Alvarez 's Legacy Suffers Because He Didn't Fight The Best Champs

Man the sport is very visually based so how can I put it in words how you can prove a fight was a robbery? You just know it with your own eyes. That's how it is. Tough **** that you think it's biased. That's your own problem, not mine. Seeing as I made it clear I'm not biased towards GGG I don't know how else I can make the point to you. Sit down you mongo troglodyte. Take a break from defending corruption. Prove it, if it was a robbery it should be easy to prove. If it was a robbery then there should be 7 rounds that GGG easily, undeniably, and clearly won. AKA 7 rounds that weren't even close. You guys can't prove it though. I mean, maybe you should learn the scoring criteria for a fight. That would help you more than just screaming robbery. Educate yourself

You'd normally say GGG, Jacobs and Lara. But GGG has a huge asterisk. Lara isn't much better. Then it comes to Trout and Kovalev, both have slight asterisks. One was a dodgy enough decision, the other very possible a dive or thrown fight. Then it comes to Cotto and Smith/Kirkland. Then you realise what a manufactured résumé this is. So Jacobs, Cotto and Smith/Kirkland are his best wins really based on the fact that he won them clearly and without possible corruption. I'd give him Trout and Kovalev speculatively though, so it's Jacobs, Trout and Kovalev. You make some good points and I agree people should look more closely Alvarez's resume. But my post is really about the fact that fans can make a case that Canelo seems to go out of his way to avoid fighting the best champs when he moves around the weight classes. Alvarez is pretty unique in his ability to move from 154 through to 175 and seem pretty much the same fighter. Even at 154, he was said to enter the ring as a LHW, but that's another story. My question was why not make a statement and fight the best champ at the weight, instead of guys like Smith and Fielding?

So in other words, you can't prove it was a robbery. You're Just a biased weirdo. Thanks for clarifying Man the sport is very visually based so how can I put it in words how you can prove a fight was a robbery? You just know it with your own eyes. That's how it is. Tough **** that you think it's biased. That's your own problem, not mine. Seeing as I made it clear I'm not biased towards GGG I don't know how else I can make the point to you. Sit down you mongo troglodyte. Take a break from defending corruption.

What bias? There are ways to know if a fight is a robbery. Primarily that someone had their ass handed to them for most of a fight and somehow comes away with a favourable decision. Bet you think the Fury Wilder 1 fight was a legit draw you mongo. So in other words, you can't prove it was a robbery. You're Just a biased weirdo. Thanks for clarifying

Can you prove it was a robbery? You idiots just say sht without ever proving it You guys don't even do a good job hiding your bias :lol1: What bias? There are ways to know if a fight is a robbery. Primarily that someone had their ass handed to them for most of a fight and somehow comes away with a favourable decision. Bet you think the Fury Wilder 1 fight was a legit draw you mongo.

Okay but I don't tend to think that just because a robbery is officially a win for someone that they won the fight. That's like thinking that the majority decision Floyd got against Canelo was rightly called as such. It's just wasn't so. Don't be such an idiot that buys into exactly what these corrupt promoters want. Can you prove it was a robbery? You idiots just say sht without ever proving it You guys don't even do a good job hiding your bias :lol1:

You thinking ggg won is an OPINION Canelo winning is a FACT. The three best judges in the world scored it for Canelo for a reason. But hey, some couch potato on the internet who has some vendetta against canelo thinks otherwise. Get over it. :lol1: Okay but I don't tend to think that just because a robbery is officially a win for someone that they won the fight. That's like thinking that the majority decision Floyd got against Canelo was rightly called as such. It's just wasn't so. Don't be such an idiot that buys into exactly what these corrupt promoters want.

I'm not a GGG fanboy. He's overrated as hell, but so is Canelo. Canelo very clearly lost both fights for me. Same score in both too, 8-4, with 7-5 being the most generous I can be for canelo in the second fight. I watched both fights multiple times and got the same score every time. He doesn't have enough activity and his punches weren't as effective as you pretend they were, especially when compared to GGG who did the same kind of work but added a ****ton of activity on top of it. Mind you I think Derev beat GGG and that Jacobs could have won it if it weren't for the knockdown but it wasn't a clear victory anyway. Don't accuse me of being his drummer boy because I think he's been lackluster considering his talents. You thinking ggg won is an OPINION Canelo winning is a FACT. The three best judges in the world scored it for Canelo for a reason. But hey, some couch potato on the internet who has some vendetta against canelo thinks otherwise, so i guess it doesn't count Get over it. :lol1:

Canelo beat GGG, it's time to accept that fact. I'm not a GGG fanboy. He's overrated as hell, but so is Canelo. Canelo very clearly lost both fights for me. Same score in both too, 8-4, with 7-5 being the most generous I can be for canelo in the second fight. I watched both fights multiple times and got the same score every time. He doesn't have enough activity and his punches weren't as effective as you pretend they were, especially when compared to GGG who did the same kind of work but added a ****ton of activity on top of it. Mind you I think Derev beat GGG and that Jacobs could have won or drawn it if it weren't for the knockdown but it wasn't a clear victory anyway. Don't accuse me of being his drummer boy because I think he's been lackluster considering his talents.

You'd normally say GGG, Jacobs and Lara. But GGG has a huge asterisk. Lara isn't much better. Then it comes to Trout and Kovalev, both have slight asterisks. One was a dodgy enough decision, the other very possible a dive or thrown fight. Then it comes to Cotto and Smith/Kirkland. Then you realise what a manufactured résumé this is. So Jacobs, Cotto and Smith/Kirkland are his best wins really based on the fact that he won them clearly and without possible corruption. I'd give him Trout and Kovalev speculatively though, so it's Jacobs, Trout and Kovalev. Canelo beat GGG, it's time to accept that fact.

Interesting. Which do you think are Alvarez's best 3 wins? You'd normally say GGG, Jacobs and Lara. But GGG has a huge asterisk. Lara isn't much better. Then it comes to Trout and Kovalev, both have slight asterisks. One was a dodgy enough decision, the other very possible a dive or thrown fight. Then it comes to Cotto and Smith/Kirkland. Then you realise what a manufactured résumé this is. So Jacobs, Cotto and Smith/Kirkland are his best wins really based on the fact that he won them clearly and without possible corruption. I'd give him Trout and Kovalev speculatively though, so it's Jacobs, Trout and Kovalev.

I think even Ward has better resume. Ward fought and beat all the best men in 2 weight classes. Good point, very true, except the latter point. Definitely didn't dominate 175.

I think even Ward has better resume. Ward fought and beat all the best men in 2 weight classes.

Imagine criticizing Canelo's resume when he currently has the best resume in the sport excluding Pac Dumbass :lol1: Interesting. Which do you think are Alvarez's best 3 wins?

Exactly idk what's wrong with these casuals

Imagine criticizing Canelo's resume when he currently has the best resume in the sport excluding Pac Dumbass :lol1:

No doubt Alvarez is an exciting fighter and fun to watch. Maybe that's all a fighter really needs because, let's face it, boxing is as much entertainment as it is sport. However fans love to talk legacy and ATG status. When bringing up Canelo's name, there will always be the claim that his risks were very calculated ones. These days, with multiple champs in each division, there will always be a wide range of ability, among champs in the same weight class. There is a case to be made that guys like Liam Smith, Cotto, Fielding and Kovalev were not the top guys in their weight classes when Alvarez took their titles. That said, kudos for Alvarez for moving up and fighting good fighters in each class, but there will always be the question, if ha wants to be known as "best of his era" why not fight the best?canelo is only 29 and you already talking about his legacy and atg status... you must be very high on him...

dude still has 8 more years

Doubt it. No one who is praised while active is discredited once their career is over. He'll only be spoken against bu that, "Why didn't DLH fight Winky" crowd.