Canelo really exposed GGG as being the biggest fraud in boxing.

ggg lost get ova it Over it. I only talk about it at all cos folk keep making threads like this one. Bye.

I'm guessing you care what I say since you keep replying even when I try to bring this pointless conversation to a civil end. Yeah, sure he got the L. Controversially. He also drew. Also controversially. When he was closer to his prime. Man, I almost feel sorry for you - does it really burn that much to acknowledge that they're two fighters who are roughly on a level?:lol1: Best bet is to try and treat all fighters, even the ones you like or dislike, as if they are guys you just don't care about. Helps keep you level headed and preserve your intellectual honesty. If you find yourself making arguments to bolster your favourite fighter that you wouldn't use for fighters you don't like then it's a sure sign you're well on the way to becoming a fanboy, man. Don't worry. it ain't too late for ya. Thing is I just don't actually care. I don't need you to call GGG elite and you can call Canelo TBE if that's how you feel. I ain't gonna waste my time arguing with your opinion, I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy. Personally I think both guys are great fighters and I don't feel any need to pull one down to justify what I think about the other. ggg lost get ova it

who cares what oyu say, he did lose. what happened counts, not your imaginary world. I'm guessing you care what I say since you keep replying even when I try to bring this pointless conversation to a civil end. Yeah, sure he got the L. Controversially. He also drew. Also controversially. When he was closer to his prime. Man, I almost feel sorry for you - does it really burn that much to acknowledge that they're two fighters who are roughly on a level?:lol1: Best bet is to try and treat all fighters, even the ones you like or dislike, as if they are guys you just don't care about. Helps keep you level headed and preserve your intellectual honesty. If you find yourself making arguments to bolster your favourite fighter that you wouldn't use for fighters you don't like then it's a sure sign you're well on the way to becoming a fanboy, man. Don't worry. it ain't too late for ya. Thing is I just don't actually care. I don't need you to call GGG elite and you can call Canelo TBE if that's how you feel. I ain't gonna waste my time arguing with your opinion, I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy. Personally I think both guys are great fighters and I don't feel any need to pull one down to justify what I think about the other.

Can you name a bigger fraud in the last 20 years? Because I cant "154-168 EZFOMI" Still hasn't fought at those weights It turns out Mexican Style was bullsht. Canelo exposed that big time. GGG is just a culture vulture He was being "ducked" But ducked ward when he had the chance to fight him. What happened to 168 mr gee? Fought brook after criticizing canelo for fighting khan Called canelo a business man not a boxer but then said a lara fight didnt make sense. Now is using that excuse for charlo as well. fck his fans This is ridiculous. GGG was besting top ten guys in his division and knocking them out. We can complain all we want about the quality if those opponents but all you can do is fight the person in front of you. He earned his shot at Canelo and in the end it wasn't as if Canelo destroyed GGG. It was a draw and a close fight that could have gone either way. Stop making embarrassing threads.

Where did I say he still loses? who cares what oyu say, he did lose. what happened counts, not your imaginary world.

since he still loses who cares? Golov cant deal with elite level, this is all there is to it. Where did I say he still loses? I just said that wasn't the point I was arguing. But if you think that Golovkin at 35 proved by getting a controversial draw with a prime Canelo that he 'can't deal with the elite level' then you're telling me you think Canelo ain't elite. Is that about right? Look, man. I'm done here... you can't have it both ways without twisting the facts to make yourself a hypocrite, and I already wasted a lot more time than I shoulda on this BS.

Olympic level athletes are full timers, though. Top level amateurs compete year round and get funding kinda dependent on their performance. In fact in the main top level ammys are competing at a higher level and generally more often than fledgling pros... Canelo's a rare occurance of a pro fighter fighting at the very top level from his early 20s, but in mostly a top level ammy would be far more accomplished than most pros of the same age. Like I say though it's essentially impossible to make an informed comparison - what formula would you even begin to use. 1:1, 2 pro rounds 1 ammy, 2 pro years to 1 ammy? Thing is, as I've pointed out, it's kinda irrelevant anyway in this context, cosI'm not trying to compare Golovkin to Canelo, but to compare a younger Golovkin to an older Golovkin. The argument against (that my man Curtis was trying to use although he wasn't necessarily explaining it very well) is not that aging isn't a thing, but that Golovkin hadn't declined significantly by the age of 35. I'm trying to establish that even if he had declined only a fraction it validates my point that he would have been better off fighting Canelo in 2016 than 2017. I'm not arguing - just for clarity - that that means he would have won, merely that he would have had a higher probability of winning. since he still loses who cares? Golov cant deal with elite level, this is all there is to it.

an active pro career is usually more physically demanding than an amateur one, as long as its not about being a tomato can. In that you dont need to work another job to get a wage, so you can 100% commit to boxing. It would be harder to be a successful amateur AND earn a living outside it, but I mean that mentally, not as a physical thing. Olympic level athletes are full timers, though. Top level amateurs compete year round and get funding kinda dependent on their performance. In fact in the main top level ammys are competing at a higher level and generally more often than fledgling pros... Canelo's a rare occurance of a pro fighter fighting at the very top level from his early 20s, but in mostly a top level ammy would be far more accomplished than most pros of the same age. Like I say though it's essentially impossible to make an informed comparison - what formula would you even begin to use. 1:1, 2 pro rounds 1 ammy, 2 pro years to 1 ammy? Thing is, as I've pointed out, it's kinda irrelevant anyway in this context, cosI'm not trying to compare Golovkin to Canelo, but to compare a younger Golovkin to an older Golovkin. The argument against (that my man Curtis was trying to use although he wasn't necessarily explaining it very well) is not that aging isn't a thing, but that Golovkin hadn't declined significantly by the age of 35. I'm trying to establish that even if he had declined only a fraction it validates my point that he would have been better off fighting Canelo in 2016 than 2017. I'm not arguing - just for clarity - that that means he would have won, merely that he would have had a higher probability of winning.

Neither more nor less than the pros is all I've said. What I've said is we've no means of making a comparison. Other dude said pros were tougher. Hell. I like your stubbornness at least. Let's give this **** up.:friday: an active pro career is usually more physically demanding than an amateur one, as long as its not about being a tomato can. In that you dont need to work another job to get a wage, so you can 100% commit to boxing. It would be harder to be a successful amateur AND earn a living outside it, but I mean that mentally, not as a physical thing.

Don't know what you're talking about, man. 'Sugar' Nicky Valuev was the slipperiest, slickest 7' tall world champion ever to lace 'em up.:lol1: LOL! :lol1:

noone here assumed anything except you, assuming that GGG's amateur days were particularly draining. Neither more nor less than the pros is all I've said. What I've said is we've no means of making a comparison. Other dude said pros were tougher. Hell. I like your stubbornness at least. Let's give this **** up.:friday:

I've mentioned how Khan and Broner are by far bigger frauds. I dont consider GGG to be a fraud. On a closing note, this is why most pro fighters dont waste their time accumulating 100's of amateur fights. Unless being an amateur is ones ambition. No of course not. If your aim is to be a pro then it would be foolish to waste so many years in the ammys. Whilst it's gradually changing now though I think it's hard to appreciate how the pros and ammys were regarded it the former Soviet states. In the West the ams was the poor relation, but that situation was reversed in the post Soviet states and most , if not all EE ams were solely focused on achieving amateur greatness in the Olympics or Worlds with little thought to a future pro career... ach. I digress. Suffice to say that I doubt guys like Golovkin or Loma or Usyk saw their amateur careers as a means to an end, although again as new generations see the wealth and success they've had that may be changing. ****... I could rattle on about the changing era of modern boxing all day - and it's far more productive the dozen pointless paragraphs I've written here... ****.. Mrs Koba's fuming cos of the amount of time I've spent on here cos of this thread.:lol1:

sure. you could assume either if you wanted -. noone here assumed anything except you, assuming that GGG's amateur days were particularly draining.

You mention GGG and training for amateur fights as ''intense''. Why couldnt it be just regular training ? For all we know, it wasnt any more grueling than the next time wasting amateur. Nelo started training at age 13. First pro fight came soon after. GGG had his 1st pro fight in his early 20s (he thought having 300+ amateur fights was a good idea). So, by those standards, is it safe to assume young Nelo could have had it tougher than fully grown GGG ???? With age comes knowledge and experience. Old man May proved that. Nelos fans and May haters were quick to cry about Nelo being too young. I'm confused, what age do we go by - Actual age or ring years ??? Probably matters on the outcome. As for aging in general, do people need to be told fire is hot ???? Its just used as a convenient excuse if things dont turn out as expected. sure. you could assume either if you wanted - but unless we've some reason to believe that pros train harder than Olympians then I guess it's reasonable to assume it's about the same. You think those top level ammys don't take their ish every bit as seriously as a top level pro? I only said maybe greater intensity because - well, have you seen the pace they fight 3 round ammy fights at? Maybe it is maybe it isn't. How do we weigh 1000 or so competitive Ammy rounds against what? the extra 100 or so pro rounds Canelo has fought? You got some scientific formula, I'm all ears, otherwise it's all speculation - pointless speculation at that. All of which is irrelevant as I already stated, because I'm not comparing Golovkin to Canelo, I'm merely contending that 34 year old Golovkin would - on balance of probabilities - have had a better chance at beating a 26 year old Canelo than a 35 year old Golovkin would have had at beating a 27 y/o Canelo or a 36 y/o Golovkin would have had at beating a 28 y/o Canelo. ie (and to combine the 2 ridiculous conversations I'm having simultaneously) that it can't be counted as good luck for Golovkin that he was awarded the WBC title instead of fighting Canelo for it in 2016. Look, man. Fuck it. What do you even think we're arguing over? All I'm trying to demonstrate is that the TSs contention is wrong. Do you think that Golovkin is 'the biggest fraud in boxing'. Or indeed a 'fraud' at all? I'm not arguing that Golovkin is better than Canelo or that he should or would have beat Canelo uinder different circumstances, whatever my personal beliefs, merely that given the showing he was able to put on at 35 and 36 years old against a top class (elite by some) prime fighter, calling him the 'biggest fraud in boxing' is demonstrably ridiculous.

why would you ask that, hes not said it? whats with the idea of putting words in his mouth? I'm just trying to get a grip on what's being discussed here, man. The title of the thread is about Golovkin being exposed as the biggest fraud in boxing. All I'm arguing is that he isn't yet folk are getting defensive and bringing up fallacious arguments to counter me with. Just wondering why is all.

Ok so validity of wba regular aside, what about winning 4 amateur world championships? You can’t fathom the technical ability of some of the guys he would of beat to win those. What about winning an Olympic medal? What about defending IBO belt 18x? What about never being knocked down as an amateur or pro? What about not losing your first fight till age 36, by a point, against a guy considered top 10 p4p and who failed a drug test? Come on man. This guy accomplished things that even most other world champions didn’t do. And he did it without a crooked ass De la Hoya or Al Haymon helping him. Yea chill out I agree with all of GGG's accomplishments. Not why I replied to you. I was just highlighting your post because you were giving legitimacy to the WBA regular belt and recognizing that it's a world title.

This is exactly it, if GGG went back to facing the bum club he faced in his twenties t early 30s then he could easily keep winning till he was 43.

You ain't getting either the context or the idea of relativity. Luck is always comparative, never absolute. Is it good luck if you find a tenner on the floor? Surer? Is it still good luck if it was the last one of the stack that you were reaching for just when there was a sudden gust of wind? That's relativity. there is nothing relative about being handed 2 titles. Either you are handed them or you arent, and it is extremely fortunate to get it for anyone in ANY circumstances, always will be and ALWAYS has been. Do you think Golovkin is a fraud? so you just asked the OP that without any indication he claimed it, and now you do it with me, after I made it clear hes not. Dont clutch at straws with every argument you make please.

I' Do you think Golovkin is a fraud? why would you ask that, hes not said it? whats with the idea of putting words in his mouth?

you are quite mad if you think that being handed 2 titles is tough breaks. What part is tough, are they heavy to carry around? Yeh if any fighter in history was handed 2 titles they'd think it was all their birthdays rolled into one! But because you are a fanboy u interpret it for this fighter as tough breaks! You ain't getting either the context or the idea of relativity. Luck is always comparative, never absolute. Is it good luck if you find a tenner on the floor? Sure. Is it still good luck if it was the last one of the stack that you were reaching for just when there was a sudden gust of wind? That's relativity... what's good luck in one circumstance can be bad luck when it's compared to an expected and far more favourable outcome. Context is that we were discussing Golovkin's lack of good names on his resume... in that context the receipt of his bogus WBA title improved his resume not one iota, but getting to fight Sturm would have done and further opened up far more opportunities for him to get bigger fights in the future - always assuming of course that he didn't fall flat at the first challenge of course. So yes - absolutely, getting stiffed out of the Mando to which he was entitled was bad luck luck in terms of restricting his resume, whether or not he was thrown the bone of the regular 'world' title which got him (best I can tell) no big fights at all. Do you think Golovkin is a fraud?