Tweet
My post sounded more down-to-earth than yours to be honest. And it was simply a modest attempt at dry humor. I guess it works better in real life.
I never said Ronnie Shields' opinion should be taken as gospel. You are the one who took things to extremes by saying that a man who has been involved in boxing for more than 40 years has no idea what he's talking about.
You could have a valid point if Shields had never seen them fight. It is not the case. He has certainly watched Golovkin fight. Everyone has. And he has obviously watched Canelo's fights and spent some time studying his style. Knowing this and given his vast experience, your first post becomes unlikely to be true. You can disagree with him but the guy knows what he's talking about.
Canelo has looked impressive against pressure fighters with a limited skillset ie. Angulo, Kirkland and Smith - Chavez Jr fits the bill as well. There is no way one can put Golovkin in the same category. Golovkin is simply not your typical pressure fighter. Therefore, the theory that says "Canelo has the style to beat Golovkin because he does well against come forward fighters" goes out the window.
Shields said "[...]he (Canelo) wants you to come straight forward to him so he has an opportunity to hit you [...]". That's not what Golovkin does. He does come forward but behind an educated jab and is actually wary of punches coming back. He's not a punching bag made to tee off on like the fighters previously mentioned. That's one of the differences between a basic pressure fighter and a technically sound pressure fighter. Of course I'm talking about the version of Golovkin who respects his opponent's punching power, the one who fought Lemieux and Stevens and not the one who fought Murray and Brook.
Shields also said he thinks Golovkin is the stronger of the two - in addition of being the harder hitter - which I agree with. Canelo also has not proven he could maintain a high and steady pace for 12 rounds or that he could withstand Golovkin type of power (by testing the waters in a real middleweight fight against Lemieux for example).
Except for the following fallacious argument: [Canelo does well against pressure fighters + Golovkin always comes forward] = good for Canelo! I don't see anything that suggests than Canelo possesses the style to beat Golovkin - note that we are not talking about giving him trouble and winning a few rounds here - but winning the fight. That being said, we will have plenty of time to break down this fight in the future.
I never said Ronnie Shields' opinion should be taken as gospel. You are the one who took things to extremes by saying that a man who has been involved in boxing for more than 40 years has no idea what he's talking about.
You could have a valid point if Shields had never seen them fight. It is not the case. He has certainly watched Golovkin fight. Everyone has. And he has obviously watched Canelo's fights and spent some time studying his style. Knowing this and given his vast experience, your first post becomes unlikely to be true. You can disagree with him but the guy knows what he's talking about.
Canelo has looked impressive against pressure fighters with a limited skillset ie. Angulo, Kirkland and Smith - Chavez Jr fits the bill as well. There is no way one can put Golovkin in the same category. Golovkin is simply not your typical pressure fighter. Therefore, the theory that says "Canelo has the style to beat Golovkin because he does well against come forward fighters" goes out the window.
Shields said "[...]he (Canelo) wants you to come straight forward to him so he has an opportunity to hit you [...]". That's not what Golovkin does. He does come forward but behind an educated jab and is actually wary of punches coming back. He's not a punching bag made to tee off on like the fighters previously mentioned. That's one of the differences between a basic pressure fighter and a technically sound pressure fighter. Of course I'm talking about the version of Golovkin who respects his opponent's punching power, the one who fought Lemieux and Stevens and not the one who fought Murray and Brook.
Shields also said he thinks Golovkin is the stronger of the two - in addition of being the harder hitter - which I agree with. Canelo also has not proven he could maintain a high and steady pace for 12 rounds or that he could withstand Golovkin type of power (by testing the waters in a real middleweight fight against Lemieux for example).
Except for the following fallacious argument: [Canelo does well against pressure fighters + Golovkin always comes forward] = good for Canelo! I don't see anything that suggests than Canelo possesses the style to beat Golovkin - note that we are not talking about giving him trouble and winning a few rounds here - but winning the fight. That being said, we will have plenty of time to break down this fight in the future.
Comment