Is GGG getting old or as he not just now had touher opponents?

[Mr Objecitivity]

He didn't fight an A level fighter until this year. Doesn't matter why he didn't just that he didn't. He avoided Ward, that would have been a challenge. He could be a champion for 20 years it doesn't mean ****. It's who you beat. Other pressure fighters took challenges much earlier in their life.

'A' level fighter is a subjective rating as it depends upon who is doing the rating unless one can objectively and demonstrably demonstrate what an 'A' level fighter is and then prove how boxer x, y or z is or isn't an 'A' level fighter . Who are you to state who is an 'A' level or not?

Facts are, Golovkin has beaten most of the officially top ranked opponents he was meant to fight against to reach the top of his division. Thus, I can state that those fighters are 'A' level opponents, since he became the best in his division after beating them.

Andre Ward never accepted to fight Golovkin at 160 pounds. Thus, he is irrelevant. My point is, there isn't any evidence I've encountered that he avoided any opponent at 160 pounds.

As for 'who he beat', I could careless what you personally and subjectively think of his opponents. If his opponents were top ranked officially at the time he beat them, then they are worthy opponents, irrespective of what you personally believe subjectively.

[hhs661]

70% opposition, 30% age

[Derranged]

Golovkin isn't as good as his fans thought, they can't swallow their pride and admit it so make excuses.

You've been doing nothing but damage control since the Canelo fight.

Golovkin is better than detractors like you thought because according to you guys, Canelo was supposed to win easily. Instead, Canelo barely won 6 rounds. But rather than just admit it, you're fumbling over yourselves trying to convince people that Canelo really won, when it's obvious he didn't. Most of the boxing world had Golovkin winning.

Note- I realize that some Golovkin fans were claiming that he would destroy Canelo, and I was not one of those fans.

[Robbie Barrett]

'A' level fighter is a subjective rating as it depends upon who is doing the rating unless one can objectively and demonstrably demonstrate what an 'A' level fighter is and then prove how boxer x, y or z is or isn't an 'A' level fighter . Who are you to state who is an 'A' level or not?

Facts are, Golovkin has beaten most of the officially top ranked opponents he was meant to fight against to reach the top of his division. Thus, I can state that those fighters are 'A' level opponents, since he became the best in his division after beating them.

Andre Ward never accepted to fight Golovkin at 160 pounds. Thus, he is irrelevant. My point is, there isn't any evidence I've encountered that he avoided any opponent at 160 pounds.

As for 'who he beat', I could careless what you personally and subjectively think of his opponents. If his opponents were top ranked officially at the time he beat them, then they are worthy opponents, irrespective of what you personally believe subjectively.

How do you think rankings work are they not subjective?

So you take who the orgs tell you who they believe should be ranked high over deciding for yourself?

[Robbie Barrett]

You've been doing nothing but damage control since the Canelo fight.

Golovkin is better than detractors like you thought because according to you guys, Canelo was supposed to win easily. Instead, Canelo barely won 6 rounds. But rather than just admit it, you're fumbling over yourselves trying to convince people that Canelo really won, when it's obvious he didn't. Most of the boxing world had Golovkin winning.

Note- I realize that some Golovkin fans were claiming that he would destroy Canelo, and I was not one of those fans.

You must be new. I've been saying this for years. An elite level fighter or ATG like his fans claim Golovkin is should be dealing with guys like Canelo and Jacobs convincingly. He hasn't. Golovkin didn't clearly beat Canelo. Majority had a close fight.

[Mr Objecitivity]

How do you think rankings work are they not subjective?

So you take who the orgs tell you who they believe should be ranked high over deciding for yourself?

Yes, I take the official rankings and the official rankings suggest that before Golovkin became the best of his 160 pound division, he beat the very best available in his weight division to qualify as the best himself. Those opponents were ranked as the best.

So again, what you personally and subjectively think of his opponents are totally irrelevant and baseless.

If Golovkin didn't beat a single 'A' level fighter, then how did he become the A level fighter of his own weight division (the best boxer of his own weight division)? Do you yourself realize how irrational some of your points are?

As far as wear and tear is concerned, Golovkin has had 350 amateur fights. Calculate the total number of rounds he has had in the amateurs, plus the number of rounds he has had in the pros, then you will find that he has had as much rounds / wear and tear as most pressure fighters. So no, that statement of yours is also false about GGG not having as much wear and tear.

[Robbie Barrett]

Yes, I take the official rankings and the official rankings suggest that before Golovkin became the best of his 160 pound division, he beat the very best available in his weight division to qualify as the best himself. Those opponents were ranked as the best.

So again, what you personally and subjectively think of his opponents are totally irrelevant and baseless.

If Golovkin didn't beat a single 'A' level fighter, then how did he become the A level fighter of his own weight division (the best boxer of his own weight division)? Do you yourself realize how irrational some of your points are?

As far as wear and tear is concerned, Golovkin has had 350 amateur fights. Calculate the total number of rounds he has had in the amateurs, plus the number of rounds he has had in the pros, then you will find that he has had as much rounds / wear and tear as most pressure fighters. So no, that statement of yours is also false about GGG not having as much wear and tear.

He became an A level fighter by beating B and C level fighters convincingly.

Your logic is flawed. How does a fighter become P4P #1 if he never beats a P4P #1? How does a fighter become an ATG id he never beats an ATG? They can and have.

Do you think the orgs rankings are facts? They are decided by people. Which makes them subjective. If you ask fans what they think of org rankings, the majority will tell you they are garbage.

[Derranged]

You must be new. I've been saying this for years. An elite level fighter or ATG like his fans claim Golovkin is should be dealing with guys like Canelo and Jacobs convincingly. He hasn't. Golovkin didn't clearly beat Canelo. Majority had a close fight.

You're confusing fans with fanboys. The former, like myself, are reasonable. Although most people expected Golovkin to destroy Jacobs because it was believed that he had a weak chin. Turns out he's much more durable than people thought.

As for the Canelo fight, there's no way in hell Canelo won more than 6 rounds. And its conceivable that Golovkin won 8.

[jas]

he is also finding it harder to make 160 and thats making him muscle weary. he doesnt have the same power later on in the fight. we saw it with kovalev.

[Mr Objecitivity]

He became an A level fighter by beating B and C level fighters convincingly.

Your logic is flawed. How does a fighter become P4P #1 if he never beats a P4P #1? How does a fighter become an ATG id he never beats an ATG? They can and have.

Do you think the orgs rankings are facts? They are decided by people. Which makes them subjective. If you ask fans what they think of org rankings, the majority will tell you they are garbage.

Again, you claiming boxer is B or C level is your own, personal and subjective opinion. Thus, it holds no value or worth in an objective discussion. The fact that they were the best boxers available at the time for GGG to beat to become the best himself in that division or an 'A' level fighter himself of that division, means that they were worthy opponents. I really don't give two cents about the arbitrary alphabetical ratings used to rate a boxer, since they are based on ABSOLUTELY nothing objective.

Also, the rankings of the boxers in a particular division is based on how good the boxer's record is, relative to the entire field in that particular division. So even if it is subjective, I'd rather accept their ranking more than any random fan like you want to rank boxers as.