Tweet
Alvarez got nothing on Proksa!!
-
-
Whats you point? What has age got to do with betting odds?Originally posted by Mirko Troll Cop View Post38 - Ishida
34 - Rubio
33 - Geale
33 - Adama
32 - Simon
32 - Murray
31 - Macklin
31 - Ouma
30 - Jacobs
30 - Brook
28 - Monroe Jr.
28 - Stevens
28 - Proksa
28 - Fuchigami
27 - Rosado
27 - Alvarez
26 - Lemieux
26 - Wade
Compare to Current 147 Fighters
38 - Pacquiao
33 - Bradley
33 - Peterson
31 - Brook
29 - Garcia
29 - Porter
28 - Thurman
28 - Vargas
27 - Spence Jr.
27 - Broner
Comment
-
To make a point...
When Lemieux was 27, Nelo was 26...
So compare all that opposition and skill come Saul Alvarez. And people thought it was going to be an easy fight for GGG...Comment
-
People need to realize the ages of the opponents during those fights which was detailed.. not their current age when the thread was written...Comment
-
I remember seeing this thread a long time ago and still don't get the point. Golovkin fought a lot of guys in their prime, and for some reason you're comparing it to WW?Comment
-
The Welterweight comparison was to show those listed and their current ages. What were te Welterweights listed, doing, from ages 23 to what's is shown?Originally posted by j0zef View Post
The Welterweights have more known names than Middleweight. Look how good the Welters are overall to what was popping at 160, hence GGgs opposition.
The grand master point is that it was going to be super hard for Golovkin to beat Alvarez since he's young and noticeably accomplished compared to even the Welterweight names.
Get it? It's rather obvious. How do you compare the skill level, not weight ffs, from the Welterweights mentioned and GGG's opposition? Where are the young Thurman's, Garcia, Spence, Brook, Porter at 160 younger than 29? Don't you think it was expected for ggg to loook good against them?
I made many points that Nelo is not Ouma and it shouldn't nor did it be an easy ride for GolovkinComment
Comment