were the people who have been hating on him non stop for years. Im sure you were really objective when you watched the fight.
Jacobs got dropped and outlanded in 9 rounds, but 'compubox dont matter doe'. Pretty sure he got wobbled a couple of times too, but 'robbery doe' 'GGGift'
Jacobs made the fight awkward, sure. But just cause he was a tricky customer doesnt mean he won you ******s, you actually have to land solid shots.
Its funny, cause whenever ward kovalev gets mentioned as a gift, you all get on the defensive and say 'what about golovkin jacobs' as if the two fights were a mirror image of each other.
None of you wanted the fight when it came to the build up, were all playing it down. But youre now demanding he rematch jacobs, but you also compain saying his CV is thin? His CV's thin but you want him to fight someone hes already beat, which is what the vast majority of journalists agree with? what kind of ****ed up logic is that?
Rather than just use ****** slogans and your usual hating bull****, can some of you please talk me through the legitimate case you have got for jacobs winning? I want a proper analysis of the scoring criteria you used for jacobs to win the fight. Did he outland him, did he visibly hurt golovkin, did he look the boss in there, was he setting the pace and forcing the action?
And does visibly hurting someone repeatedly, dropping them, outlanding them for 9 rounds, pressing the action on the front foot, constitute a robbery?
Jacobs got dropped and outlanded in 9 rounds, but 'compubox dont matter doe'. Pretty sure he got wobbled a couple of times too, but 'robbery doe' 'GGGift'
Jacobs made the fight awkward, sure. But just cause he was a tricky customer doesnt mean he won you ******s, you actually have to land solid shots.
Its funny, cause whenever ward kovalev gets mentioned as a gift, you all get on the defensive and say 'what about golovkin jacobs' as if the two fights were a mirror image of each other.
None of you wanted the fight when it came to the build up, were all playing it down. But youre now demanding he rematch jacobs, but you also compain saying his CV is thin? His CV's thin but you want him to fight someone hes already beat, which is what the vast majority of journalists agree with? what kind of ****ed up logic is that?
Rather than just use ****** slogans and your usual hating bull****, can some of you please talk me through the legitimate case you have got for jacobs winning? I want a proper analysis of the scoring criteria you used for jacobs to win the fight. Did he outland him, did he visibly hurt golovkin, did he look the boss in there, was he setting the pace and forcing the action?
And does visibly hurting someone repeatedly, dropping them, outlanding them for 9 rounds, pressing the action on the front foot, constitute a robbery?
Comment