Canelo really exposed GGG as being the biggest fraud in boxing.

[Curtis Harper]

I can't say that one camp is heavier or more intense than another -it's possiblre you're right and Canelo's were somehow heavier or more grueling or whatever, but in the absence of real evidence I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that GGGs 40 odd camps are that much less strenuous than Canelos 50ish... but what you fail to address is the 100s of amateur fights and the associated training that Golovkin did before his pro career even started. That's something like a thousand rounds of competitive boxing (much of it at both a higher level and at a higher intensity than his professional rounds) and thousands more of training and sparring.

Anyways, man. Can't help but think you're reaching - the only argument I'm making is that rationally a 35 year old fighter is worse than the same fighter was when he was 30 or 32... I don't know. Perhaps there are exceptions, but reason dictates you'd have to prove the common sense answer is wrong rather than vice versa. Do you go claiming that other fighters are as dangerous at 35 as they are at 30?

Remove Jacobs and Nelo from the equation and no one is mentioning GGG's age.

[Citizen Koba]

yeh GGGs career really fcuked up him being handed 2 titles for nothing! If i had a promotor like that thenI'd have 2 world titles! what a horrible promotor...

bud and spence who won first titles at 26? no relevance to comparing to GGG at 33.
You write rubbish - they didnt take till 33!


GGG has had three world class MWs his WHOLE career, and he lost to one.

they've all done it by then if they are successful. They are considered extremely late in day if leaving it till 35.

Yes indeed. It's like we're having a whole different conversation from each other. I'm not claiming Golovkin had some record breaking exceptional career. Hell, I'm not even claiming he's a great fighter or even a particularly good one - merely that his much criticised resume is a result more of circumstance than design. In short that in the main he just had **** breaks.

You language 'choose' 'leaving it til 35' is underpinned by the assumption that Golovkin's career panned out the way it did by design and that is the assumption I'm trying to challenge. Yes - Golovkin's career was less successful than it might have been... what I'm discussing is why. Ain't quite sure what you're discussing cos it seems like you're just raising random, spurious objections for the sake of it. It's not like I'm even making any contentious or controversial logical leaps.

[AKAcronym]

I can't say that one camp is heavier or more intense than another -it's possiblre you're right and Canelo's were somehow heavier or more grueling or whatever, but in the absence of real evidence I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that GGGs 40 odd camps are that much less strenuous than Canelos 50ish... but what you fail to address is the 100s of amateur fights and the associated training that Golovkin did before his pro career even started. That's something like a thousand rounds of competitive boxing (much of it at both a higher level and at a higher intensity than his professional rounds) and thousands more of training and sparring.

Anyways, man. Can't help but think you're reaching - the only argument I'm making is that rationally a 35 year old fighter is worse than the same fighter was when he was 30 or 32... I don't know. Perhaps there are exceptions, but reason dictates you'd have to prove the common sense answer is wrong rather than vice versa. Do you go claiming that other fighters are as dangerous at 35 as they are at 30?

It's a losing argument. They're not going to accept that notion, despite evidence from across multiple sports that guys in their mid 30s are not the same athlete they were at a younger age, on average.

[Citizen Koba]

Remove Jacobs and Nelo from the equation and no one is mentioning GGG's age.

His age has been raised since he fought Brook, man. And before that it wasn't an issue.

You ain't answering what I'm asking though. Do you consider amateur training and fights don't wear the body down? Do you not believe that, in the normal course of events a 35 or 36 year old fighter will be worse than he was when he was 30 or 31?

I almost can't believe I'm having this conversation and don't understand what the purpose of it is. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where you think we're going with this? You thinking perhaps this is some kind of attack on Canelo or something?

[Curtis Harper]

His age has been raised since he fought Brook, man. And before that it wasn't an issue.

You ain't answering what I'm asking though. Do you consider amateur training and fights don't wear the body down? Do you not believe that, in the normal course of events a 35 or 36 year old fighter will be worse than he was when he was 30 or 31?

I almost can't believe I'm having this conversation and don't understand what the purpose of it is. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where you think we're going with this? You thinking perhaps this is some kind of attack on Canelo or something?

I do not find anything about the amateurs praise worthy. Unless theres video of GGG doing some extreme training during that time, I'll assume he did what every other amateur did to prep for a ''fight''.

I dont like it when a fan base makes excuses.

[DreamFighter]

His age has been raised since he fought Brook, man. And before that it wasn't an issue.

You ain't answering what I'm asking though. Do you consider amateur training and fights don't wear the body down? Do you not believe that, in the normal course of events a 35 or 36 year old fighter will be worse than he was when he was 30 or 31?

I almost can't believe I'm having this conversation and don't understand what the purpose of it is. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where you think we're going with this? You thinking perhaps this is some kind of attack on Canelo or something?

if you leave it till 35 then it is your fault as a fighter and it is your inability as a fighter, you are the one who controls your career.

As said before this culture of blaming others when you've found theres something you should have done but didnt, is fail.

[DreamFighter]

Yes indeed. It's like we're having a whole different conversation from each other. I'm not claiming Golovkin had some record breaking exceptional career. Hell, I'm not even claiming he's a great fighter or even a particularly good one - merely that his much criticised resume is a result more of circumstance than design. In short that in the main he just had **** breaks.

you are quite mad if you think that being handed 2 titles is tough breaks. What part is tough, are they heavy to carry around?

Yeh if any fighter in history was handed 2 titles they'd think it was all their birthdays rolled into one!
But because you are a fanboy u interpret it for this fighter as tough breaks!

[mathed]

Can you name a bigger fraud in the last 20 years? Because I cant

• "154-168 EZFOMI" Still hasn't fought at those weights
• It turns out Mexican Style was bullsht. Canelo exposed that big time. GGG is just a culture vulture
• He was being "ducked" But ducked ward when he had the chance to fight him. What happened to 168 mr gee?
• Fought brook after criticizing canelo for fighting khan
• Called canelo a business man not a boxer but then said a lara fight didnt make sense. Now is using that excuse for charlo as well.

fck his fans

Someone is in damage control after blow back from clenela beating up on a grocery store clerk, LMAO!!!!

[Citizen Koba]

I do not find anything about the amateurs praise worthy. Unless theres video of GGG doing some extreme training during that time, I'll assume he did what every other amateur did to prep for a ''fight''.

I dont like it when a fan base makes excuses.

I'm not talking about your opinion of praise worthy. I'm talking about the fact that he was doing heavy intense training from an early age... you really think that Olympic level amateurs don't take their training seriously. Regardless I'm not comparing Golovkin to Canelo anyway, I'm comparing older Golovkin to younger Golovkin. It's like you ain't reading what I'm writing. Like I say, the arguments you're using just ain't standing up to scrutiny.

Making excuses? By claiming that aging is real?

Ha ha. All I'm doing is addressing the contention of this thread: ie that Golovkin is a fraud. I don't believe he is. I'm not even claiming that he's better than Canelo, or would have been if he was younger, that ain't the point of what I'm saying at all - just that it's hard to call a fighter who even past his prime held what some are calling an elite prime to a contentious draw and narrow loss is a 'fraud'.

Do you think Golovkin is a fraud?

[N!Ck F.]

Interesting.

So you feel the WBA Regular Belt is legit?

Because Canelo just won that WBA Regular belt at 168lbs.

Ok so validity of wba regular aside, what about winning 4 amateur world championships? You can’t fathom the technical ability of some of the guys he would of beat to win those. What about winning an Olympic medal? What about defending IBO belt 18x? What about never being knocked down as an amateur or pro? What about not losing your first fight till age 36, by a point, against a guy considered top 10 p4p and who failed a drug test?
Come on man. This guy accomplished things that even most other world champions didn’t do. And he did it without a crooked ass De la Hoya or Al Haymon helping him.