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

[Citizen Koba]

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!

You ain't getting either the context or the idea of relativity. Luck is always comparative, never absolute. Is it good luck if you find a tenner on the floor? Sure. Is it still good luck if it was the last one of the stack that you were reaching for just when there was a sudden gust of wind? That's relativity... what's good luck in one circumstance can be bad luck when it's compared to an expected and far more favourable outcome.

Context is that we were discussing Golovkin's lack of good names on his resume... in that context the receipt of his bogus WBA title improved his resume not one iota, but getting to fight Sturm would have done and further opened up far more opportunities for him to get bigger fights in the future - always assuming of course that he didn't fall flat at the first challenge of course. So yes - absolutely, getting stiffed out of the Mando to which he was entitled was bad luck luck in terms of restricting his resume, whether or not he was thrown the bone of the regular 'world' title which got him (best I can tell) no big fights at all.

Do you think Golovkin is a fraud?

[DreamFighter]

I'



Do you think Golovkin is a fraud?

why would you ask that, hes not said it?

whats with the idea of putting words in his mouth?

[DreamFighter]

You ain't getting either the context or the idea of relativity. Luck is always comparative, never absolute. Is it good luck if you find a tenner on the floor? Surer? Is it still good luck if it was the last one of the stack that you were reaching for just when there was a sudden gust of wind? That's relativity.

there is nothing relative about being handed 2 titles. Either you are handed them or you arent, and it is extremely fortunate to get it for anyone in ANY circumstances, always will be and ALWAYS has been.

Do you think Golovkin is a fraud?

so you just asked the OP that without any indication he claimed it, and now you do it with me, after I made it clear hes not. Dont clutch at straws with every argument you make please.

[Curtis Harper]

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?

You mention GGG and training for amateur fights as ''intense''. Why couldnt it be just regular training ? For all we know, it wasnt any more grueling than the next time wasting amateur.

Nelo started training at age 13. First pro fight came soon after.

GGG had his 1st pro fight in his early 20s (he thought having 300+ amateur fights was a good idea).

So, by those standards, is it safe to assume young Nelo could have had it tougher than fully grown GGG ????

With age comes knowledge and experience. Old man May proved that. Nelos fans and May haters were quick to cry about Nelo being too young.

I'm confused, what age do we go by - Actual age or ring years ??? Probably matters on the outcome.

As for aging in general, do people need to be told fire is hot ???? Its just used as a convenient excuse if things dont turn out as expected.

[Curtis Harper]

Imho, GGG isnt a fraud nor some all time elite MW. He has a vicious jab and a fan friendly style. If matched vs the right opponents, he can fight well into his 40's.

[DreamFighter]

This is exactly it, if GGG went back to facing the bum club he faced in his twenties t early 30s then he could easily keep winning till he was 43.

[Lion81]

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.

Yea chill out I agree with all of GGG's accomplishments.

Not why I replied to you.

I was just highlighting your post because you were giving legitimacy to the WBA regular belt and recognizing that it's a world title.

[Citizen Koba]

why would you ask that, hes not said it?

whats with the idea of putting words in his mouth?

I'm just trying to get a grip on what's being discussed here, man. The title of the thread is about Golovkin being exposed as the biggest fraud in boxing. All I'm arguing is that he isn't yet folk are getting defensive and bringing up fallacious arguments to counter me with. Just wondering why is all.

[Citizen Koba]

You mention GGG and training for amateur fights as ''intense''. Why couldnt it be just regular training ? For all we know, it wasnt any more grueling than the next time wasting amateur.

Nelo started training at age 13. First pro fight came soon after.

GGG had his 1st pro fight in his early 20s (he thought having 300+ amateur fights was a good idea).

So, by those standards, is it safe to assume young Nelo could have had it tougher than fully grown GGG ????

With age comes knowledge and experience. Old man May proved that. Nelos fans and May haters were quick to cry about Nelo being too young.

I'm confused, what age do we go by - Actual age or ring years ??? Probably matters on the outcome.

As for aging in general, do people need to be told fire is hot ???? Its just used as a convenient excuse if things dont turn out as expected.

sure. you could assume either if you wanted - but unless we've some reason to believe that pros train harder than Olympians then I guess it's reasonable to assume it's about the same. You think those top level ammys don't take their ish every bit as seriously as a top level pro? I only said maybe greater intensity because - well, have you seen the pace they fight 3 round ammy fights at? Maybe it is maybe it isn't. How do we weigh 1000 or so competitive Ammy rounds against what? the extra 100 or so pro rounds Canelo has fought? You got some scientific formula, I'm all ears, otherwise it's all speculation - pointless speculation at that.

All of which is irrelevant as I already stated, because I'm not comparing Golovkin to Canelo, I'm merely contending that 34 year old Golovkin would - on balance of probabilities - have had a better chance at beating a 26 year old Canelo than a 35 year old Golovkin would have had at beating a 27 y/o Canelo or a 36 y/o Golovkin would have had at beating a 28 y/o Canelo. ie (and to combine the 2 ridiculous conversations I'm having simultaneously) that it can't be counted as good luck for Golovkin that he was awarded the WBC title instead of fighting Canelo for it in 2016.

Look, man. Fuck it. What do you even think we're arguing over? All I'm trying to demonstrate is that the TSs contention is wrong. Do you think that Golovkin is 'the biggest fraud in boxing'. Or indeed a 'fraud' at all? I'm not arguing that Golovkin is better than Canelo or that he should or would have beat Canelo uinder different circumstances, whatever my personal beliefs, merely that given the showing he was able to put on at 35 and 36 years old against a top class (elite by some) prime fighter, calling him the 'biggest fraud in boxing' is demonstrably ridiculous.

[Curtis Harper]

sure. you could assume either if you wanted - but unless we've some reason to believe that pros train harder than Olympians then I guess it's reasonable to assume it's about the same. You think those top level ammys don't take their ish every bit as seriously as a top level pro? I only said maybe greater intensity because - well, have you seen the pace they fight 3 round ammy fights at? Maybe it is maybe it isn't. How do we weigh 1000 or so competitive Ammy rounds against what? the extra 100 or so pro rounds Canelo has fought? You got some scientific formula, I'm all ears, otherwise it's all speculation - pointless speculation at that.

All of which is irrelevant as I already stated, because I'm not comparing Golovkin to Canelo, I'm merely contending that 34 year old Golovkin would - on balance of probabilities - have had a better chance at beating a 26 year old Canelo than a 35 year old Golovkin would have had at beating a 27 y/o Canelo or a 36 y/o Golovkin would have had at beating a 28 y/o Canelo. ie (and to combine the 2 ridiculous conversations I'm having simultaneously) that it can't be counted as good luck for Golovkin that he was awarded the WBC title instead of fighting Canelo for it in 2016.

Look, man. Fuck it. What do you even think we're arguing over? All I'm trying to demonstrate is that the TSs contention is wrong. Do you think that Golovkin is 'the biggest fraud in boxing'. Or indeed a 'fraud' at all?

I've mentioned how Khan and Broner are by far bigger frauds. I dont consider GGG to be a fraud.

On a closing note, this is why most pro fighters dont waste their time accumulating 100's of amateur fights. Unless being an amateur is ones ambition.