Comments Thread For: Report: Canelo Alvarez Has Agreed to Terms for Golovkin Rematch

[aboutfkntime]

so..... when Golovkin beat Wade/Brook, he was on another level..... but when he went life and death with Jacobs/Canelo, he showed signs of "slippage".....?

just like how Pac was on another level when he dished up Rios/Algieri-level opponents..... but then showed signs of "slippage" immediately after stepping up to Bradley, Marquez, Mayweather-level opponents.....?

wow, what a coincidence

#heolddoe

Canelo will win because his team will not make lame excuses, they will fix/adjust any problems/deficiencies..... not ignore them and pull the "slippage" card

[aboutfkntime]

spot on homie DLH saw it happening and played his cards perfectly they could see the decline and went for it. Just how it is.

then how come nobody else saw it happening?

it was Jacobs style that caused Golovkin problems, not decline

I told you guys for years that he was avoiding the mover/spoilers..... now you know why

they would never have fought Danny Jacobs had the WBA not mandated that fight, and you will not see a rematch

[Bjl12]

then how come nobody else saw it happening?

it was Jacobs style that caused Golovkin problems, not decline

I told you guys for years that he was avoiding the mover/spoilers..... now you know why

they would never have fought Danny Jacobs had the WBA not mandated that fight, and you will not see a rematch

Don't try to make too much sense. You might hurt fragile egos...these dudes are so sad XD

MarGGGarita lost the damn first fight and has looked terrible since fighting actual fighters.

He is bum-beater extraordinaire...Geale, Murray, 147 Brook. ..but when he fights guys his own size with close skill level...ordinary.

Very ordinary.

[aboutfkntime]

Don't try to make too much sense. You might hurt fragile egos...these dudes are so sad XD

MarGGGarita lost the damn first fight and has looked terrible since fighting actual fighters.

He is bum-beater extraordinaire...Geale, Murray, 147 Brook. ..but when he fights guys his own size with close skill level...ordinary.

Very ordinary.

yea, it is all about style/level

Lemieux, when matched against guys his own level..... he will DESTROY them, because of style...... he is a debilitating heavy-handed puncher.....

same as Golovkin

but, then go up a level..... and we saw what happened to him with Saunders..... Lemieux had the same problem that Golovkin had with Jacobs/Canelo

[robbyheartbaby]

then how come nobody else saw it happening?

it was Jacobs style that caused Golovkin problems, not decline

I told you guys for years that he was avoiding the mover/spoilers..... now you know why

they would never have fought Danny Jacobs had the WBA not mandated that fight, and you will not see a rematch

Possibly possibly, I don't think it was such a case of avoiding these fighters. I think it's clear a fighter will decline in skills from the age of 34 or 35. Brook landed at will and that may have enticed fighters like Jacobs & Canelo to chase GGG more. I don't know where these guys were 4 or 5 years ago I certainly can't lay blame on GGG for not making those fights. I see an old GGG losing in 2018 or 2019.

[TonyGe]

so..... when Golovkin beat Wade/Brook, he was on another level..... but when he went life and death with Jacobs/Canelo, he showed signs of "slippage".....?

just like how Pac was on another level when he dished up Rios/Algieri-level opponents..... but then showed signs of "slippage" immediately after stepping up to Bradley, Marquez, Mayweather-level opponents.....?

wow, what a coincidence

#heolddoe

Canelo will win because his team will not make lame excuses, they will fix/adjust any problems/deficiencies..... not ignore them and pull the "slippage" card

How can Canelo pull the slippage card for Christ's sake. He's in his prime as a boxer. If he loses and his team and fans say he slipped he'd be the laughing stock of boxing. He's in his prime. Golovkin is at the age where most fighters slow down. Your argument is flawed. Your giving credit to a boxer in his prime for not saying a lose was due to slippage. Plus stepping up to Bradley? Pacquiao clearly dominated Bradley in both fights.

[aboutfkntime]

Possibly possibly, I don't think it was such a case of avoiding these fighters. I think it's clear a fighter will decline in skills from the age of 34 or 35. Brook landed at will and that may have enticed fighters like Jacobs & Canelo to chase GGG more. I don't know where these guys were 4 or 5 years ago I certainly can't lay blame on GGG for not making those fights. I see an old GGG losing in 2018 or 2019.

it is an absolute CLEAR case of avoiding those fighters.....

1) I can name them

2) when Golovkin avoided those fighters, he selected static look-good opponents who were MUCH worse

3) two - possibly THREE - of the skilled mover/spoilers were career-high paydays and ideal exposure

Brook lit Golovkin up because he was faster/better than the scrubs that Golovkin was fighting..... not saying that Brook could have beaten those middleweights - although I suspect that he may have beaten some of them - just that the guys he was fighting did not have the style or the level to beat him..... most were not even competitive

let's agree to disagree on that one

[aboutfkntime]

How can Canelo pull the slippage card for Christ's sake. He's in his prime as a boxer. If he loses and his team and fans say he slipped he'd be the laughing stock of boxing. He's in his prime. Golovkin is at the age where most fighters slow down. Your argument is flawed. Your giving credit to a boxer in his prime for not saying a lose was due to slippage. Plus stepping up to Bradley? Pacquiao clearly dominated Bradley in both fights.

no

you completely ignoring the OBVIOUS step-up in class.... is flawed

was it as easy for you to ignore that OBVIOUS step-up in class..... as it was for you to ignore the "anyone at 154" elephant..... on the other thread?

1) the step up in class..... IS obvious

2) the " slippage " excuse..... COULD have some relevance

BIG diff there

" oh but, GGG never used to get hit with..... "

bullshht, go watch the Adama fight..... the question of what would happen if Golovkin fought someone better..... was ALWAYS there

" oh but, GGG used to blow fighters away "

bullshht, go watch the Murray and even Rosado fights..... the question of what would happen if Golovkin fought someone better with a defense-based style who would not absorb that same level of punishment..... was ALWAYS there

that is why we need those questions answered before we start dishing out ATG accolades, etc

there is a saying..... something about casuals.... DKSAB.... levels.... styles.... weight..... you get the picture

[TonyGe]

no

you completely ignoring the OBVIOUS step-up in class.... is flawed

was it as easy for you to ignore that OBVIOUS step-up in class..... as it was for you to ignore the "anyone at 154" elephant..... on the other thread?

1) the step up in class..... IS obvious

2) the " slippage " excuse..... COULD have some relevance

BIG diff there

" oh but, GGG never used to get hit with..... "

bullshht, go watch the Adama fight..... the question of what would happen if Golovkin fought someone better..... was ALWAYS there

" oh but, GGG used to blow fighters away "

bullshht, go watch the Murray and even Rosado fights..... the question of what would happen if Golovkin fought someone better with a defense-based style who would not absorb that same level of punishment..... was ALWAYS there

that is why we need those questions answered before we start dishing out ATG accolades, etc

there is a saying..... something about casuals.... DKSAB.... levels.... styles.... weight..... you get the picture

You make up these wild arguments. Im taking issue with one specific part of what you said. That Canelo won't claim slippage as a reason if (when) he loses It's a ridiculous argument that doesn't make any sense. That is why it's hard for anyone to take you seriously. You'd be more effective if you post less and think things through before you post.

[aboutfkntime]

You make up these wild arguments. Im taking issue with one specific part of what you said. That Canelo won't claim slippage as a reason if (when) he loses It's a ridiculous argument that doesn't make any sense. That is why it's hard for anyone to take you seriously. You'd be more effective if you post less and think things through before you post.

it was a joke

Canelo would not claim slippage, like you guys are lol

and you can forget all that "35 is old, it was bound to happen" rubbish..... because you needed to say that BEFORE Golovkin got exposed by Jacobs, not AFTER.....

BEFORE = a genuine assessment..... AFTER = just an excuse

it is ridiculous to insist upon slippage, and totally ignore levels..... we heard all that rubbish when Pacquiao got exposed by Mayweather, despite the fact that Mayweather was older