Canelo is a better fighter than Golovkin.

Wrong!!!!!!! Ggg did not “deserve” to win either fight especially the rematch ****tt only on ggg fanboy noob would that think ggg won the rematch. But yes obviously canelo is the greater and better fighter. By the way things are going nel o may well be considered better fighter even with 2 wins over nel o in many opinions. Just like Pac is better fighter than floyd when all is said and done. Floyd s win over pac won't get him far

Again if you want to say that GGG didn't live up to some hype, that is fair...I thought he would KO Canelo in fight 1, but I also thought Canelo would fight him...I thought he would KO Danny, but so did everyone else...no one knew Danny had a decent chin actually...I didn't think Canelo could hold the center of the ring vs GGG, but he did in fight 2. But Canelo and Jacobs didn't perform vs GGG like they did vs anyone else either...that's what happens 2 top fighters mix it up...they don't excel as much as they do against inferior competition. GGG still deserves props for what he did in those fights, he still won all 3 quite clearly imo...even if he didn't live up to expectations of many going into those fights...over-performing doesn't mean you get the W or that the other guy sucks. thank you finally but yea... I would of course, add to that comment... "GGG didn't live up to some hype"... he was too "well-managed", and should have taken at least some of the (admittedly difficult) challenges that he avoided and " avoided ", in that context... means exactly the same as it does in the dictionary... could have, but chose not to

I'm not a big fan of compubox but if you look at the compubox numbers GGG/Canelo 1 GGG 218/703 = 31% Canelo 169/505 = 33.5% GGG/Canelo 2 GGG 234/879 = 26.6% Canelo 202/622 = 32.5% As you can see GGG landed more than Canelo and this is confirmed by video. If you took their percentages and made it out of 100 Canelo would have a minuscule 2 punches and 6 punches respectively. Is that dominant like all the Canelo groupies suggest? And yet he still landed less because he threw less and GGG threw more. That's nothing like 25/50 vs 30/100. 10/12 total punches 9/12 jabs 5/12 power punches 8/12 total punches 12/12 jabs 3/12 power punches If I gave you the statistic above and you didnt know which fighter did what, who do you think won? Because I'm 100% certain anyone who doesnt have an agenda knows that he guy with the stats above won both. that is all just sillyness 1) most people know that compubox is inaccurate 2) compubox does not use official scoring criteria, so is totally irrelevant

It's just CLEAN punching Scrappy, not CLEAN HARD punching per the ABCs own judging guidelines You don't get to discount jabs because it doesn't suit, man. If you believe that Canelo's clean punches had a greater cumulative effect than Golovkin's over a 3 minute stanza then you give the round to him, if you believe Golovkin's had a greater comulative effect in a round then you give it to him, if you believe it's pretty much too close to call then you can maybe look at the other criteria. nope... I have read criteria that stipulated clean HARD punching I have also read criteria that stipulated clean EFFECTIVE punching unfortunately for you, the wording is irrelevant because the meaning is clear pushed/poked/prodding, jabs or feints... are not official scoring criteria neither is any glancing blow... nor anything that hits gloves shoulders forearms professional judges know exactly what to look for, and you fanboy butt-monkeys wouldn't have a clue... you guys are morons for blindly insisting that you know more than professional judges that is a classic example of utter stupidity that is like some little nose-picker rocking up to a racetrack in his mustang, insisting that he is a better driver than Lewis Hamilton :lol1: And missed punches sure as hell ain't a scoring criteria either yet you continually bring it up and amusingly inflate the numbers each time. First fight per comubox Canelo 'missed' 336 and GGG 'missed' 470 or so, second fight was significantly wider, something like 420 to 640 going by compubox, but throwing more to land more has never been something we peanalised fighters for before - hell there's dudes whose entire games revolved around throwing volume. Not your thing huh? :lol1: you would need to be one of the dumbest cvnts on the planet to rock up to a boxing website and insist that defence does not count hit and not be hit kid... it aint called the sweet science for nothing like I said above... you fanboy clowns are an example of utter stupidity And the thrust of your argument appears to be that because Golovkin failed to dominate then Canelo should win by default. You any idea how ridiculous that is man? Both of em were extremely respectful of what the other brought to the table and neither was able to get much going in either fight, in fact they largely neutralised each other but for you that somehow means we default to a Canelo victory? A 'killer' whatever that means, failing to get the kill has no bearing on whether or not he should have won or lost the fight. You score a 'killers' fight by exactly the same criteria as you score anyone else's.:thinking: A pair of excellent extremely hard fought boxing matches and all you can see is how it plays to your agenda. Never once have I seen you say how good both fights were or give credit to skill or determination of both men, whoever you thought deserved the nod. Kinda sad really.:nonono: nope, I never said anything like that Canelo tamed Golovkin, who could not get his game going... he outboxed Golovkin and for the most part controlled the fight... showing better skills/defence, landing better/cleaner shots while neutralizing Golovkin's offense... not allowing Golovkin to gain any momentum, not allowing Golovkin to exert any sustained/effective pressure... not allowing Golovkin to get comfortable or work the body... not allowing Golovkin to regain control in the championship rounds Canelo fought his fight, but Golovkin could not get his game going... Golovkin was effective in parts, the fight was close... but I could see who the better-skilled, more well-rounded, fighter was... so it is no surprise the judges saw the same thing

GGG is not that great to begin with. Any top MW would smash him right now, never mind canelo. I am not excited for the 3rd fight as canelo did enough to close the chapter on the 2nd fight. As for ggg, he doesn't have the drive to fight top guys and should just quit IMO, and stop being a dead weight at DAZN.

kid, Golovkin was supposed to be a killer... a killer with relentless pressure, lethal body-work, and heavy-handed concussive punching... ... if his aggression was sooooo effective, then why didn't we see any of that?... we got golov-morons running around insisting that Golovkin "forgot" to work the body lol he missed 1000+ punches LMAO stop blurting out excuses you fluff-monkey Again if you want to say that GGG didn't live up to some hype, that is fair...I thought he would KO Canelo in fight 1, but I also thought Canelo would fight him...I thought he would KO Danny, but so did everyone else...no one knew Danny had a decent chin actually...I didn't think Canelo could hold the center of the ring vs GGG, but he did in fight 2. But Canelo and Jacobs didn't perform vs GGG like they did vs anyone else either...that's what happens 2 top fighters mix it up...they don't excel as much as they do against inferior competition. GGG still deserves props for what he did in those fights, he still won all 3 quite clearly imo...even if he didn't live up to expectations of many going into those fights...over-performing doesn't mean you get the W or that the other guy sucks.

Canelo ruined Golovkin. He was the never the same boxer after his two fights against Nelo.

neither volume nor punches landed are official scoring criteria the fact that you casuals do not acknowledge ring generalship and defence... is shameful... and I have already schooled you up on that a number of times Golovkin was supposed to be a killer Golovkin was supposed to be a killer... with relentless pressure, lethal body-work, and heavy-handed concussive punching... and yet... ??? http://media.tumblr.com/ccef6e641636790216bd434a0c177fc2/tumblr_inline_n75krwRWEZ1qjsg0u.gif I mean if you want to say GGG wasn't what some made him out to be...that's fair...I don't really see how anyone can hate too much on what he has done in the ring though...never stopped Canelo Jacobs or Derevy, but over those 48 rounds he showed he was really really good with not too many flaws. Other criteria besides punches landed and their effectiveness are important...but you don't actively score them...they are important because they put you into position to land or not get landed on. And the point of my post was to say that when one guy outlands the other by 50 punches and then 30 punches in 2 fights...it is hard to say he is a scrub of a boxer and the other guy is elite...doesn't really add up...landing that many more punches on your opponent is a pretty good indicator that you are in fact the better boxer.

i understand that effective aggression is still subjective...which is why i stated that it depends on the punches landed but the guy i was responding to didnt seem to understand that aggression alone isnt a criteria...he seemed to think that a guy landing 30/100, as opposed to a guy landing 25/50, is automatically awarded... I hear ya...you do have to take into account the impact of those punches..this is true.

i understand that effective aggression is still subjective...which is why i stated that it depends on the punches landed but the guy i was responding to didnt seem to understand that aggression alone isnt a criteria...he seemed to think that a guy landing 30/100, as opposed to a guy landing 25/50, is automatically awarded... I'm not a big fan of compubox but if you look at the compubox numbers GGG/Canelo 1 GGG 218/703 = 31% Canelo 169/505 = 33.5% GGG/Canelo 2 GGG 234/879 = 26.6% Canelo 202/622 = 32.5% As you can see GGG landed more than Canelo and this is confirmed by video. If you took their percentages and made it out of 100 Canelo would have a minuscule 2 punches and 6 punches respectively. Is that dominant like all the Canelo groupies suggest? And yet he still landed less because he threw less and GGG threw more. That's nothing like 25/50 vs 30/100. 10/12 total punches 9/12 jabs 5/12 power punches 8/12 total punches 12/12 jabs 3/12 power punches If I gave you the statistic above and you didnt know which fighter did what, who do you think won? Because I'm 100% certain anyone who doesnt have an agenda knows that he guy with the stats above won both.

neither volume nor punches landed are official scoring criteria the fact that you casuals do not acknowledge ring generalship and defence... is shameful... and I have already schooled you up on that a number of times Golovkin was supposed to be a killer Golovkin was supposed to be a killer... with relentless pressure, lethal body-work, and heavy-handed concussive punching... and yet... ??? http://media.tumblr.com/ccef6e641636790216bd434a0c177fc2/tumblr_inline_n75krwRWEZ1qjsg0u.gif For someone who doesn't and didnt score those fight you sure keep loving to talk like you know how to score fights. Lmfao. You are the ultimate FAIL.

But even that is subjective Curt, as is defense. Take an analogy...let's say we are competing to see who can throw the most touchdowns...I go 30 for 100...you go 25 for 50. You can argue your defense was better...you held me to 30% to my 50%..I can argue my defense was better, I only allowed you to have 50 attempts to score to my 100 attempts. I can argue my aggression was effective, I scored more points and had more attempts to score...you can argue it wasn't that effective as you held me to a lower percentage of scores per throw than you had. But the fact remains, that I scored more points than you...and just like in boxing, that is how you score a football game...it is who lands more and better shots...the other stuff is important, but only insofar as it helps you to land or not get landed on. Twisting around the criteria like that is an invitation to robbery cards as well...able to twist it around to suit your guy potentially any time you want. i understand that effective aggression is still subjective...which is why i stated that it depends on the punches landed but the guy i was responding to didnt seem to understand that aggression alone isnt a criteria...he seemed to think that a guy landing 30/100, as opposed to a guy landing 25/50, is automatically awarded...

neither volume nor punches landed are official scoring criteria the fact that you casuals do not acknowledge ring generalship and defence... is shameful... and I have already schooled you up on that a number of times Golovkin was supposed to be a killer Golovkin was supposed to be a killer... with relentless pressure, lethal body-work, and heavy-handed concussive punching... and yet... ??? It's just CLEAN punching Scrappy, not CLEAN HARD punching per the ABCs own judging guidelines You don't get to discount jabs because it doesn't suit, man.:lol1: If you believe that Canelo's clean punches had a greater cumulative effect than Golovkin's over a 3 minute stanza then you give the round to him, if you believe Golovkin's had a greater comulative effect in a round then you give it to him, if you believe it's pretty much too close to call then you can maybe look at the other criteria. And missed punches sure as hell ain't a scoring criteria either yet you continually bring it up and amusingly inflate the numbers each time. First fight per comubox Canelo 'missed' 336 and GGG 'missed' 470 or so, second fight was significantly wider, something like 420 to 640 going by compubox, but throwing more to land more has never been something we peanalised fighters for before - hell there's dudes whose entire games revolved around throwing volume. Not your thing huh? :lol1: And the thrust of your argument appears to be that because Golovkin failed to dominate then Canelo should win by default. You any idea how ridiculous that is man? Both of em were extremely respectful of what the other brought to the table and neither was able to get much going in either fight, in fact they largely neutralised each other but for you that somehow means we default to a Canelo victory? A 'killer' whatever that means, failing to get the kill has no bearing on whether or not he should have won or lost the fight. You score a 'killers' fight by exactly the same criteria as you score anyone else's.:thinking: A pair of excellent extremely hard fought boxing matches and all you can see is how it plays to your agenda. Never once have I seen you say how good both fights were or give credit to skill or determination of both men, whoever you thought deserved the nod. Kinda sad really.:nonono:

How many great players make 2 out of 10 winning shots??? That gives you a WINNING % .200 Where has this 20% come from?

Many mistakes. Marks in face depend on the fighters skin, is not a great indicator of fight outcome. We don't know if Canelo is better than GGG. What we know is that he lost twice against him. But head to head doesn't mean someone is better than other fighter, I know that. It could be a match up issue. Still, Canelo fought him at his prime whereas Golovkin fought him while being out of prime. Let's see how good Canelo is when he's 35+ years old. Very well put. I like both fighters. Though now I’m seeing Canelo improve and GGG block punches with his face. Nelo has the prettier stuff for sure. But no one will say he hits harder or has a better chin than GGG. A 35yr old Nelo vs a young Lion remains to be seen. I’m impressed with the improvements Nelos made, his defence, footwork for example. He used to have to reset after his combos. Still it’s not like we see Nelo throw 80+ in a round. Maybe he hasent had to. I’d hate to see him run out of time in a fight.

And yet Conelo was gifted a draw and won a highly controversial rematch what does that really say of conelo? Think about it time. You made valid points yet your hero had a draw and a gift win you made valid points yet your hero had a draw and a loss Golovkin could not get his game going in EITHER of those fights

kid, Golovkin was supposed to be a killer... a killer with relentless pressure, lethal body-work, and heavy-handed concussive punching... ... if his aggression was sooooo effective, then why didn't we see any of that?... we got golov-morons running around insisting that Golovkin "forgot" to work the body lol he missed 1000+ punches LMAO stop blurting out excuses you fluff-monkey And yet Conelo was gifted a draw and won a highly controversial rematch what does that really say of conelo? Think about it time. You made valid points yet your hero had a draw and a gift win

Golovkin might have been "robbed" in both fights, but Canelo is the better and more skilled fighter. Canelo adjusted in the rematch, which is why he gave Golovkin more trouble. Canelo is a better body puncher. Golovkin has become a headhunter in his recent fights. Canelo is a better counter-puncher. Canelo has better head movement. Look at Golovkin's face in the rematch. Good post and only g turds will argue this but what’s your point? Conelo still lost 2 fights to a inferior fighter so that makes Conelo not that great

But even that is subjective Curt, as is defense. Take an analogy...let's say we are competing to see who can throw the most touchdowns...I go 30 for 100...you go 25 for 50. You can argue your defense was better...you held me to 30% to my 50%..I can argue my defense was better, I only allowed you to have 50 attempts to score to my 100 attempts. I can argue my aggression was effective, I scored more points and had more attempts to score...you can argue it wasn't that effective as you held me to a lower percentage of scores per throw than you had. But the fact remains, that I scored more points than you...and just like in boxing, that is how you score a football game...it is who lands more and better shots...the other stuff is important, but only insofar as it helps you to land or not get landed on. Twisting around the criteria like that is an invitation to robbery cards as well...able to twist it around to suit your guy potentially any time you want. kid, Golovkin was supposed to be a killer... a killer with relentless pressure, lethal body-work, and heavy-handed concussive punching... ... if his aggression was sooooo effective, then why didn't we see any of that?... we got golov-morons running around insisting that Golovkin "forgot" to work the body lol he missed 1000+ punches LMAO stop blurting out excuses you fluff-monkey

He outlanded him by like 80 punches in 2 fights man...how is the other guy clearly a better boxer lol...nonsense neither volume nor punches landed are official scoring criteria * clean HARD punching * effective aggression * defence * ring generalship the fact that you casuals do not acknowledge ring generalship and defence... is shameful... and I have already schooled you up on that a number of times Golovkin was supposed to be a killer Golovkin was supposed to be a killer... with relentless pressure, lethal body-work, and heavy-handed concussive punching... and yet... ??? http://media.tumblr.com/ccef6e641636790216bd434a0c177fc2/tumblr_inline_n75krwRWEZ1qjsg0u.gif