Comments Thread For: Sanchez: Golovkin Has 2-3 Years Left, I'd Like 5 or 6 Fights

[TonyGe]

we always knew that you were a fkn idiot

now it is on record

OK if your the arbitrator if whose an idiot I have no problem.being in a list. LOL..I'm sure the irony of what you posted is lost on you..

[TonyGe]

nah I don't agree with any of that

Golovkin's style/gameplan WERE obviously limited by Canelo..... he controlled the fight, and he controlled Golovkin..... which is why Golovkin could not get his usual game going..... which is why Golovkin could not follow his gameplan..... and which is why Golovkin could not follow his corners instructions

in that fight..... it was telling

effective aggression went to Canelo
clean hard punching went to Canelo
defence went to Canelo
ring generalship went to Canelo

That's ridiculous every fighter is limited somewhat by who he is fighting. Are you from Mars for crying out loud.

[TonyGe]

Just my opinion, but I don't think so. At least not a lot since his previous fights. There is a cumulative effect but he's not that old. He just had to react a much different approach from Canelo and couldn't do it. He always looked so good because he was always walking everyone down, cutting the ring off, putting on a lot of pressure and Canelo didn't let him do that.

I don't remember how I scored the first fight I'd have to watch it again. I know I scored it in favor of GGG but I don't remember how the rounds broke down. You?

I thought he reacted fairly well to what Canelo did. He wasn't going to out speed Canelo in a shootout so he boxed him. I also had Golovkin winning.

[aboutfkntime]

OK if your the arbitrator if whose an idiot I have no problem.being in a list. LOL..I'm sure the irony of what you posted is lost on you..

FACT: that pitty-pat jab did not land

1) seriously, how could it ?
2) even if it did land, what judge would score it ?

FACT: the right-hand was not low, it was on the belt

Canelo obviously won that exchange

I don't think you know very much about this sport

[aboutfkntime]

That's ridiculous every fighter is limited somewhat by who he is fighting. Are you from Mars for crying out loud.

FACT: Canelo fought the style he wanted
FACT: Canelo implemented his gameplan on the fight
FACT: Canelo followed his corners instructions
FACT: Golovkin did NONE of those things

[Real King Kong]

nope, I do not agree with that spin

your earlier spin was more accurate.....

" Canelo forced ggg to adapt ".....

Canelo limited Golovkin, Golovkin did not limit Canelo

"Obviously, we wanted Golovkin to do a lot of different things,” Sanchez said during the post-fight press conference...... But when they’re in the ring, they’re gonna do the things that they see available to them. Canelo fought the fight that he needed to fight today to win."

When I talked to Gennady all along this training camp, I explained to him that I thought Canelo was gonna stand and trade with him.

“So in the fight, I was trying to have Gennady make it a fight. Instead of allowing Canelo to rest, I wanted him to fight more."





nobody can " change their scoring criteria "

that is impossible



clean hard punching, effective aggression, and defence..... were obviously won by Canelo

and so was ring generalship..... the other guy got limited, controlled, backed up, and then beaten up..... he could not stick to his gameplan, and he could not follow his corner's instructions..... NONE OF THAT HAPPENED TO CANELO LMAO

lol how is it impossible to change your scoring criteria? one round canelo consistently comes forward, but eats a bunch of shots in return, but edges it cuz "he's the aggressor...ggg got backed up doe". another round, ggg pushes canelo back, but canelo lands shots off the ropes and edges it cuz "he boxed doe...ineffective aggression doe". people do it all the time when scoring fights...it's called looking for a reason to give your fighter the round.

like I said, saying canelo won this category and that category doesn't mean much, because fights aren't scored as a whole. this is sounding like the same "story of the fight" nonsense Kellerman was going on about. a fight is scored round by round, and those rounds are broken down to minutes/exchanges etc.

[aboutfkntime]

lol how is it impossible to change your scoring criteria? one round canelo consistently comes forward, but eats a bunch of shots in return, but edges it cuz "he's the aggressor...ggg got backed up doe". another round, ggg pushes canelo back, but canelo lands shots off the ropes and edges it cuz "he boxed doe...ineffective aggression doe". people do it all the time when scoring fights...it's called looking for a reason to give your fighter the round.

like I said, saying canelo won this category and that category doesn't mean much, because fights aren't scored as a whole. this is sounding like the same "story of the fight" nonsense Kellerman was going on about. a fight is scored round by round, and those rounds are broken down to minutes/exchanges etc.

YOU do not determine the scoring criteria

so, you cannot change it

the official scoring criteria are.....

* clean hard punching
* effective aggression
* ring generalship
* defence

1) which of those scoring criteria covers jabs ?

2) which of those scoring criteria did Golovkin win ?

you simply cannot find "a reason to give your fighter the round"..... the reason either exists, or it does not exist..... there is no "find"

and nobody is using the official scoring criteria to judge the fight "as a whole".....

the reason why you have not even attempted to argue that Canelo did not win effective aggression, clean hard punching, and defence..... is because he was clearly superior in those areas for most of the fight

ring generalship is all you could argue, so you did

again, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.....

the guy who.....

1) could not get his style going
2) could not follow his gameplan
3) could not follow his corners instructions
4) got backed up
5) got beaten up

..... was obviously not the ring general, and obviously did not control the fight LMAO

[Real King Kong]

YOU do not determine the scoring criteria

so, you cannot change it




you simply cannot find "a reason to give your fighter the round"..... the reason either exists, or it does not exist..... there is no "find"

and nobody is using the official scoring criteria to judge the fight "as a whole".....

the reason why you have not even attempted to argue that Canelo did not win effective aggression, clean hard punching, and defence..... is because he was clearly superior in those areas for most of the fight

ring generalship is all you could argue, so you did

again, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.....

the guy who.....

1) could not get his style going
2) could not follow his gameplan
3) could not follow his corners instructions
4) got backed up
5) got beaten up

..... was obviously not the ring general, and obviously did not control the fight LMAO

you can emphasize the scoring criteria that suits you from round to round is probably a better way to word it. people do it all the time...scoring is subjective. that's why you have people arguing about who won a fight and both act as they are 100% right. you still haven't said how you scored the first fight. something tells me you still found a way to give it to canelo even though he fought a completely opposite style.

like I said, you can keep going back to "the story of the fight" argument and score on who you think followed their game plan or didn't fight "their style", but really the fight should be scored as if you've never seen these guys fight before. if you wanna say canelo won the most rounds and lay out your reasoning for each round based on the criteria for scoring, then so be it. but to say ggg wasn't winning rounds just cuz he wasn't fighting the way you thought he should just doesn't hold weight.

[aboutfkntime]

you can emphasize the scoring criteria that suits you from round to round is probably a better way to word it. people do it all the time...scoring is subjective. that's why you have people arguing about who won a fight and both act as they are 100% right. you still haven't said how you scored the first fight. something tells me you still found a way to give it to canelo even though he fought a completely opposite style.

the first fight was VERY close..... a draw is fine, or Golovkin slightly edging it, is fine..... that flat period in the middle rounds hurt Canelo

you need to understand something..... Canelo did a MUCH better job of boxing Golovkin in the first fight..... than Golovkin did of boxing Canelo in the rematch

in the rematch, Canelo displayed effective aggression and clean hard punching..... in the first fight, Golovkin was largely ineffective for long periods, missing a TON of punches..... getting caught with slick counters/combo's

and sorry..... pretending that you don't know what a fighter is/should be, capable of..... is just silly..... I get your point, but that is completely unrealistic

like I said, you can keep going back to "the story of the fight" argument and score on who you think followed their game plan or didn't fight "their style", but really the fight should be scored as if you've never seen these guys fight before. if you wanna say canelo won the most rounds and lay out your reasoning for each round based on the criteria for scoring, then so be it. but to say ggg wasn't winning rounds just cuz he wasn't fighting the way you thought he should just doesn't hold weight.

nobody said that

I said..... despite getting backed up, and despite getting beaten up (which is a telling factor for most observers) in that fight..... Golovkin could not follow his gameplan, and could not follow his corners instructions..... he was being limited/controlled by Canelo

..... oh, and he also couldn't get his "Mexican" style going either

he did not lose the fight because he shat the bed over all of that Mexican rubbish..... but like I said a number of times..... that was telling in the context of how that fight unfolded.....

it IS a factor..... nobody said it was the main factor..... the fact that Canelo displayed effective aggression and landed TONS of clean hard eye-catching judge-friendly punches is a much more important factor..... but Golovkin's inability to get his game going is also a factor in the context of that fight

FACT: Canelo got his game-going, and Golovkin did not..... Abel Sanchez admitted that, and he felt it was important enough to mention for a reason..... nobody said that is the sole reason why Canelo won

[aboutfkntime]

you can emphasize the scoring criteria that suits you from round to round is probably a better way to word it. people do it all the time...scoring is subjective. that's why you have people arguing about who won a fight and both act as they are 100% right. you still haven't said how you scored the first fight. something tells me you still found a way to give it to canelo even though he fought a completely opposite style.

like I said, you can keep going back to "the story of the fight" argument and score on who you think followed their game plan or didn't fight "their style", but really the fight should be scored as if you've never seen these guys fight before. if you wanna say canelo won the most rounds and lay out your reasoning for each round based on the criteria for scoring, then so be it. but to say ggg wasn't winning rounds just cuz he wasn't fighting the way you thought he should just doesn't hold weight.

ok, going further on the first fight.....

Canelo was the boxer, Golovkin was the pressure fighter

ignoring/minimizing that fact..... is, ridiculous

FACT: Canelo got his game going..... he did a masterful job of boxing/controlling Golovkin, making him miss and making him pay..... most of the rounds that Canelo won, he won CLEARLY..... and even though Canelo's output dropped during the middle of the fight, some of those rounds were nip-n-tuck

Golovkin on the other hand, struggled to get his game going..... his pressure was largely ineffective for long periods in that fight, and he missed a TON of punches

Canelo landed lots of eye-catching judge-friendly punches and his defence was superb

FACT: defence IS valid scoring criteria

Canelo did a MUCH better job of boxing Golovkin in the first fight..... than Golovkin did of boxing Canelo in the rematch

Golovkin was the supposed killer, and he got tamed

like I said earlier, I think Canelo would have been better served sticking with that same gameplan in the rematch..... but focus on his activity, focus on being sharper/more accurate, and focus on tailoring the counters/combinations that worked for him in the first fight

when boxing, Canelo got his game going, and he inflicted that style on his opponent..... Golovkin also got his game going, but he struggled to be effective for long periods..... coming into his own largely due to Canelo's inactivity

in the rematch, Golovkin was completely forced to change his style..... which is fine, that is called adapting to the guy who is in front of you..... but he still got backed up, and beaten up, with EFFECTIVE aggression (more effective aggression than Golovkin displayed in the first fight)..... and he copped even more of those eye-catching judge-friendly punches that Canelo introduced him to in the first fight

sorry, but I think that Canelo did a better job of boxing Golovkin in the first fight, than Golovkin did of boxing Canelo in the rematch..... and Canelo DEFINITELY did a better job of pressuring Golovkin in the rematch than Golovkin did in the first fight

it is entirely Canelo's fault that he aint 2-0 with Golovkin..... I think Canelo can beat Golovkin any way he wants..... and is CLEARLY the better-skilled, more well-rounded, fighter