If GGG was a legacy fighter he would handle Derevyanchenko first

Still begging for attention huh, you desperate old tart? You do realise I don't even read your replies ay more, doncha? :lol1: I did not reply to you... I mocked you ... and you read every word :lol1: stop blurting out unnecessary childish excuses you have no pride https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mJ8vi-kIlqE/hqdefault.jpg

when asked why they refused to consider fighting Lara, Team Bullshlt said that Willie Monroe Jnr was a bigger draw :lol1: they did not make up shlthead fanboy excuses, like citizen crybaby... they said that Monroe was a bigger draw loooool :D the fact is... Canelo had the balls to fight Lara, Golovkin did not Still begging for attention huh, you desperate old tart? You do realise I don't even read your replies ay more, doncha? :lol1:

when asked why they refused to consider fighting Lara, Team Bullshlt said that Willie Monroe Jnr was a bigger draw :lol1: they did not make up shlthead fanboy excuses, like citizen crybaby... they said that Monroe was a bigger draw loooool :D the fact is... Canelo had the balls to fight Lara, Golovkin did not

ha ha. Well for sure anyone can defend anything, same as the way anyone can take a dump on any career if they got a mind which is a point I regularly make. But you should surely know this cos you do it yourself quite regularly for the fighters you like or dislike. I can't imagine it'll be long before you're finding a reason why a meh kinda fight is acceptable for some reason or why a dude you like doesn't need to fight this guy or that.:lol1: Maybe you're right though, it does bother me when dudes start calling a fighter I followed from before he was big some kinda hype job or whatever, especially when I saw all the efforts they made to get bigger fights and all the ones that fell through. I try to be objective but at the end of the day we all got our biases and our favourites.. Seems to me Golovkin does get an undue amount of criticism on here, but then he ain't the first and I'm sure he won't be the last. The Lara thing though... ha ha... well I guess if that's the smoking gun that critics think buries GGG I probably shouldn't be fussed. And maybe I am defensive although of course from my perspective I'd just say I'm being consistent and fair. Same way you tie yourself in knots defending PBC and anything related I guess, cept I manage to support the dudes I like without putting down other fighters. Makes it easier to keep things straight and narrow if you try to give all fighters the benefit of the doubt I reckon, not to mention avoiding too much hypocrisy. Gives you a clearer understanding too I reckon. Anyways, sadly this weeks Pick Em fight is sadly cancelled, but the open invite remains for the furture if you're ever interested. correct ! you have never stopped blurting out shlthead fanboy excuses

the smoking gun is some fanboy saying he should have fought lara while ignoring all the evidence that showed lara did nothing to make the fight happen and actually made demands that were completely unreasonable. yeah duckkkking fraud! ward didnt duck bute though he just wanted bute to prove himself whiel he fought guys like pavlik and sartison. no bias here! straight down the middle! Thing is I don't even go in for all that ducking shet, the way the business is set up no-one really has to fight anyone - ther's no leagues or universally accepted rankings so talk of 'ducking this' and 'ducking that' is all but subjective nonsense unless you're talking about mandatories, but if dudes gonna try to say the fighters they don't like are ducking they gotta be prepared to have the same standards apply to the guys they do I guess. The Lara thing is just baffling to me though, kinda, so it coulda been a decent fight I reckon but there was never the money, the timeframe is deeply iffy and the promotional war all but prohibited it anyways. Better and more realsitic fights get passed over all the time, but I guess dudes gonna make a narrative outta whatever they can.

lets play a little game shall we? ill remove the names so people dont get all up in their feelings. fighter A is #1 at 160, fighter B is #1 at 154. fighter B says i want to fight then demands a career high payday which no fighter A opponent has ever received cept on ppv and this would not be a ppv fight. fight never happens. fighter C is #1 at 168, fighter D is #2 at 168. Fighter D offers fighter C a career high payday but fighter C says no you have to prove yourself first, then tries to sign a fight with an unranked fighter. which fighter ducked...if both did which is more egregious? cue the jeopardy music!

ha ha. Well for sure anyone can defend anything, same as the way anyone can take a dump on any career if they got a mind which is a point I regularly make. But you should surely know this cos you do it yourself quite regularly for the fighters you like or dislike. I can't imagine it'll be long before you're finding a reason why a meh kinda fight is acceptable for some reason or why a dude you like doesn't need to fight this guy or that.:lol1: Maybe you're right though, it does bother me when dudes start calling a fighter I followed from before he was big some kinda hype job or whatever, especially when I saw all the efforts they made to get bigger fights and all the ones that fell through. I try to be objective but at the end of the day we all got our biases and our favourites.. Seems to me Golovkin does get an undue amount of criticism on here, but then he ain't the first and I'm sure he won't be the last. The Lara thing though... ha ha... well I guess if that's the smoking gun that critics think buries GGG I probably shouldn't be fussed. And maybe I am defensive although of course from my perspective I'd just say I'm being consistent and fair. Same way you tie yourself in knots defending PBC and anything related I guess, cept I manage to support the dudes I like without putting down other fighters. Makes it easier to keep things straight and narrow if you try to give all fighters the benefit of the doubt I reckon, not to mention avoiding too much hypocrisy. Gives you a clearer understanding too I reckon. Anyways, sadly this weeks Pick Em fight is sadly cancelled, but the open invite remains for the furture if you're ever interested. the smoking gun is some fanboy saying he should have fought lara while ignoring all the evidence that showed lara did nothing to make the fight happen and actually made demands that were completely unreasonable. yeah duckkkking fraud! ward didnt duck bute though he just wanted bute to prove himself whiel he fought guys like pavlik and sartison. no bias here! straight down the middle! call it like i see it! facts over feelings!

if you want to argue when/why/how fights did or didnt happen anyone can make an argument to defend anyone basically..... fact of the matter is lara would have been his best win during that time frame....biggest/best name on the resume golovkin and his team may have been pursing better fights...bigger fights...but it was quite some time until he got one after lara was trying to get a fight with him.....at some point you cant sit around and hope/wait for one to materialize...you have to go out and beat someone and get people to notice you...lara was #1@154 and was fighting on spike.....he wasnt commanding huge paydays...although hed have prob wanted fair market price and wasnt taking 100k to fight golovkin obviously thats the problem with golovkins fans...they excuse everything he ever did and blame everything else and everyone else....the networks...the money....the other fighters.....he was being pushed by HBO hard and they could have done better.... but golovkins fans will excuse everything that ever happened to him and then claim ward was ducking a guy who got smoked by froch and has 5 L's to his name lol...i know you didnt do that personally but i know youve seen it....and thats the type...you may not go on the offensive with other fighters...but youre as equally as defensive as that type "Lara commands a lot of money so I cant say the fight will be simple to make. We got to make more money than what he's made in the past for Golovkin." lara wanted more than he got fighting for fighting canelo. ggg did not have that kind of money/power at the time. why do you ignore this? it was just a call out with no action behind it and when pressed they exposed themselves by demanding ridiculous money they knew ggg didnt have. thats a duck? ward did duck bute... you pretend ggg ducked lara when they werent in the same division, lara wanted more money than he had ever gotten and there were no formal negotiations but you dont think ward duckd bute when bute was #1 in the division, offered ward a career high payday, and ward tried to fight dmitri sartison instead? like come on. if one guy ducked there it was ward. if you want to be a nitpicker and say well ggg could have done more to get the lara fight, ok thats fair but that kind of scrutiny is never applied to any single fighter you like so yeah kind of revealing isnt it?

At this point he has no time for legacy, just big money paydays aka superfights

85 percent of everyone knows he lost. I haven’t heard “one” single boxer or trainer say ggg pulled it off. As far as the fans only the Golovkin squad is in denial Never hear??? I guess that goes to show the only thing you have between your ears is wax.

if you want to argue when/why/how fights did or didnt happen anyone can make an argument to defend anyone basically..... fact of the matter is lara would have been his best win during that time frame....biggest/best name on the resume golovkin and his team may have been pursing better fights...bigger fights...but it was quite some time until he got one after lara was trying to get a fight with him.....at some point you cant sit around and hope/wait for one to materialize...you have to go out and beat someone and get people to notice you...lara was #1@154 and was fighting on spike.....he wasnt commanding huge paydays...although hed have prob wanted fair market price and wasnt taking 100k to fight golovkin obviously thats the problem with golovkins fans...they excuse everything he ever did and blame everything else and everyone else....the networks...the money....the other fighters.....he was being pushed by HBO hard and they could have done better.... but golovkins fans will excuse everything that ever happened to him and then claim ward was ducking a guy who got smoked by froch and has 5 L's to his name lol...i know you didnt do that personally but i know youve seen it....and thats the type...you may not go on the offensive with other fighters...but youre as equally as defensive as that type ha ha. Well for sure anyone can defend anything, same as the way anyone can take a dump on any career if they got a mind which is a point I regularly make. But you should surely know this cos you do it yourself quite regularly for the fighters you like or dislike. I can't imagine it'll be long before you're finding a reason why a meh kinda fight is acceptable for some reason or why a dude you like doesn't need to fight this guy or that.:lol1: Maybe you're right though, it does bother me when dudes start calling a fighter I followed from before he was big some kinda hype job or whatever, especially when I saw all the efforts they made to get bigger fights and all the ones that fell through. I try to be objective but at the end of the day we all got our biases and our favourites.. Seems to me Golovkin does get an undue amount of criticism on here, but then he ain't the first and I'm sure he won't be the last. The Lara thing though... ha ha... well I guess if that's the smoking gun that critics think buries GGG I probably shouldn't be fussed. And maybe I am defensive although of course from my perspective I'd just say I'm being consistent and fair. Same way you tie yourself in knots defending PBC and anything related I guess, cept I manage to support the dudes I like without putting down other fighters. Makes it easier to keep things straight and narrow if you try to give all fighters the benefit of the doubt I reckon, not to mention avoiding too much hypocrisy. Gives you a clearer understanding too I reckon. Anyways, sadly this weeks Pick Em fight is sadly cancelled, but the open invite remains for the furture if you're ever interested.

Agree to disagree. Up to a point you are correct - Lara would likely have been a tricky fight and might well have been one they wouldn't have wanted whilst building GGGs aura, but you continue to brush over that HBO just weren't doing business over the road and that Lara was both expensive and would have done little to progress Golovkin's career. Furthermore there was no point at which HBO weren't actually seeking better fights, even if on many occasions these never came to fruition. But sure, you want to say Golovkin 'avoided' Lara I think it's a little nonsensical and I can't quite figure a timeline where it would have made sense (instead of Monroe is about the only timeline I could see cept Lara wouldn't have fought for $100k) but I ain't gonna waste time arguing. Certainly they didn't make any efforts to try to make that fight though I think saying GGG 'wanted no parts of' Lara is trying to hard to paint a particular picture. Dudes call each other out all the time but people are strangely selective in deciding when it's ducking and when it ain't... :lol1: Anyways, we can go round and round with this ish and get no-where, we both invested in our own narratives and neither's likely to change our minds at this point although I believe I demonstrate greater consistency when it comes down to applying the same standards to all fighters across the board. Honestly it ain't like it matters anyway cept I see folk often hang the argument that failing to pursue the Lara fight is evidence of Golovkin's 'cowardice' or somesuch nonsense, which ain't really worthy of response anyway. Anyways. With that out of the way I'm recruiting for the relaunch of this years Pick Em game, probably a bit late for you starting now to end up in one of the top slots, but that ish is still a laugh and a good way to get some interest in researching some fights or fighters you might not otherwise have been interested in... and it's non partisan too, a little spot where we can just talk about the fights without all the dumb fanbase rivalry shit. What you reckon, throw in for a bit of laugh and test your knowledge? Be good practice for next year too if you'd like to jump in from the start? https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=849220 https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=837530 if you want to argue when/why/how fights did or didnt happen anyone can make an argument to defend anyone basically..... fact of the matter is lara would have been his best win during that time frame....biggest/best name on the resume golovkin and his team may have been pursing better fights...bigger fights...but it was quite some time until he got one after lara was trying to get a fight with him.....at some point you cant sit around and hope/wait for one to materialize...you have to go out and beat someone and get people to notice you...lara was #1@154 and was fighting on spike.....he wasnt commanding huge paydays...although hed have prob wanted fair market price and wasnt taking 100k to fight golovkin obviously thats the problem with golovkins fans...they excuse everything he ever did and blame everything else and everyone else....the networks...the money....the other fighters.....he was being pushed by HBO hard and they could have done better.... but golovkins fans will excuse everything that ever happened to him and then claim ward was ducking a guy who got smoked by froch and has 5 L's to his name lol...i know you didnt do that personally but i know youve seen it....and thats the type...you may not go on the offensive with other fighters...but youre as equally as defensive as that type

nobody said it would have turned golovkin into a legacy fighter...but at the time it would have have been his best scalp by a good margin....it was very viable....lara was not a big name or a big star and fought on showtime... heck in 2015 he was fighting on spike tv for christ sakes you thinking people have said it would have enhanced golovkin is some made up argument i truly believe...because ive seen no one suggest it would have helped solidify golovkins legacy....most said what you stated "it would have been a good fight we would have liked to see"...it would have made a ton of sense and def been best name on his resume he wanted no part..or hbo and and his team wanted no part because they feared it might have been a tricky fight that might not have made golovkin look like the ko machine they were building....they suggested lara brought no fans or no money but he brought no less than the guys he was fighting around that time haymons guys have always gone wherever if the money and opportunity were right....its a fight golovkins team and hbo wanted no part of but it wasnt because of any "network" war Agree to disagree. Up to a point you are correct - Lara would likely have been a tricky fight and might well have been one they wouldn't have wanted whilst building GGGs aura, but you continue to brush over that HBO just weren't doing business over the road and that Lara was both expensive and would have done little to progress Golovkin's career. Furthermore there was no point at which HBO weren't actually seeking better fights, even if on many occasions these never came to fruition. But sure, you want to say Golovkin 'avoided' Lara I think it's a little nonsensical and I can't quite figure a timeline where it would have made sense (instead of Monroe is about the only timeline I could see cept Lara wouldn't have fought for $100k) but I ain't gonna waste time arguing. Certainly they didn't make any efforts to try to make that fight though I think saying GGG 'wanted no parts of' Lara is trying to hard to paint a particular picture. Dudes call each other out all the time but people are strangely selective in deciding when it's ducking and when it ain't... :lol1: Anyways, we can go round and round with this ish and get no-where, we both invested in our own narratives and neither's likely to change our minds at this point although I believe I demonstrate greater consistency when it comes down to applying the same standards to all fighters across the board. Honestly it ain't like it matters anyway cept I see folk often hang the argument that failing to pursue the Lara fight is evidence of Golovkin's 'cowardice' or somesuch nonsense, which ain't really worthy of response anyway. Anyways. With that out of the way I'm recruiting for the relaunch of this years Pick Em game, probably a bit late for you starting now to end up in one of the top slots, but that ish is still a laugh and a good way to get some interest in researching some fights or fighters you might not otherwise have been interested in... and it's non partisan too, a little spot where we can just talk about the fights without all the dumb fanbase rivalry shit. What you reckon, throw in for a bit of laugh and test your knowledge? Be good practice for next year too if you'd like to jump in from the start? https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=849220 https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=837530

85 percent of everyone knows he lost. I haven’t heard “one” single boxer or trainer say ggg pulled it off. As far as the fans only the Golovkin squad is in denial Yea or stop ignoring Andrade & Charlo, Alvarez fought a heavier Kovalev + Jacobs. It's TripleB!tch's turn, man up !

Golovkin however was tied to a network and HBO was both selecting and paying for his opponents. HBO was in a life and death struggle with SHO / Haymon which they ultimately lost. HBO wasn't doing business with SHO aligned fighters or Al unless they really had no alternatives, and you know this. Weird how people acknowledge the present network divide and the much deeper one that existed back in 2014/5 and are quite happy to use it to explain other fights that didn't happen yet keep bringing up Lara like it was a viable or necessary fight for Golovkin. I tend to see it as a kinda strawman that was merely a part of the wider HBO / SHO conflict, never a really viaible fight but a useful PR tool to try to diminish Golovkin's value as one of HBOs few remaining assets, same reason Al signed Stevenson and Chavez Jr, not really because he had long term plans for 'em but because it harmed HBO. Very sound strategy as it turned out, although I think the writing was already on the wall pretty much from the start of the decade. And whilst I have huge respect for Erislandy he's still the guy who drew with Vanes and Carlos Molina... fighting him wouldn't, with due respect, have turned Golovkin into a great legacy fighter as some folk seem to be suggesting, although I would like to have seen it and it would have been a good fight. the only people who do that are excuse-making shltheads when " fans " first starting using the 'network' excuse, they were ridiculed LMAO they were regarded as the worst/lowest of the fanboys my how times have changed

the myth of golovkin being a "legacy" fighter died some time ago not with his ret4rded fanboys

Naive much Scrappy? Maybe you need to take off them rose tinted specs. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/13/magazine/fists-full-of-dollars-hearns-takes-on-leonard.html The dudes - even the legends - were always fighting for the money first, man. Legacy is what happens when the opportunity, money and quality align, which ain't always the case. Ain't a coincidence that all these legendary fights just happened to be the ones with the biggest payday attached. Difference today is that dudes can make $ mils fighting second and third tier dudes. And Lara was never even a realsitic option for GGG cos he was on a different network and nor was he directly in his path as he was for Canelo. Completely different circumstances, but I know you already know this. they said that Willie Monroe is a bigger draw than Lara, you excuse-making shlthead :lol1::lol1:

Golovkin however was tied to a network and HBO was both selecting and paying for his opponents. HBO was in a life and death struggle with SHO / Haymon which they ultimately lost. HBO wasn't doing business with SHO aligned fighters or Al unless they really had no alternatives, and you know this. Weird how people acknowledge the present network divide and the much deeper one that existed back in 2014/5 and are quite happy to use it to explain other fights that didn't happen yet keep bringing up Lara like it was a viable or necessary fight for Golovkin. I tend to see it as a kinda strawman that was merely a part of the wider HBO / SHO conflict, never a really viaible fight but a useful PR tool to try to diminish Golovkin's value as one of HBOs few remaining assets, same reason Al signed Stevenson and Chavez Jr, not really because he had long term plans for 'em but because it harmed HBO. Very sound strategy as it turned out, although I think the writing was already on the wall pretty much from the start of the decade. And whilst I have huge respect for Erislandy he's still the guy who drew with Vanes and Carlos Molina... fighting him wouldn't, with due respect, have turned Golovkin into a great legacy fighter as some folk seem to be suggesting, although I would like to have seen it and it would have been a good fight. nobody said it would have turned golovkin into a legacy fighter...but at the time it would have have been his best scalp by a good margin....it was very viable....lara was not a big name or a big star and fought on showtime... heck in 2015 he was fighting on spike tv for christ sakes you thinking people have said it would have enhanced golovkin is some made up argument i truly believe...because ive seen no one suggest it would have helped solidify golovkins legacy....most said what you stated "it would have been a good fight we would have liked to see"...it would have made a ton of sense and def been best name on his resume he wanted no part..or hbo and and his team wanted no part because they feared it might have been a tricky fight that might not have made golovkin look like the ko machine they were building....they suggested lara brought no fans or no money but he brought no less than the guys he was fighting around that time haymons guys have always gone wherever if the money and opportunity were right....its a fight golovkins team and hbo wanted no part of but it wasnt because of any "network" war

lara wasnt tied to a network..he worked on a fight by fight basis and even stated that to golovkins team......at the time lara was calling for the fight he was #1 at 154 and would have been the best name on golovkins resume easily...and lara was no stranger to network tv either at that time Golovkin however was tied to a network and HBO was both selecting and paying for his opponents. HBO was in a life and death struggle with SHO / Haymon which they ultimately lost. HBO wasn't doing business with SHO aligned fighters or Al unless they really had no alternatives, and you know this. Weird how people acknowledge the present network divide and the much deeper one that existed back in 2014/5 and are quite happy to use it to explain other fights that didn't happen yet keep bringing up Lara like it was a viable or necessary fight for Golovkin. I tend to see it as a kinda strawman that was merely a part of the wider HBO / SHO conflict, never a really viaible fight but a useful PR tool to try to diminish Golovkin's value as one of HBOs few remaining assets, same reason Al signed Stevenson and Chavez Jr, not really because he had long term plans for 'em but because it harmed HBO. Very sound strategy as it turned out, although I think the writing was already on the wall pretty much from the start of the decade. And whilst I have huge respect for Erislandy he's still the guy who drew with Vanes and Carlos Molina... fighting him wouldn't, with due respect, have turned Golovkin into a great legacy fighter as some folk seem to be suggesting, although I would like to have seen it and it would have been a good fight.

Kind of like Canelo and Erislandy Lara. End of thread /