Let's get something straight about a fighter's physical prime

[mick1303]

Agreed, i'm not sure why it's considered a controversial thing to say GGG at 35 probably isnt as good as GGG at 28. His last 2 fights have suggested a decline, that's an observation not an excuse. I still favour GGG to beat Canelo but not as strongly as I did say a year or 2 ago. There is a reason Canelo has waited this long to make the fight...

This is precisely how I feel. And Canelo apologists know it as well. There is nothing they can say in the rhealm of rational. So they retort to hyperboles - "GGG fans are scared, they are making excuses". There is a reason Canelo wanted this extra year... It may or may not be enough - we shall see.

[boliodogs]

Man, GG fans are freaking the fk out. Everyone was saying that GG would crush Nelo. Then Golovkin fights Jacobs and suddenly, "Remember, he's OLD!"
Show some support for your guy. This is really a 50/50 fight. No need for excuses from either side. One is 35, the other is fighting a bigger guy for only the 2nd time.

I agree except for the bigger man part. I think Canelo and GGG are the same size weight wise. They both weigh an equally lean 170 pounds on fight night give or take a pound or two. They both are smaller middleweights could make 154 if they have to. Canelo looked lean and hard when he weighed in a 164 pounds.

[j0zef]

No fighter that is 35 years old is in his prime. There's absolutely no way you can argue that. It's not about fanbases, agendas, haters, fanboys, or whatever. No matter who you are, a 35 year old is not in his prime. Not Floyd, not Foreman, not RJJ and not even BHop who continued fighting for 15 years more.

Some styles/sizes age better than others - that is true. The more you rely on speed and reflexes the more vulnerable you are to age. George Foreman's style translated well into twilight of his career, while someone like David Haye is nowhere near the same fighter he was in his 20s. Lomachenko is going to be a shadow of his former self in 5 years, while Hopkins' crafty style survived well over the years.

If this is about Canelo (which it looks like), then yeah, this fight will forever be tainted because Golden Boy waited for Golovkin to age - no matter who wins. The same arguments are made all the time about Floyd, Calzaghe and Marciano with different degrees of truth in each case.

[Chrismart]

Agreed, i'm not sure why it's considered a controversial thing to say GGG at 35 probably isnt as good as GGG at 28. His last 2 fights have suggested a decline, that's an observation not an excuse. I still favour GGG to beat Canelo but not as strongly as I did say a year or 2 ago. There is a reason Canelo has waited this long to make the fight...

Yep, i agree with all that.

No fighter that is 35 years old is in his prime. There's absolutely no way you can argue that. It's not about fanbases, agendas, haters, fanboys, or whatever. No matter who you are, a 35 year old is not in his prime. Not Floyd, not Foreman, not RJJ and not even BHop who continued fighting for 15 years more.

:ANYWORD:

[Robbie Barrett]

No fighter that is 35 years old is in his prime. There's absolutely no way you can argue that. It's not about fanbases, agendas, haters, fanboys, or whatever. No matter who you are, a 35 year old is not in his prime. Not Floyd, not Foreman, not RJJ and not even BHop who continued fighting for 15 years more.

Some styles/sizes age better than others - that is true. The more you rely on speed and reflexes the more vulnerable you are to age. George Foreman's style translated well into twilight of his career, while someone like David Haye is nowhere near the same fighter he was in his 20s. Lomachenko is going to be a shadow of his former self in 5 years, while Hopkins' crafty style survived well over the years.

If this is about Canelo (which it looks like), then yeah, this fight will forever be tainted because Golden Boy waited for Golovkin to age - no matter who wins. The same arguments are made all the time about Floyd, Calzaghe and Marciano with different degrees of truth in each case.

If Canelo wins it won't be important anyway. Golovkin will be largely forgotten as an hype job that lost when he stepped up to fight an A level fighter.

[Canelo and GGG]

Today 35 is nothing ,we are not in 80s.

[JimRaynor]

I keep seeing people saying that calling ggg past his prime, or slipping are just "excuses". Fact is, when you're 35 years old, you're no longer in your physical prime...end of story. Most azzholes who are 35+ and just go to the gym a couple times a week or play a sport on the weekend probably don't feel like they once did. Now imagine competing at the absolute highest level in a professional sport. Fighters may peak at all different times in their career due to experience and adjusting to a more comfortable weight etc, but there is no 35+ fighter that wouldn't be a better version of themselves if they turned back the clock 5 years. If you're over 35 and aren't on some type of peds...you ain't in your prime.

Disagree, a 35 year old Wladimir Klitschko was better than a 30 year old Wladimir Klitschko, and a 35 year old Lennox Lewis looked the best he has ever in the second Hasim Rahman fight.

I think after 35, fighters to decline.

[JimRaynor]

I agree completely. No boxer is in their physical prime at 35 years of age including Hopkins. A boxer might still be good enough to beat any fighter their weight at the age of 35 but they aren't as strong as they were at age 24 to 29.

No fighter that is 35 years old is in his prime. There's absolutely no way you can argue that. It's not about fanbases, agendas, haters, fanboys, or whatever. No matter who you are, a 35 year old is not in his prime. Not Floyd, not Foreman, not RJJ and not even BHop who continued fighting for 15 years more.

Joe Beamish would strongly disagree with you, he thinks at 41 a fighter is better than ever.

[hugh grant]

I keep seeing people saying that calling ggg past his prime, or slipping are just "excuses". Fact is, when you're 35 years old, you're no longer in your physical prime...end of story. Most azzholes who are 35+ and just go to the gym a couple times a week or play a sport on the weekend probably don't feel like they once did. Now imagine competing at the absolute highest level in a professional sport. Fighters may peak at all different times in their career due to experience and adjusting to a more comfortable weight etc, but there is no 35+ fighter that wouldn't be a better version of themselves if they turned back the clock 5 years. If you're over 35 and aren't on some type of peds...you ain't in your prime.

I'm glad you cleared this up. Because some people were trying to sell the idea that wlad was prime when josh beat him and josh wasn't in his prime yet as josh is still learning

[ruedboy]

I don't disagree...but anyone who knows the sport can't say that ggg looks as sharp as he did 4-5 years ago. There's been a noticeable decline, particularly in his last 3 fights imo. That's not to say he can't still be a good fighter, but unfortunately his best days may be behind him...and it's a shame his peak was wasted on lackluster opposition.

In his last 3 fights Golovkin KO'd an overmatched Wade in 2, stopped, arguably the #1 WW, in 5 and kdn'd and decisioned the #1 MW contender.
You could say Brook showed GGG's defensive liabilities or you could take Golovkin's word that he fought a street fight because he knew Kell couldn't hurt him.
The Jacobs' fight was Golovkin's toughest and that could show he's slipping or it could mean Jacobs is a better fighter then people give him credit for.
It all depends on your perspective. The hype around Golovkin is overblown, no fighter lives up to those expectations but the Alvarez fight will show if he's the best MW out there and that's all that counts.