Did your opinion change after watching the replay?

[Mr Objecitivity]

Oh now you don't want discuss it anymore because Golovkins best wins have done fuck all at 160 and their wins at other weights are irrelevant? (your words)

You took a big **** on Golovkins resume yourself.

Sure, we could discuss it but my ORIGINAL point was about past pressure fighters at age 35 or more, beating a similar caliber of opponent as Canelo Alvarez whilst also being 8 or more years older. I want an example of such a pressure fighter. Since Barkley doesn't fulfill that criteria, he is therefore irrelevant.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Don't drop debate terms like "red herring" while you're pulling a strawman and trying to steer away from the point. Your devaluing Barkley's win over Hearns (the only topic I addressed) was noobish and made you look the clown. You got called out on it. Don't be such a fool next time if it enrages you to get called out on that stuff.

Hey you ******, read my comment properly before coming to ******ed conclusions. When did I 'devalue' Barkley's win you FOOL / TOOL / ******? I asked the poster Robbie barrett a question. So how on earth did you use that to arrive at the bullet proof, rock solid conclusion that I somehow 'devalued' Barkley's accomplishment? If anything, you're exposing yourself to be worse than a clown. Trying to act smart whilst actually being exposed as a ****** is making things worse for you.

Future advice: fully understand the topic which someone is discussing about before responding to them.

[Redd Foxx]

Hey you ******,

Stopped reading there because anyone who is holding a valid point or retort doesn't start their comeback with that^.
If you don't like getting clowned then STFU when grown folks are talking.




Oh, and because you're one of "those guys", feel free to get in the last word.

[SthPaw]

Watched the fight a few times, scored it twice...Had GGG winning in the scored viewings, felt like he won in the casual viewings.

115-113 Golovkin.

Upon the second run around of scoring a round or two was altered for both guys (a round I first thought went one way was swapped) but the end result was the same. Officials don't get that second run around though which is a shame. Boxing needs a system where controversial things like the official scoring of this bout gets strictly reviewed and altered accordingly, but unfortunately it is corrupt to high heaven and money talks way too loud in this game for that.

[Dean_Razorback]

no, GGG won that easy. can't see canelo winning more than 5 rounds. and giving him 5 rounds is generous.

[Hype job]

Scored a draw, I think GGG does better in the rematch and stops him.

[krazyn8tive]

116-112 golovkin

[Ce1ska]

For the people who scored it 7-5. I assume you gave Canelo 1,2,3,10,11,12 I'm wondering which other round you gave Canelo.

[RussB23]

Ca$hnelo skooled dat boy

[Mr Objecitivity]

Stopped reading there because anyone who is holding a valid point or retort doesn't start their comeback with that^.
If you don't like getting clowned then STFU when grown folks are talking.




Oh, and because you're one of "those guys", feel free to get in the last word.

Perhaps follow your own advice then. You're the one who called me a 'clown' first, did you or did you not? If you did, then you should avoid using such terms (according to your own advice) if you were holding a valid point or retort. Or did you even hold a valid point in the first place?

At this stage, my points have been expressed to be as valid as they need to be. I call spade a spade! You're acting like a ****** (by definition). Ergo, I called you one. Maybe if you avoided using ad hominem attacks / personal attacks on others without first exposing yourself to be a ****** (by making silly assumptions / by jumping into irrational conclusions), then I wouldn't have called you one. In other words, you yourself did something to deserve having personal attacks / ad hominem attacks directed at you before you used them on me.

'Grown folks'? You seem more ******ed than some little kids I know.