BoxRec

Provided Golovkin decisively beats Canelo and stays at 160, who deserves him the most?

If it's a great fight a Canelo rematch is on the table.

Other than that I'd love to see him fight Jermall Charlo, Saunders or a rematch with Jacobs.

The question is who deserves him the most if we imagine that boxing is a sport, not who we or him want to see as his opponent.

In that case I'd say Jacobs deserves a rematch more than anyone else deserves their shot. Unless Canelo is able to give him just as hard a night as Jacobs did...but if he does that he'll beat Golovkin.

Charlo still needs to beat a few more Middleweights to earn his title shot.

Saunders needs to fight to even show his worthy of the belt he's got.

Derevyanchenko is closing in on worthiness.

I'd like to see Jacobs part 2.
He put up the best showing against GGG so far and it was entertaining from my point of view. I think Jacobs learned a lot in that fight and he nearly had it. That in itself deserves a second chance more than anyone else that has faced GGG. I don't want to see Lemieux part two, that's for sure.

Canelo is the only one with a rematch clause in his contract, so either he loses, and invoked the clause, or wins and GGG moves on to rematch Jacobs. Well, that would be my ideal scenario.

Deserves suggests that they are like bursting to fight him. First lets see who wants it. I guess BJS would have a biggest claim as he still has that last trinket on his waist. It is incidently the least interesting fight of the bunch, as outcome is predetermined.

The Technician, easily. Dude stopped Soliman and Johnson now.

Charlo, or maybe Jacobs.

Derevyachenko looks solid but Soliman and Johnson aren't good enough opponents to warrant a shot at Golovkin. I'd like to see him fight someone like Lemieux or Saunders first.

jujigatame wrote:Charlo, or maybe Jacobs.

Derevyachenko looks solid but Soliman and Johnson aren't good enough opponents to warrant a shot at Golovkin. I'd like to see him fight someone like Lemieux or Saunders first.

Did Charlo beat somebody who would defeat today's Tureano?

jujigatame wrote:Charlo, or maybe Jacobs.

Derevyachenko looks solid but Soliman and Johnson aren't good enough opponents to warrant a shot at Golovkin. I'd like to see him fight someone like Lemieux or Saunders first.

Charlo beat an old Bundrage, "stay losing" Trout, an unproven prospect in Williams, and a one-legged Heiland. His resume has it's holes too.

It's not like the division is packed with dudes with outstanding resumes. If you are looking at resumes, it'd probably be BJS. Dude has the best resume in the division not named Golovkin or Jacobs. Also, Saunders' win over Eubank Jr. has aged extremely well while Jacobs' win over Quillin hasn't.

Yeah, Charlo is an odd pick, especially if you're going to suggest Derevyanchenko needs to do more.

Not a good idea to post this poll with a mega fight pending. Bad news written all over it.

Out of the list, Jacobs efforts in the first fight means he "deserves" another go

Saunders deserves a shot, since K2 failed twice to secure a bout between their man and the Brit (the first was a derisory purse offer from K2 and the GGG refused to sign the contract for the second attempt).

Jacobs deserves a shot but Abel Sanchez has no interest in allowing his man to share the ring with Danny for at least twelve months, which basically means he doesn't want the fight (his words).

Similarly, Sanchez doesn't want GGG to share the ring with a young hungry unbeaten lion, like Charlo, who is also a former world champion and the mandatory challenger. For some strange reason, he feels the American has to achieve more before he's worthy of a shot at GGG, even more than what Golovkin had to achieve prior earning his shot at the title.

After the Canelo bout, those are the only 160lb opponents I'd like Golovkin to face... unless the Kazakh is brave enough to challenge Andre Ward for the pound-for-pound crown, but again... Abel Sanchez doesn't seem to want that fight either.

boxing_rocks wrote:Provided Golovkin decisively beats Canelo and stays at 160, who deserves him the most?

Aside a Canelo rematch which by far makes the most sense for GGG, I'd say Jacobs but only if Jacobs adds a good win on his resume like Lemieux, BJS/Monroe Jr winner or Jermal.

Enlightened-One wrote:Saunders deserves a shot, since K2 failed twice to secure a bout between their man and the Brit (the first was a derisory purse offer from K2 and the GGG refused to sign the contract for the second attempt).

Jacobs deserves a shot but Abel Sanchez has no interest in allowing his man to share the ring with Danny for at least twelve months, which basically means he doesn't want the fight (his words).

Similarly, Sanchez doesn't want GGG to share the ring with a young hungry unbeaten lion, like Charlo, who is also a former world champion and the mandatory challenger. For some strange reason, he feels the American has to achieve more before he's worthy of a shot at GGG, even more than what Golovkin had to achieve prior earning his shot at the title.

After the Canelo bout, those are the only 160lb opponents I'd like Golovkin to face... unless the Kazakh is brave enough to challenge Andre Ward for the pound-for-pound crown, but again... Abel Sanchez doesn't seem to want that fight either.

Charllo vs Jacobs / Lemieux / Derev / Murata-N'dam II winner to get at GGG/Canelo!

that 4 need to fight each other to deserve title shot and big money

Cent0089 wrote:that 4 need to fight each other to deserve title shot and big money

true!

Mexi-Box wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Charlo, or maybe Jacobs.

Derevyachenko looks solid but Soliman and Johnson aren't good enough opponents to warrant a shot at Golovkin. I'd like to see him fight someone like Lemieux or Saunders first.

Charlo beat an old Bundrage, "stay losing" Trout, an unproven prospect in Williams, and a one-legged Heiland. His resume has it's holes too.

Bundrage was #4 at the time of that fight. Trout was somewhere in the top 15 at the time of that fight. J-rock was #7 at the time of that fight. His resume doesn't have holes, you're just concocting bullsh*t excuses that wouldn't fool anyone. Derevyanchenko's second best win (Johnson) was against a guy who was #25 at the time. I'm sure if you applied yourself, you could poke holes in Derevyanchenko's best win (Sam Soliman) as well, like the fact that he was 42 at the time, already had 13 losses, and was on an active losing streak.

Jacobs should get a rematch. But GGG fans and HBO are scared of it. Not GGG.

As for someone playing Trout ...
1. Trout won 5-7 rounds against Canelo.
2. Trout beat a better version of Cotto (just as convincingly) than Canelo.

The only thing Canelo has over Trout is his look, and he did better against Lara.
Although, mad people scored the fight for Lara, which resulted in ZERO fan pressure for a rematch.
Yet there are dudes in every boxing forum talking about 48-1.

Kids, that's what we call institutionalized bias.

PS - More of the bias is the PPV cakewalk Canelo has been on since the Lara fight.
Put Charlo in that stretch instead of Kirkland, Cotto, Khan, Smith, Chavez Jr,
and we'd have another Canelo "win" that no one talks about.

BTW, that stretch has to be the worst in the modern era for any top money man in boxing.
Yet ... silence ... but you wanna talk about Trout losing.

Conor McGregor

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:Jacobs should get a rematch. But GGG fans and HBO are scared of it. Not GGG.

As for someone playing Trout ...
1. Trout won 5-7 rounds against Canelo.
2. Trout beat a better version of Cotto (just as convincingly) than Canelo.

The only thing Canelo has over Trout is his look, and he did better against Lara.
Although, mad people scored the fight for Lara, which resulted in ZERO fan pressure for a rematch.
Yet there are dudes in every boxing forum talking about 48-1.

Kids, that's what we call institutionalized bias.

PS - More of the bias is the PPV cakewalk Canelo has been on since the Lara fight.
Put Charlo in that stretch instead of Kirkland, Cotto, Khan, Smith, Chavez Jr,
and we'd have another Canelo "win" that no one talks about.

BTW, that stretch has to be the worst in the modern era for any top money man in boxing.
Yet ... silence ... but you wanna talk about Trout losing.

Trout was good until he was Canelo'ed (even if it was with judges' help) and Lara'ed. He lost it and hasn't looked good since then. I don't have any doubts that Johnson would walk through him yesterday. Resumes don't fight in the ring, fighters do.

boxing_rocks wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Charlo, or maybe Jacobs.

Derevyachenko looks solid but Soliman and Johnson aren't good enough opponents to warrant a shot at Golovkin. I'd like to see him fight someone like Lemieux or Saunders first.

Did Charlo beat somebody who would defeat today's Tureano?

Johnson is a C-level fighter who has beaten nobody good, ever. Trout would beat him, and Bundrage circa a few years ago probably would too. Hell Julian Williams would as well.

jujigatame wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Charlo, or maybe Jacobs.

Derevyachenko looks solid but Soliman and Johnson aren't good enough opponents to warrant a shot at Golovkin. I'd like to see him fight someone like Lemieux or Saunders first.

Did Charlo beat somebody who would defeat today's Tureano?

Johnson is a C-level fighter who has beaten nobody good, ever. Trout would beat him, and Bundrage circa a few years ago probably would too. Hell Julian Williams would as well.

no

Charlo

Lackeos wrote:

Mexi-Box wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Charlo, or maybe Jacobs.

Derevyachenko looks solid but Soliman and Johnson aren't good enough opponents to warrant a shot at Golovkin. I'd like to see him fight someone like Lemieux or Saunders first.

Charlo beat an old Bundrage, "stay losing" Trout, an unproven prospect in Williams, and a one-legged Heiland. His resume has it's holes too.

Bundrage was #4 at the time of that fight. Trout was somewhere in the top 15 at the time of that fight. J-rock was #7 at the time of that fight. His resume doesn't have holes, you're just concocting bullsh*t excuses that wouldn't fool anyone. Derevyanchenko's second best win (Johnson) was against a guy who was #25 at the time. I'm sure if you applied yourself, you could poke holes in Derevyanchenko's best win (Sam Soliman) as well, like the fact that he was 42 at the time, already had 13 losses, and was on an active losing streak.

Still doesn't change that Bundrage is an old fart. J-Roc hasn't been tested at all and was still a prospect. Trout hasn't had a convincing win since Cotto. Yes, you can poke holes in Derevyanchenko's resume, but as I was saying, you can't say Derevyanchenko is unproven and tout Charlo in the same sentence. It's as idiotic as your comment.

Next?