How come some people like 3G can keep a title they are given but not won they win?

:lol1: Ah semantics? I think we are talking about a different usage of the term my man. I was assuming you meant the other one. By all means we'll call my views an argument then: I'm making the argument - or case, if you will - that your underlying argument is a pile of nonsense and can be applied equally well to dozens of other fighters who you're excluding from the same criticism. I'm also making the argument that you're a troll and almost certainly a hypocrite. I believe this thread provides strong evidence in support of said argument. thats right you've now made another argument, you are catching on.

having a point of view means you had an argument. endeth lesson. :lol1: Ah semantics? I think we are talking about a different usage of the term my man. I was assuming you meant the other one. argument /ˈɑːɡjʊm(ə)nt/ 1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. "I've had an argument with my father" 2. a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory. "there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal" By all means we'll call my views an argument then: I'm making the argument - or case, if you will - that your underlying argument is a pile of nonsense and can be applied equally well to dozens of other fighters who you're excluding from the same criticism. I'm also making the argument that you're a troll and almost certainly a hypocrite. I believe this thread provides strong evidence in support of said argument.

:lol1: Argument? There was no argument, merely me pointing out. having a point of view means you had an argument. endeth lesson.

it wasnt brought up by me either for any of them or GGG. I understand from this that you needed to invent an argument in order to win one, because mine was one you couldnt handle. :lol1: Argument? There was no argument, merely me pointing out why your entire thread, in fact most of em, have no substance. Hell, even your thread about Danny Jacobs' ears started with a false premise... can you get anything right? You keep doing the same thing, coming up with what you imagine to be a clever dig at GGG without seeming to realise that the exact stuff that you belittle Golovkin for has been done by many, many fighters who are regarded as good or even great. Every time I comment on one of your threads it's the exact same pattern.

You know a sure sign of a hypocrite doncha? It's when a dude starts coming up with reasons why the criticism he makes about one fighter don't apply to others. All the guys I mentioned were considered legitimate champions and the fact that they started out as interim titlists was never brought up. it wasnt brought up by me either for any of them or GGG. I understand from this that you needed to invent an argument in order to win one, because mine was one you couldnt handle.

Look I think GGG is overrated but damn...MODS CAN YOU PLEASE STOP POSTERS FROM SPAMMING WITH THE SAME DAMN HATE THREADS OVER AND OVER AGAIN?? TBear jaded BostonGuy

no clearly I was not referring to guys who fought good fighters, though a tiny few of these wouldnt count of course, well done on bringing a tiny proportion of relevant matter in, well done. You know a sure sign of a hypocrite doncha? It's when a dude starts coming up with reasons why the criticism he makes about one fighter don't apply to others. All the guys I mentioned were considered legitimate champions and the fact that they started out as interim titlists was never brought up once they started making defenses of the title. It's either a legitimate criticism or it isn't and since it wasn't for other fighters then it's clearly hypocritical to claim it is for Golovkin. If you want to criticise the quality of his opposition that's a different question, although a legitimate one. To be honest though any dude who's calling top 10 fighters in any division 'bums' has already shown his colours even without the clear hypocrisy you're showing. You might want to ask yourself why Golovkin is mysteriously so highly rated by the TBRB, Ring, Boxrec and the sanctioning orgs. Is it because they're all part of some conspiracy to elevate some random Kazakh to boxing stardom or is it because in fact making 15 or 20 defenses of any title in any division is a rare and prestigeous accomplishment or that having the 4th best record against top 10 opponents over the course of a decade is special in itself... Is it, in short, your ignorance of the wider sport that's the problem here rather than some mad conspiracy to pull the wool over the boxing publics eyes? Sorry man, but you got not the slighest credibility with me after that dumb 'bum' stuff, and even if you did, whose opinion do you reckon I'm gonna value more, Breadmans and the TBRBs or some weird obsessed internet troll who keeps pulling random crap of his ass to discredit one of the decade's best fighters and the most accomplished Middleweight of his generation.

The better question would be why the 70 odd other paper titlists who were also elevated from interim status in the last 20 years or so couldn't even make as many defenses of their titles as Golovkin. Who are these obscure no names you ask? Yeah... the list includes but is not limited to; Maidana, Thurman, Lara, Bivol, Dorticos, Gamboa, Cuellar, Chocolatito, John Ruiz, Roy Jones, Jermall, Maravilla, Haney, Tim Bradley, Salido, Ricky Burns and JMM... twice. About 50 others too. no clearly I was not referring to guys who fought good fighters, though a tiny few of these wouldnt count of course, well done on bringing a tiny proportion of relevant matter in, well done. Yet I'm not seeing you start thread after thread about these dudes suggesting they're fakes and paper champions. Could it be you weren't aware of just how common it is? :lol1:

so no ideas as to why GGG fr instance come unstuck when its a title he had to fight to win? but he can make loads of ibo defences. The better question would be why the 70 odd other paper titlists who were also elevated from interim status in the last 20 years or so couldn't even make as many defenses of their titles as Golovkin. Who are these obscure no names you ask? Yeah... the list includes but is not limited to; Maidana, Thurman, Lara, Bivol, Dorticos, Gamboa, Cuellar, Chocolatito, John Ruiz, Roy Jones, Jermall, Maravilla, Haney, Tim Bradley, Salido, Ricky Burns and JMM... twice. About 50 others too. Yet I'm not seeing you start thread after thread about these dudes suggesting they're fakes and paper champions. Could it be you weren't aware of just how common it is? :lol1:

so no ideas as to why GGG fr instance come unstuck when its a title he had to fight to win? but he can make loads of ibo defences.

Yeah and Goodman and Sulaiman bent over like two betches and named Canelo a Franchise Champion. No honest authority would do that unless they intentionally conspired foul play before hand. The War Gods favor Canelo Alvarez. And still, PAC avoid drug testing blaming it on blood drawn and socks for the Morales fight... go figure. Who failed a test? Manny sued Floyd for those false accusations. A year later he agreed to blood testing. Floyd readily admits he was the one who marinated their fight for five years to make it bigger. He was also the one with the illegal IV. He was never dehydrated enough to need it, IMO he was masking something. So Canelo actually cheated and got caught, Floyd got caught but the corrupt USADA gave him an exception two weeks after since Haymon pays USADA big money to "test" their fighters, who often refuse testing (Charlo). Manny never failed a test.

i had to re read this thread a few times and it souunds even dumber everytime i read it

observing -GGG for instance was able to defend a fake title for years and years without a problem, but once he won a recognised title in the ring, he could only last three opponents before surrendering it. How come hes crap at defending a title he wins but good hes given a fake one?Two I hate GGG threads up at the same time. Have you taken over for John C in his absence in the mission to damn GGG to hell? Old GGG has fooled the experts. At age 38 his is still high on all important top 10 best pfp lists. That old rascal GGG is driving you. John and Uncle Al crazy.

observing -GGG for instance was able to defend a fake title for years and years without a problem, but once he won a recognised title in the ring, he could only last three opponents before surrendering it. How come hes crap at defending a title he wins but good hes given a fake one? Isn't there a casual fanboy section for goons like this one?

observing -GGG for instance was able to defend a fake title for years and years without a problem, but once he won a recognised title in the ring, he could only last three opponents before surrendering it. How come hes crap at defending a title he wins but good hes given a fake one? Why is people still arguing over GGG and his middleweight reign is the real question. Fact is the dude didnt get beat until the second Nelo fight and up until then he looked pretty much untouchable. Although I do say it would've made me a fan of he had moved up in weight but since he opted to stay at 160 I'm respectful of his accomplishments and everything but not real impressed by his lack of pushing himself and his legacy.

Because VADA has made it strict, per their yearly conferences, that they are on a mission to catch cheaters and they will be dealt with severely. Franchise Champion came out of nowhere, and if there was any favoritism in theory that Canelo is protected, then Goodman and Mauricio would’ve made it a priority to give Canelo benefit of doubt when it all happened because of the Vargas case. The best anyone could do is stick their neck out with CSI forensics and hair samples and still wasn’t good enough for Canelo haters when it’s good enough for murder cases. Lol. The Franchise Award was specifically extra ordinary measures for the WBC to rebound on their mistakes regarding Clen because they knew GBP wasn’t going to purse with Haymon for Charlo. So the WBC came up with a surprise attack on industry. Why would VADA associate with an organization like the WBC with all this inconsistency. And stop spinning no VADA testing with PAC vs Thurman. It's a fascinating hypothesis man, but entirely speculative. There's a virtually limitless range of possible hypotheses that could explain the set of circumstances you've selected including the most obvious one that there's no causal link between em at all. Is there some reason you're sharing your speculations with me in particular? I'm thinking maybe someone with less rigorous ideas of what constitutes proof might be a better fit for you?

Random blood testing didn’t exist in the context we are talking about. Pacquiao said they drew blood on the day of the fight. Lol. The truth is his blood was drawn 2 days before the fight and PAC corroborated that ok a Filipino show after losing to Morales 1. If the Nevada commission lost his sample and needed another one, then why didn’t Pac blame it on such testing in the post fight interview with Larry Merchant when such testing was a distraction because it wasn’t done before? Instead PAC blamed it on socks.... that’s all on HBO tape. The truth is this: “Golden Boy Promotions, which acts for Mayweather, says urine tests do not detect Human Growth Hormone, while the Olympic-standard blood tests they want do. Medical opinion is divided on the subject. Pacquiao's trainer, Freddie Roach, has dismissed the allegations as mischief-making. He said in an interview with ESPN this month: "Mayweather's side wanted it because the expert over there, Mayweather Sr, says Manny is on steroids to get bigger. They're scared of Manny and scared of his power. He'll pass any test in the world." And.... ? :thinking: Is this going somewhere? If you're of the opinion that Manny (or Floyd for that matter) were drug cheats then by all means you're entitled to hold that opinion. All I'm saying is there's no hard proof in either case. As to the rest of it you'll have to forgive me if I ain't fully following. You appear to be claiming that Manny and Keiths decision to just use standard CPB VADA instead of having testing written into the fight contract is evidence of a conspiracy by the WBC to punish Canelo and hold his subsequent elevation to 'Franchise' Champion as further proof of this. Have I got that about right? :thinking: I... ummm... ain't quite sure what the correct response to that kinda reasoning is, I'm afraid. I'm not sure it passes the minumum standards for what I'd claim as 'truth' however. :lol1:

Random blood testing didn’t exist in the context we are talking about. Pacquiao said they drew blood on the day of the fight. Lol. The truth is his blood was drawn 2 days before the fight and PAC corroborated that ok a Filipino show after losing to Morales 1. If the Nevada commission lost his sample and needed another one, then why didn’t Pac blame it on such testing in the post fight interview with Larry Merchant when such testing was a distraction because it wasn’t done before? Instead PAC blamed it on socks.... that’s all on HBO tape. The truth is this: “Golden Boy Promotions, which acts for Mayweather, says urine tests do not detect Human Growth Hormone, while the Olympic-standard blood tests they want do. Medical opinion is divided on the subject. Pacquiao's trainer, Freddie Roach, has dismissed the allegations as mischief-making. He said in an interview with ESPN this month: "Mayweather's side wanted it because the expert over there, Mayweather Sr, says Manny is on steroids to get bigger. They're scared of Manny and scared of his power. He'll pass any test in the world." Check this guy out, he's the biggest fan of a known and proven drug cheat who was actually suspended for PED use, trying to accuse a fighter who has never failed a drug test of cheating. Typical of the casual behavior around here.

I don’t care about Floyd’s IV hate theory. Why I’m care about is why didn’t Pac vs Thurman have VADA testing if it’s the Golden Standard for major boxing events today? The question is why did Pacquiao say that giving blood weakens a fighter? He even said it’s not good to give blood during training since it “inhibits”... what athlete says this kind of stuff!? Imagine if Olympians said this? Would it mean that all Olympians really aren’t 100% or would say they aren’t 100% for doing advanced drug testing? Aha. Recent?... I just had a vague memory of seeing a thread about Pac in 2010 or something and thought you were talking about that. Far as I can see it there's no good reason why any top level fighter shouldn't have testing written into their fight contracts or that any fighter should avoid testing or be non-compliant. When that happens I'll always harbour suspicisions as to why. What I won't do in any case is declare guilt based on circumstantial evidence. As to why Pacquiao said this or that I have no idea, but he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed for sure, in fact most fighters ain't, and hearing dumb crap come out of the mouth of a boxer ain't exactly unusual.

But u been ducking my PAC thread when you enjoy analytical debates regarding PEDS. Remember when I said most GGG Fans stem from PAC... coincidence? Ducking? I never even looked at it... and I was never a major Pac fan anyway, same as with Floyd. Why would I, every time I look over stuff like that it turns out to be a pointless waste of time, just the Pac / Floyd weirdos continuing their ridiculous feud. Best I've always understood the accusations from both sides there it was always just speculation and unproven accusations. Has there been some new breaking news or are will still on circumstantial ish? You know me man, I like to deal with actual evidence rather than speculation. Are you saying you believe it's worth my time? There's something substantive in there or is it just treading over the same accusation and counter accusation? As I said with Canelo unless there's some new facts emerged it probably just needs to be left to lie. You want my opinion I think there's every chance Pac was juicing for at least part of his career and IV gate looks real bad for Floyd too, but I honestly ain't looked into to either enough to give a real informed opion and I don't really care enough to now, that ish is ancient history, man.