Boxers outside of their prime

So embarassed that's the best you got. I never said that but if you want to believe it go ahead. Why wouldnt GGG in his prime stand a chance against Hagler? Let's pretend I'm like you and I only use arguements when it fit my agenda. Oh. Hagler is ****. He lost to 2 bums who never even fought at the world level. Salido. Salido do do. Hagler got Salido problems. One guy finished his career 40-10 and the other guy finished his career 39-7. That's that kind of ****ty argument you like to make for guys you hate lmfao. Plus Hagler was 33 when he retired. All of his big fights were in his prime when he had the youth. GGGs first big fight was when he was 35. Hagler ALSO never moved up in weight but do I see you giving him **** for that? Both guys were avoided when they were young and both guys have disputed fights over their biggest rivals. GGG like Hagler had an iron chin but NOTHING over the top has ever hurt GGG especially when he was in his prime. Canelo hit GGG with that overhand right that he put everything into and GGGs chin ate it like it was nothing. A fight both guys in their prime would end up a war. To say Hagler would win easily proves you know nothing about boxing. But that's not new to me. Also. Take this bit from how SRL beat GGG and replace SRL with Canelo. Hugh McIlvanney, commenting in the British Sunday Times and Sports Illustrated: What Ray Leonard pulled off in his split decision over Hagler was an epic illusion. He (SRL) had said beforehand that the way to beat Hagler was to give him a distorted picture. But this shrewdest of fighters knew it was even more important to distort the picture for the judges. His plan was to "steal" rounds with a few flashy and carefully timed flurries and to make the rest of each three-minute session as unproductive as possible for Hagler by circling briskly away from the latter's persistent pursuit. When he made his sporadic attacking flourishes, he was happy to exaggerate hand speed at the expense of power, and neither he nor two of the scorers seemed bothered by the fact that many of the punches landed on the champion's gloves and arms. Sounds about right. FACT: you morons insisted that Hypekin could beat Hagler :lol1: but, he went life-n-death with Ouma and could not beat Derevyanchenko... Golovkin was over-hyped... and you morons were dumb :wave:

Ray worked the judges better than he worked over Hagler in that fight for sure. His punches had little effect on Hagler. Personally I don't care anymore who won it was a good fight but Hagler probably got the short straw in that one. That loss had little effect on Hagler's legacy which speaks volumes about what happened. I think Hagler pulled it off but the fight was close and could have gone either way. If you look at the ring side media cards I think it was like 6 for Leonard, 5 for Hagler 3 draw Compare that to GGG/ Canelo 1 21 GGG 1 Canelo 3 draw GGG/Canelo 2 40 GGG 2 Canelo 17 draw Listen to Canelo fan boy excuses proclaiming that the media is conspiring to work against Canelo, the A side, face of boxing, and fighting at home right? Quite ridiculous. Listen to this guy Aboutfkntime. He claims hes so smart and he knows so much when he really doesnt know s.hit. Only he knows how to score fights properly and that all the people who scored it different than he did is wrong lmfao. Who has more fans? Canelo or GGG? Who is more popular? Canelo or GGG? Who has more influence? Canelo or GGG? So then how is it possible NO ONE believes Canelo really won? Its unfortunate but that's the biggest stain on GGGs resume and the legacy fight that could have moved him up. When you ask these haters who GGG could have fought they only offer hypothetical scenarios and claim anyone GGG didnt fight as a boogeyman. Oh, GGG ducked Andrade but Andrade was fighting at 154 until 2017 when GGG was fighting Jacob's and Canelo. Then they go, who has GGG fought? And then imagine that all the boogeymen that GGG was so afraid of knocked out HOFamers every fight. Who has Andrade, Charlo, BJS, fought to make them such scary boogeymen? Point proven. They also forget that it's not like Canelo is fighting Kovalev because he wants to. He had no choice but to fight Kovalev or GGG. We all know who he chose but let's not pretend like he actually had a choice. His bosses mandated that fight and it was accepted.

So embarassed that's the best you got. I never said that but if you want to believe it go ahead. Why wouldnt GGG in his prime stand a chance against Hagler? Let's pretend I'm like you and I only use arguements when it fit my agenda. Oh. Hagler is ****. He lost to 2 bums who never even fought at the world level. Salido. Salido do do. Hagler got Salido problems. One guy finished his career 40-10 and the other guy finished his career 39-7. That's that kind of ****ty argument you like to make for guys you hate lmfao. Plus Hagler was 33 when he retired. All of his big fights were in his prime when he had the youth. GGGs first big fight was when he was 35. Hagler ALSO never moved up in weight but do I see you giving him **** for that? Both guys were avoided when they were young and both guys have disputed fights over their biggest rivals. GGG like Hagler had an iron chin but NOTHING over the top has ever hurt GGG especially when he was in his prime. Canelo hit GGG with that overhand right that he put everything into and GGGs chin ate it like it was nothing. A fight both guys in their prime would end up a war. To say Hagler would win easily proves you know nothing about boxing. But that's not new to me. Also. Take this bit from how SRL beat GGG and replace SRL with Canelo. Hugh McIlvanney, commenting in the British Sunday Times and Sports Illustrated: What Ray Leonard pulled off in his split decision over Hagler was an epic illusion. He (SRL) had said beforehand that the way to beat Hagler was to give him a distorted picture. But this shrewdest of fighters knew it was even more important to distort the picture for the judges. His plan was to "steal" rounds with a few flashy and carefully timed flurries and to make the rest of each three-minute session as unproductive as possible for Hagler by circling briskly away from the latter's persistent pursuit. When he made his sporadic attacking flourishes, he was happy to exaggerate hand speed at the expense of power, and neither he nor two of the scorers seemed bothered by the fact that many of the punches landed on the champion's gloves and arms. Sounds about right. Ray worked the judges better than he worked over Hagler in that fight for sure. His punches had little effect on Hagler. Personally I don't care anymore who won it was a good fight but Hagler probably got the short straw in that one. That loss had little effect on Hagler's legacy which speaks volumes about what happened.

you clowns said that he could beat Hagler :lol1: but, he couldn't even beat Derevyanchenko So embarassed that's the best you got. I never said that but if you want to believe it go ahead. Why wouldnt GGG in his prime stand a chance against Hagler? Let's pretend I'm like you and I only use arguements when it fit my agenda. Oh. Hagler is ****. He lost to 2 bums who never even fought at the world level. Salido. Salido do do. Hagler got Salido problems. One guy finished his career 40-10 and the other guy finished his career 39-7. That's that kind of ****ty argument you like to make for guys you hate lmfao. Plus Hagler was 33 when he retired. All of his big fights were in his prime when he had the youth. GGGs first big fight was when he was 35. Hagler ALSO never moved up in weight but do I see you giving him **** for that? Both guys were avoided when they were young and both guys have disputed fights over their biggest rivals. GGG like Hagler had an iron chin but NOTHING over the top has ever hurt GGG especially when he was in his prime. Canelo hit GGG with that overhand right that he put everything into and GGGs chin ate it like it was nothing. A fight both guys in their prime would end up a war. To say Hagler would win easily proves you know nothing about boxing. But that's not new to me. Also. Take this bit from how SRL beat GGG and replace SRL with Canelo. Hugh McIlvanney, commenting in the British Sunday Times and Sports Illustrated: What Ray Leonard pulled off in his split decision over Hagler was an epic illusion. He (SRL) had said beforehand that the way to beat Hagler was to give him a distorted picture. But this shrewdest of fighters knew it was even more important to distort the picture for the judges. His plan was to "steal" rounds with a few flashy and carefully timed flurries and to make the rest of each three-minute session as unproductive as possible for Hagler by circling briskly away from the latter's persistent pursuit. When he made his sporadic attacking flourishes, he was happy to exaggerate hand speed at the expense of power, and neither he nor two of the scorers seemed bothered by the fact that many of the punches landed on the champion's gloves and arms. Sounds about right.

Anyone else lose interest in a boxer when they have obviously slipped or become old? I thought about this as I didn't watch GGG fight on the weekend nor did I watch his last fight against that nobody. I will still watch a big fight against a great opponent, such as his fight against Canelo last year, but even then it's more of a curiosity to see how much he has left in the tank. I feel the same way with Pac even though he has held up a lot better despite being older. He's still way below his prime so it kills a lot of interest for me. Then there are damaged goods like Kell Brook. I don't have any interest in watching boxers who have become shells of themselves. What are your thoughts? Do you keep following a boxer even when they aren't what they once were or do you lose interest in them? His last fight against that nobody. Do yourself a favor and go watch it and the Jacobs Derev fight. That nobody is pretty damned good. I followed Duran even after the no mas. Following a fighter in those days isn't like now where people live or die by every thing that happens to them. Hearns is another guy I was a fan of even through his losses.

Yep. Lmfao. Called it. Pick 2 fighters to suggest why GGG isnt good lmfao. Only 2. GGG struggled? Lmfao. You're the same dude who thinks Canelo is some god among men and Rank him so damn high despite his bust for PEDs and his ability to get gift decisions lmao. Dude even had his own weight class. But you'll rag on someone like Lomachenko who did move up but not high enough for you to see him lose so you give him ****. Then when he dominates his competition by WIDE UDs he only looks average at best and isnt as good as someone like MIKEY GARCIA lmfao. Lomachenko is struggling because he didnt look as spectacular as he did at 130 fight because hes now fighting guys with 70+ inch reaches and guys who will outweigh him by 15+ lbs on fight night right? Fighters at the elite level dont get knocked out because most of them have spectacular defenses. GGG doesnt have the resume but he proved it in the ring with Canelo. As much of a boxing master you pretend to be most people saw old GGG beat a prime Canelo twice. 115-112x2 and 114-114 isnt dominant as much as you pretend it is. GGG is Canelos best win and you'll want to call him a hype job. Then to discredit GGG you give me ONE fight to show how "bad" he is. Let me call that a Salido. SSALDIO. SALIDO DO DO. DO DO DO.. SALIDOOO. cuz boxers who are great win all fights so easily. Every single match. They dont struggle at all ever lmfaooo you clowns said that he could beat Hagler :lol1: but, he couldn't even beat Derevyanchenko

I watch my favourite fighters till their wheels fall off B-Hop was/is my favourite all time and as great as it was watching him beat Tito / Tarver / Pavlik / Oscar Watching him get knocked out the Ring by Joe Smith was depressing But Father Time is Undefeated in sports even for Outliers like B-Hop / Nolan Ryan/ Gordie Howe that can compete at the Highest level into their 50s there’s always a end of the road for every athlete and usually the decline happens at at a rapid pace

Yep. Lmfao. Called it. Pick 2 fighters to suggest why GGG isnt good lmfao. Only 2. GGG struggled? Lmfao. You're the same dude who thinks Canelo is some god among men and Rank him so damn high despite his bust for PEDs and his ability to get gift decisions lmao. Dude even had his own weight class. But you'll rag on someone like Lomachenko who did move up but not high enough for you to see him lose so you give him ****. Then when he dominates his competition by WIDE UDs he only looks average at best and isnt as good as someone like MIKEY GARCIA lmfao. Lomachenko is struggling because he didnt look as spectacular as he did at 130 fight because hes now fighting guys with 70+ inch reaches and guys who will outweigh him by 15+ lbs on fight night right? Fighters at the elite level dont get knocked out because most of them have spectacular defenses. GGG doesnt have the resume but he proved it in the ring with Canelo. As much of a boxing master you pretend to be most people saw old GGG beat a prime Canelo twice. 115-112x2 and 114-114 isnt dominant as much as you pretend it is. GGG is Canelos best win and you'll want to call him a hype job. Then to discredit GGG you give me ONE fight to show how "bad" he is. Let me call that a Salido. SSALDIO. SALIDO DO DO. DO DO DO.. SALIDOOO. cuz boxers who are great win all fights so easily. Every single match. They dont struggle at all ever lmfaooo Nailed it right here. Great post. OP must be hella young. I think it's even more exciting watching fighters who still have it out of their prime, it's inspiring stuff.

Floyd Mayweather... Bernard Hopkins... like I said, Golovkin has struggled ever since he stepped up in class with Danny Jacobs... and yet if you think back, G was in deep with Kassim Ouma back in his "prime"... and G was probably a better fighter at 34yo with Jacobs, than he was at 29yo with Ouma Golovkin is simply not as good as you guys thought Yep. Lmfao. Called it. Pick 2 fighters to suggest why GGG isnt good lmfao. Only 2. GGG struggled? Lmfao. You're the same dude who thinks Canelo is some god among men and Rank him so damn high despite his bust for PEDs and his ability to get gift decisions lmao. Dude even had his own weight class. But you'll rag on someone like Lomachenko who did move up but not high enough for you to see him lose so you give him ****. Then when he dominates his competition by WIDE UDs he only looks average at best and isnt as good as someone like MIKEY GARCIA lmfao. Lomachenko is struggling because he didnt look as spectacular as he did at 130 fight because hes now fighting guys with 70+ inch reaches and guys who will outweigh him by 15+ lbs on fight night right? Fighters at the elite level dont get knocked out because most of them have spectacular defenses. GGG doesnt have the resume but he proved it in the ring with Canelo. As much of a boxing master you pretend to be most people saw old GGG beat a prime Canelo twice. 115-112x2 and 114-114 isnt dominant as much as you pretend it is. GGG is Canelos best win and you'll want to call him a hype job. Then to discredit GGG you give me ONE fight to show how "bad" he is. Let me call that a Salido. SSALDIO. SALIDO DO DO. DO DO DO.. SALIDOOO. cuz boxers who are great win all fights so easily. Every single match. They dont struggle at all ever lmfaooo

Yeah because a boxing master like yourself could see that him vs Canelo and him vs Derevyanchenko were the same fighter. Yeah that's right. Boxers at 38 are just as good as they are at 35. Every single one. No no. I'll let you give me the name of 2 boxers to prove your entire point. Oh yeah. I forget that when boxers change trainers they dont try to incorporate different ****. Keep sucking that Canelo **** Floyd Mayweather... Bernard Hopkins... like I said, Golovkin has struggled ever since he stepped up in class with Danny Jacobs... and yet if you think back, G was in deep with Kassim Ouma back in his "prime"... and G was probably a better fighter at 34yo with Jacobs, than he was at 29yo with Ouma Golovkin is simply not as good as you guys thought

stop making excuses... and stop blaming Banks... Golovkin was hesitant and non-committal with Jacobs AND with Canelo that was long before he hooked up with Banks... back when he was "doing the stuff he is good at"... so stop making excuses Golovkin has struggled ever since he stepped up in class which explains why he passed on fights that he should have taken he is not as good as you guys thought, plain and simple Yeah because a boxing master like yourself could see that him vs Canelo and him vs Derevyanchenko were the same fighter. Yeah that's right. Boxers at 38 are just as good as they are at 35. Every single one. No no. I'll let you give me the name of 2 boxers to prove your entire point. Oh yeah. I forget that when boxers change trainers they dont try to incorporate different ****. Keep sucking that Canelo ****

I usually just watch the major fights in the division and if someone toutes a fighter I've never heard of as special I check them out. I think it's tough watching one of your favorites regress due to age but it's something you have to get used to in every sport. Pac is definitely one of a kind at 40 boxing but hes definitely not the guy he used to be and as a boxing fan first and a pac fan second you have to be honest. Pacs last couple fights made him look pretty good but a lot of it had to be done with match making. Broner is a middling gate keeper talent at 147. Thurman had fought a real fight in over 2 years and never looked his old self. Great opportunities for Pac. But. I don't see how if pac was matched up against Spence or Crawford how he could possibly win. His reflexes arent there and Crawford and Spence are HUGE in comparison. Not only being longer both dudes are athletic and technical boxers. Pac doesnt have on thing that made him great during his prime years. The power to keep bigger opponents off and the stamina to keep the pace up. Pac hasnt knocked out anyone in forever and he has gassed bad these last couple fights. I wouldnt even pick Pac against someone solid like Shawn Porter. Porter would be relentless and walk through everything. As with GGG we all knew he was slipping. Anyone honest could have told you that and at soon to be 38 hes not getting younger. Did he still have the power? Yes. But his legs and speed was visibly worse. These last fights against Rolls and Derevychanko? Terrible. Imo hes made a mistake with Banks because it seems like either Banks is teaching him **** or GGG is really trying to take the **** Banks says and change his style instead of add to it. Its like if Mike tyson decided to not be an aggressive counter puncher and instead decided to box like Floyd. GGG is doing the wrong ****. Hes hesitant and seems to be overthinking the **** hes doing instead of the stuff hes good at. I think hell have to have a serious thought about where he goes next and I'd suggest one more opponent to gauge and then either fight Canelo or someone with a pulse or ride into the sunset. We dont need anyone being RJJ and ruining his legacy when hes way past it. stop making excuses... and stop blaming Banks... Golovkin was hesitant and non-committal with Jacobs AND with Canelo that was long before he hooked up with Banks... back when he was "doing the stuff he is good at"... so stop making excuses Golovkin has struggled ever since he stepped up in class which explains why he passed on fights that he should have taken he is not as good as you guys thought, plain and simple

I usually just watch the major fights in the division and if someone toutes a fighter I've never heard of as special I check them out. I think it's tough watching one of your favorites regress due to age but it's something you have to get used to in every sport. Pac is definitely one of a kind at 40 boxing but hes definitely not the guy he used to be and as a boxing fan first and a pac fan second you have to be honest. Pacs last couple fights made him look pretty good but a lot of it had to be done with match making. Broner is a middling gate keeper talent at 147. Thurman had fought a real fight in over 2 years and never looked his old self. Great opportunities for Pac. But. I don't see how if pac was matched up against Spence or Crawford how he could possibly win. His reflexes arent there and Crawford and Spence are HUGE in comparison. Not only being longer both dudes are athletic and technical boxers. Pac doesnt have on thing that made him great during his prime years. The power to keep bigger opponents off and the stamina to keep the pace up. Pac hasnt knocked out anyone in forever and he has gassed bad these last couple fights. I wouldnt even pick Pac against someone solid like Shawn Porter. Porter would be relentless and walk through everything. As with GGG we all knew he was slipping. Anyone honest could have told you that and at soon to be 38 hes not getting younger. Did he still have the power? Yes. But his legs and speed was visibly worse. These last fights against Rolls and Derevychanko? Terrible. Imo hes made a mistake with Banks because it seems like either Banks is teaching him **** or GGG is really trying to take the **** Banks says and change his style instead of add to it. Its like if Mike tyson decided to not be an aggressive counter puncher and instead decided to box like Floyd. GGG is doing the wrong ****. Hes hesitant and seems to be overthinking the **** hes doing instead of the stuff hes good at. I think hell have to have a serious thought about where he goes next and I'd suggest one more opponent to gauge and then either fight Canelo or someone with a pulse or ride into the sunset. We dont need anyone being RJJ and ruining his legacy when hes way past it.

All that crap kinda means nothing now a days when athletes reach a certain age they turn to juicing now they have the fountain of youth back all of sudden smdh