Is GGG getting old or as he not just now had touher opponents?

Bernard Hopkins He wasn't getting better with age. At 35 he was not better than he was at 30.

Combination of both.. Obviously Jacobs, Brook, canelo is a tough stretch of opponents for anybody. These are all high caliber world class fighters, and they won't crumble with ease like other ggg opponents. And at 35, I do think golovkin is slipping. He reminds me of hagler when he fought Mugabi n Leonard. He just looked slower and lethargic. Doesn't seem to have the same snap on his punches as when he fought proska or macklin or Stevens. And golovkin blocks a lot of punches with his head, and that will slow you up over the years

It's a combo of both but he is not in his prime. At 35 no one is. Those are facts. GGG will be 38 and the tards will still say he's in his prime.

Don't quote me then you faggot. If you think physical ability is the be all and end all you don't know shit about boxing anyway. The point is Klitschko wasn't improving physically. But was improving, just like Golovkin. So if Golovkin is improving, give him a little bit of credit.

I'm still waiting for this one past pressure fighter in boxing who beat an opponent of Canelo Alvarez's or Daniel Jacob's caliber, at age 35 or more, whilst being 5 years older or more. The typical response is 'which past pressure fighter fought their first A level opponent at their 30's'. There's no way to prove if Golovkin did, or didn't fight A level fighters before his current age. He beat the best opponents available to become the best middleweight / 160 pound boxer with the most titles. Thus, those opponents can be classified as 'A' level boxers. Another response is 'Golovkin doesn't have the same wear and tear DOE'. Except, he has had nearly 400 professional +amateur bouts combined in total. That's as many rounds as any past pressure fighter has had to endure in total. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to make Golovkin an exception to this rule / norm.

Someone that was still improving technically and mentally in their 30s because they didn't turn pro until their mid 20s. So called boxing fans should know that technical ability and mental are just as important as physical. The improvements Golovkin has made in his technical and mental ability far outweighs what he could possibly have lost physically. He's a better fighter now than he was in his 20s. If you're too stupid to see it, so be it. A fighter like Klitschko was still improving in his early 30s and he turned pro at 20. Early 30s is not 35. And Klitschko was not improving at 35. Again a bunch of sore salty excuses, it's pointless to argue with you. You're in every GGG related thread hating like a btch.

but nelo got a draw so what does that say then lol. if ggg aint as good as his fans think, then canelo would have walked thru him like in the khan fight... He aint that good either. Shut out by Mayweather. Was losing to Trout befor that bs live scoring announcement in TX that somehow had him winning so Trout was forced to stand and trade and got knocked down but I felt he still win the fight. Lost to Lara as well. I just knew GGG wasn't gonna blow thru him and I had Canelo winning the fight.

Both , the guys he is fighting now are tougher but you can see a decline .

Since Kell Brook people were sating they saw signs of deterioration and more so after Jacobs then after Canelo But could it simply be because he is now fighting elite world class opponents and NOT that he is losing it and is deteriorating? Im sure if he fought some of the lower ranked MW he would take them out easily, like before I think getting s guy to come up two classes isn't a good way to look good namsayin? They're not just going to fold up and will tage the fùck out of you for they get blasted. Thats not a good look. I think GGG IS getting old and he IS fighting better guys. He's been fighting trash minus Jacobs (who I think beat GGG's ass) so its easy to look good. Line up 10 bums in front of me and in my day I would knock them down and look great doing it. Doesn't mean I'm great namsayin?

I'd take any fans rankings over the orgs. The orgs only care about making money. 99% of fans would tell you their rankings are worthless. They are corrupt. Everyone fan KNOWS this (apart from you). How can you agree with all? One says Wilder is the best HW in the world, one says Parker is and the others say Joshua is. How they all be? You saying the org rankings are less corrupt and more credible. Loses you all credibility. I doubt anyone on this forum would agree with you. I'd take any fans rankings over the orgs. The orgs only care about making money. 99% of fans would tell you their rankings are worthless. They are corrupt. Everyone fan KNOWS this (apart from you). So you've made a survey asking 99% of those boxing fans? Can you provide the evidence for this? Or is it just another one of your points which you've just pulled out of thin air? Furthermore, 99% of the public can disagree with the laws of a particular country. That doesn't make their opinion any more worthy / valuable than the official law (which is the only law put into effect). How can you agree with all? One says Wilder is the best HW in the world, one says Parker is and the others say Joshua is. How they all be? Just like how I can accept the laws of California and Texas, even if the laws are different in both places. You saying the org rankings are less corrupt and more credible. Loses you all credibility. I doubt anyone on this forum would agree with you. No, it doesn't. It just makes me more objective. In the end, anyone can pull out their own arbitrary rankings. Ultimately, it's the ranking that has an effect on the sport which matters the most. Not rankings from any random person who's ranking has no effect.

Golovkin isn't as good as his fans thought, they can't swallow their pride and admit it so make excuses. How can they with loads of his semen in there?

He's aging fast The opponents aren't dramatically better than the ones he's dominated in the past

So the org rankings. The most corrupt and least credible rankings of all. :rofl: How can you accept them all when they all don't agree? In fact nevermind. You've already exposed yourself as retarded. They don't have to all agree. Unless you're going to tell me your ranking, or an ordinary boxing fan's ranking holds more worth / value. Or are you going to state that your ranking is less 'corrupted'? Do so and make yourself look retarded. The most corrupt and least credible rankings of all. That is your opinion and matters very little, since those rankings are OFFICIAL (verdicts formed by individuals in higher authority than any of us who's rankings aren't official). Thus, those rankings are more 'credible' and less 'corrupt' than unofficial rankings. How can you accept them all when they all don't agree? Why can I not? I can accept the rankings of each particular organisation on their verdicts in relation to the rankings. Just like how I can accept the rules of Texas when I am in Texas and the rules of California when I am in California, even if they differ. So what exactly is your point?

Name the official rankings then. How can you accept every ranking? Surely they don't all agree. :dunce: :rofl: These are the OFFICIAL rankings: http://*********.com/rankings-2 Why can't I accept the rankings? I can accept the rankings that the individual official groups have set. Any boxer that is ranked the highest is a top level boxer OFFICIALLY.

How is that an answer there's many different rankings for weight divisions. :dunce: My answer stands for every OFFICIAL ranking for every weight division. I accept those rankings as more valuable / worthy than unofficial rankings (barring exceptions when things are OBVIOUSLY incorrect).

You haven't even said which rankings. :rofl: WHICH BOXING RANKINGS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Read through my previous comments. I already wrote 'rankings of every weight divisions' (paraphrased).

Robbie's qualifications - at least 10 comments posted and threads started per day for the past 3 years, using at least 2 different names, all shitting on Golovkin. Objective? No Obsessed to the point of paranoia with discrediting GGG? Yes This poster is asking me how someone who's verdict is official, can be best qualified to form their verdict, relative to others who's verdict isn't official. It's UNBELIEVABLE!

What official rankings are you talking about specifically? Who are the people that decide these rankings? What is their experience? Them being officially official isn't an answer. :lol1: I answered all of those questions already. Them being officially official isn't an answer. Yes, it is. When someone's verdict is OFFICIAL, it means that they are more qualified to form a verdict than someone who's verdict isn't OFFICIAL. A judge's verdict in a court of law is more worthy as it is OFFICIAL, than someone else's verdict who's verdict isn't OFFICIAL. I'm not sure how this is so difficult to understand.

Age 35 is old for a boxer. It always has been and it always will be. It's not an excuse. It's a fact. Ward and Bradley are 33 I think and they both retired so what does that say about age 35? Brook landed some good punches because he is a good boxer with quick hands but he still got crushed before the fight was half over. Coming off the KO loss to GGG Brook landed a lot more punches on Spence and won more rounds and lasted longer than he did against GGG and yet nobody says Spence got exposed. I know GGG is bigger than Spence but that wouldn't make him any harder to hit. GGG beat Jacobs and most think he beat Canelo and they are the two best middleweights in the world next to GGG. GGG isn't as good as he was when he was 30 because no boxer is. He is slowly but surely going down hill. He is still champion and he can still beat any middleweight in the world much to the frustration of those who so badly want him to lose.

:rofl:................. You're a gift that just keeps giving. Me - What makes them qualified. You - They're officially official, official, officially, official. How is that evidence they're qualified? You haven't even said what rankings you're talking about. You don't even know who these officially official people are. You're looking completely retarded and gullible right now. :lol1: You're the one who is looking retarded. I answered your question multiple times. What makes them qualified. The fact that their rankings are official and shows up OFFICIALLY = evidence of them being qualified for this job. How is that evidence they're qualified? Since their rankings are OFFICIAL. You haven't even said what rankings you're talking about. Rankings of a specific weight division of boxing. Such as the middleweight division for example. You don't even know who these officially official people are. I know what I need to know, which is that they are qualified to rank boxers better than you or I or pretty much anybody here, who's rankings don't show up OFFICIALLY.