Page 1 of 1

is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 18 Nov 2021, 06:22
by margaret thatcher
canelo is on a hell of a run, and continually fighting good opposition and staying active. he deserves respect as big as the el mexican grande steaks he eats

but i've been browsing the records of pretty much every other world class fighter from 160-175, and it reads like a nightmare over the last few years. mostly inactivity, absolute joke mismatches, and 0 ambition shown at all. and that's true of bjs and plant in the couple of years leading up to canelo as well.

i think its because they are all playing it safe as can be while hoping to land the canelo lottery. why fight a real challenge for 500k when you can fight some bums and then get canelo for 10m? so while canelo is a gangster, i think his influence has at the same time deflated these weight classes

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 18 Nov 2021, 06:41
by gregregegg
Yea, its turned 3 divisions into just a bunch of guys waiting/begging.

I said this a while ago, I would like to see canelo call his own eliminators... sounds outrageous, but he could easily do it... why not. like imagine if canelo just said Charlo vs Andrade, 60-40 split, purse bids between PBC and matchroom, ill fight the winner with a 30-70 split.... (that was my couple of year ago example, probably make more sense calling bivol and beterb to fight each other i guess.

If you are bigger than the belts (and convinently have them) whats to stop you doing weird shit like that.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 18 Nov 2021, 07:26
by Counter-puncher
gregregegg wrote: 18 Nov 2021, 06:41 Yea, its turned 3 divisions into just a bunch of guys waiting/begging.

I said this a while ago, I would like to see canelo call his own eliminators... sounds outrageous, but he could easily do it... why not. like imagine if canelo just said Charlo vs Andrade, 60-40 split, purse bids between PBC and matchroom, ill fight the winner with a 30-70 split.... (that was my couple of year ago example, probably make more sense calling bivol and beterb to fight each other i guess.

If you are bigger than the belts (and convinently have them) whats to stop you doing weird shit like that.
ha true

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 18 Nov 2021, 07:32
by peter barlow
What he's doing is brilliant. What the opponent's are waiting for the payday fighting nobody is awful.

That's what good about him fighting the Cruiserweight Makabu. He's left all the rest holding their dick in their hands!

Similar is happening at Heavyweight. Joe Joyce, Hrgovic?

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 18 Nov 2021, 07:37
by margaret thatcher
gregregegg wrote: 18 Nov 2021, 06:41 Yea, its turned 3 divisions into just a bunch of guys waiting/begging.

I said this a while ago, I would like to see canelo call his own eliminators... sounds outrageous, but he could easily do it... why not. like imagine if canelo just said Charlo vs Andrade, 60-40 split, purse bids between PBC and matchroom, ill fight the winner with a 30-70 split.... (that was my couple of year ago example, probably make more sense calling bivol and beterb to fight each other i guess.

If you are bigger than the belts (and convinently have them) whats to stop you doing weird shit like that.
lol that would be great

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 18 Nov 2021, 08:39
by Ruthless-RKO
Then it makes people think every good popponent he's beaten is just mediocre - but really, Canelo is on some next elite lever and the rest are just world class if that.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021, 04:08
by Frostieballs
gregregegg wrote: 18 Nov 2021, 06:41 Yea, its turned 3 divisions into just a bunch of guys waiting/begging.

I said this a while ago, I would like to see canelo call his own eliminators... sounds outrageous, but he could easily do it... why not. like imagine if canelo just said Charlo vs Andrade, 60-40 split, purse bids between PBC and matchroom, ill fight the winner with a 30-70 split.... (that was my couple of year ago example, probably make more sense calling bivol and beterb to fight each other i guess.

If you are bigger than the belts (and convinently have them) whats to stop you doing weird shit like that.
This is actually a really good idea and would be great PR.

He can put the belts in the bin and say I want the winner of this at cruiser, the winner of this at heavy and so on.

The eliminators could be chief support to his own fights.

Opponents would sign up to it because of the money involved.

A drawback is that he might not be able to claim he has won titles at all the different weights. But you have to think the sanctioning bodies will jump on once it starts rolling.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021, 04:08
by tonyevs
What Canelo is doing is perfect. 4 fights in a year which keep him sharp limiting the wear & tear of training camps.

I think that's an understated advantage; going into training camps out of fight shape will be a lot more physically demanding and taxing than an actual fight in some cases.

Of Canelo's 4 fights this year - I'd argue that possibly only the Plant fight was something like difficult for him. The others he was able to fight at his own comfortable pace without concern.

Next year I expect possibly the challenging fight on his list made early in the year, one or two easy fights in summer, and possibly another serious challenge late 2022 if all went to plan.
I see Benavides or Bivol as late 2022.

Beterbiev needs to look weight drained and chinny before he gets the call ..

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021, 04:17
by gregregegg
Frostieballs wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 04:08
gregregegg wrote: 18 Nov 2021, 06:41 Yea, its turned 3 divisions into just a bunch of guys waiting/begging.

I said this a while ago, I would like to see canelo call his own eliminators... sounds outrageous, but he could easily do it... why not. like imagine if canelo just said Charlo vs Andrade, 60-40 split, purse bids between PBC and matchroom, ill fight the winner with a 30-70 split.... (that was my couple of year ago example, probably make more sense calling bivol and beterb to fight each other i guess.

If you are bigger than the belts (and convinently have them) whats to stop you doing weird shit like that.
This is actually a really good idea and would be great PR.

He can put the belts in the bin and say I want the winner of this at cruiser, the winner of this at heavy and so on.

The eliminators could be chief support to his own fights.

Opponents would sign up to it because of the money involved.

A drawback is that he might not be able to claim he has won titles at all the different weights. But you have to think the sanctioning bodies will jump on once it starts rolling.
Can just keep the belts, sanctioning bodys will go along... rather % of canelo than a % of any other guy around his weight.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021, 04:29
by DrDuke
Canelo fights good opposition, but not the very best one. Kovalev instead of Bert and Bivol. Unifying at the SMW against the likes of Saunders, Plant and Smith, other than in at the MW against the likes of Golovkin and Charlo, or at the LHW against Bivol and Bert again. Chosing Makabu for the CW challenge instead of Briedis or Okolie.

It's quite similar to Roy Jones fighting Ruiz at HW instead of Lennox Lewis. Or James Toney fighting the same Ruiz, Peter, Rahman and shot Holyfield instead of Lewis and Klitschkos. Are Jones and Toney great HWs?

Canelo fought frequently in recent times and that's good, but barely it affects him in a harmful way, as those fights went easy for him. If they were wars like against Golovkin, they would harm.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021, 04:32
by margaret thatcher
im not talking harmful to canelo, i mean harmful to the state of these divisions

they have been absolutely devoid of any of the top guys fighting each other or showing the slightest hint of ambition, because theyre all playing it soft so they can still get a canelo payday

look at the recent opposition of these guys, dear lawd!

benavidez: kyrone davis
charlo: juan montiel
andrade: quigley
bert: adam denies
bivol: craig richards
plant: title defenses against mike lee, vinny fegenbutz, and caleb truax
bjs: martin murray

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021, 04:36
by DrDuke
margaret thatcher wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 04:32 they have been absolutely devoid of any of the top guys fighting each other or showing the slightest hint of ambition, because theyre all playing it soft so they can still get a canelo payday
It's not guaranteed, that they would have fought each other without Canelo. Remember the SMW times with Calzaghe and Ottke or the CW times with Huck and Wlodarczyk, or the LHW times with Kovalev and Stevenson.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021, 04:37
by margaret thatcher
sure those are pairs of guys not fighting each other, this is 3 f@cking divisions of no one doing jack

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021, 04:42
by Counter-puncher
tonyevs wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 04:08 What Canelo is doing is perfect. 4 fights in a year which keep him sharp limiting the wear & tear of training camps.

I think that's an understated advantage; going into training camps out of fight shape will be a lot more physically demanding and taxing than an actual fight in some cases.

Of Canelo's 4 fights this year - I'd argue that possibly only the Plant fight was something like difficult for him. The others he was able to fight at his own comfortable pace without concern.
good points

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021, 16:41
by GreenLightning
Canelo built massive pro experience before he was 20 years old fighting different tricky opponents and is incredibly talented/roided

If you're good enough you're young enough only applies to exceptional once in a lifetime talents, Fernando Vargas could fight like a demon, but he had his career beaten out of him by 25 years old fighting De La Hoyas and Trinidads

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 19 Nov 2021, 19:34
by Nightmare Roy
GreenLightning wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 16:41 Canelo built massive pro experience before he was 20 years old fighting different tricky opponents and is incredibly talented/roided

If you're good enough you're young enough only applies to exceptional once in a lifetime talents, Fernando Vargas could fight like a demon, but he had his career beaten out of him by 25 years old fighting De La Hoyas and Trinidads
that's funny you mentioned Vargas, I was talking about him yesterday, saying what a fighter he was but that he was pushed to quick, I guess the money was just too good to turn down.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 01:19
by KiwiRider
If someone was motivated to beat Canelo and not just wait for a payday, they would take fights that would prepare them.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 06:05
by jamesmcdonnell
KiwiRider wrote: 20 Nov 2021, 01:19 If someone was motivated to beat Canelo and not just wait for a payday, they would take fights that would prepare them.
Yeah, I think it's got to the point, where most of them don't really think they can win.

Look at Plant having a nice civilised chat, trying to get Canelo to say he thought he was a decent fighter - pathetic stuff in my book - he came to survive long enough to give a decent account of himself.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 07:15
by mickey1975
Bjs went to win. Simply wasn't good enough.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 09:46
by tonyevs
BJS went to win. Simply wasn't physically or mentally good enough.

As has been retold numerous times; how he folded was quite pathetic given how he had sold himself previously.

Any fan of BJS should not be mentioning his name with Canelo's.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 12:32
by KiwiRider
jamesmcdonnell wrote: 20 Nov 2021, 06:05
KiwiRider wrote: 20 Nov 2021, 01:19 If someone was motivated to beat Canelo and not just wait for a payday, they would take fights that would prepare them.
Yeah, I think it's got to the point, where most of them don't really think they can win.

Look at Plant having a nice civilised chat, trying to get Canelo to say he thought he was a decent fighter - pathetic stuff in my book - he came to survive long enough to give a decent account of himself.
I know James, I had actually typed that example too, but self edited my post to a more succinct less rambling paragraph because this whole situation grinds my gears.
It is exactly like they expect to lose.
Callum Smith went into survival mode within 3-4 rounds, an undefeated WBSS champ for goodness sake :doh:
Surely someone wants to bash a rich ginger??

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 12:45
by JamesPhilips
jamesmcdonnell wrote: 20 Nov 2021, 06:05
KiwiRider wrote: 20 Nov 2021, 01:19 If someone was motivated to beat Canelo and not just wait for a payday, they would take fights that would prepare them.
Yeah, I think it's got to the point, where most of them don't really think they can win.

Look at Plant having a nice civilised chat, trying to get Canelo to say he thought he was a decent fighter - pathetic stuff in my book - he came to survive long enough to give a decent account of himself.
Lol :lol: :lol: cruel but largely spot on

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 13:24
by mickey1975
Matthew Hatton had a go at him. And Liam Smith.... better than any other British lads. Says it all.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 14:13
by jamesmcdonnell
Canelo didn't have the aura he had now though.

Re: is having a superstar who continually fights good opposition actually harmful?

Posted: 20 Nov 2021, 14:14
by jamesmcdonnell
KiwiRider wrote: 20 Nov 2021, 12:32
jamesmcdonnell wrote: 20 Nov 2021, 06:05
KiwiRider wrote: 20 Nov 2021, 01:19 If someone was motivated to beat Canelo and not just wait for a payday, they would take fights that would prepare them.
Yeah, I think it's got to the point, where most of them don't really think they can win.

Look at Plant having a nice civilised chat, trying to get Canelo to say he thought he was a decent fighter - pathetic stuff in my book - he came to survive long enough to give a decent account of himself.
I know James, I had actually typed that example too, but self edited my post to a more succinct less rambling paragraph because this whole situation grinds my gears.
It is exactly like they expect to lose.
Callum Smith went into survival mode within 3-4 rounds, an undefeated WBSS champ for goodness sake :doh:
Surely someone wants to bash a rich ginger??
For many of them, they're getting a life changing payday. That also erodes ambition