller too. Lara and Trout were too close to be significant.

I thought the Trout fight was close, I thought he beat Lara clearly. Cotto was the Middleweight Champion when Canelo beat him. Khan is a skilled Welterweight.

If you can give GGG credit for beating Kell Brook (and I do), you should give Canelo credit for beating Khan (and I do)

No, I don't give GGG credit for beating Brook, and I thought Lara won. Lara definitely made Canelo look limited. The Cuban just was a bit too cautious to make it a clear win.

boxing_rocks wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
How is beating a 140-pounder at 155 a significant win? Cotto is smaller too. Lara and Trout were too close to be significant.

I thought the Trout fight was close, I thought he beat Lara clearly. Cotto was the Middleweight Champion when Canelo beat him. Khan is a skilled Welterweight.

If you can give GGG credit for beating Kell Brook (and I do), you should give Canelo credit for beating Khan (and I do)

No, I don't give GGG credit for beating Brook, and I thought Lara won. Lara definitely made Canelo look limited. The Cuban just was a bit too cautious to make it a clear win.

I didn't even think it was particularly close. Canelo won clear to me.

I thought Trout and Lara both edged him, close enough that there was nothing obscene past the margins against Austin. Even if he didn't win they're still good performances. Rocks is going on some bizarre preemptive discrediting of GGG's opponent. He must be shook.

I am not trying to discredit Canelo's record. Just taking a realistic look at it.

Just wait till he becomes the next good boy. Golovkin's haters will be discrediting Canelo to diminish Gennady's achievement.

boxing_rocks wrote:I am not trying to discredit Canelo's record. Just taking a realistic look at it.

Just wait till he becomes the next good boy. Golovkin's haters will be discrediting Canelo to diminish Gennady's achievement.

YOU'RE discrediting Canelo. You're doing their work for 'em.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I thought Trout and Lara both edged him, close enough that there was nothing obscene past the margins against Austin. Even if he didn't win they're still good performances. Rocks is going on some bizarre preemptive discrediting of GGG's opponent. He must be shook.

People thinking the Lara and Cotto fights for Canelo were close will always be strange to me. I thought Canelo won both handily.

117-111 over Lara

118-110 or something over Cotto

Canelo's body shots were the most meaningful punches of the fight, and Lara just wasn't doing enough.

Cotto did well, and each round was fairly competitive, but they kept landing close to the same amount of punches, and Canelo's were more damaging therefore Canelo kept winning the rounds.

I thought the Lara fight was really close. For all of Lara's 'running', I still thought he was outlanding and outboxing Canelo in a number of rounds. At many times throughout the fight Canelo was just following him around and either not throwing or missing by a lot. Even the body shots didn't come that often from Canelo, and I didn't think Lara really looked hurt by them at any point.

crusader wrote:I thought the Lara fight was really close. For all of Lara's 'running', I still thought he was outlanding and outboxing Canelo in a number of rounds. At many times throughout the fight Canelo was just following him around and either not throwing or missing by a lot. Even the body shots didn't come that often from Canelo, and I didn't think Lara really looked hurt by them at any point.

There were very few cleanly landed body punches. DLH/Canelo got judges in Vegas. Vegas judges always score for a fighter who has money behind him and a better prospective to keep bringing money.

boxing_rocks wrote:

crusader wrote:I thought the Lara fight was really close. For all of Lara's 'running', I still thought he was outlanding and outboxing Canelo in a number of rounds. At many times throughout the fight Canelo was just following him around and either not throwing or missing by a lot. Even the body shots didn't come that often from Canelo, and I didn't think Lara really looked hurt by them at any point.

There were very few cleanly landed body punches. DLH/Canelo got judges in Vegas. Vegas judges always score for a fighter who has money behind him and a better prospective to keep bringing money.

A lot of Canelo's body shots glanced off Lara's gloves and elbows/arms. There wasn't enough landed to say he clearly won the fight, far from it. He landed about 5 or 6 shots to Lara's head, and was made look foolish several times. Hitting air doesn't count. Anyone has an argument saying it was close either way, but to me Lara should have got the win. Yes he ran, and should have fought more, but its not like what he did was illegal. Judges shouldn't count it against you just because they don't like your particular style.
I thought Trout edged Canelo too, but the open scoring was a horrible thing for him in San Antonio. The fight was being scored lopsided in Canelo's favor so much there was no way Trout could win. What a joke. It is very obvious that Canelo has one judge in his pocket, and there are scores of fights that prove it.

All the "Lara didn't do much against Canelo" talk would make you think that Canelo must've done a lot against Lara... but there were rounds where he managed about as much as he did against Floyd.

Canelo improves golovkin standing at 160 clearly

gilgamesh wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Erislandy Lara, Austin Trout, Miguel Cotto, Amir Khan...I'd call those significant wins.

How is beating a 140-pounder at 155 a significant win? Cotto is smaller too. Lara and Trout were too close to be significant.

I thought the Trout fight was close, I thought he beat Lara clearly. Cotto was the Middleweight Champion when Canelo beat him. Khan is a skilled Welterweight.

If you can give GGG credit for beating Kell Brook (and I do), you should give Canelo credit for beating Khan (and I do)

There's a pretty big difference between GGG defeating an undefeated and larger opponent in Brook and Canelo depositing a tiny chinny Khan. But I do see the point that you're trying to make here. You really should get your eyes checked though if you had Canelo clearly beating Lara though. Not possible. I'm not an optomotrist but I can tell you need some sort of eyewear.

I just hope that people will look back at GGG's career and appreciate the entertainment value of his fights. No matter who he has been up against and how badly he defeats them, the fans never boo or leave unsatisfied. He puts on a great show. I can't say the same for some of Canelo's fights.