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

[DreamFighter]

sure. you could assume either if you wanted -.

noone here assumed anything except you, assuming that GGG's amateur days were particularly draining.

[Citizen Koba]

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.

No of course not. If your aim is to be a pro then it would be foolish to waste so many years in the ammys. Whilst it's gradually changing now though I think it's hard to appreciate how the pros and ammys were regarded it the former Soviet states. In the West the ams was the poor relation, but that situation was reversed in the post Soviet states and most , if not all EE ams were solely focused on achieving amateur greatness in the Olympics or Worlds with little thought to a future pro career... ach. I digress. Suffice to say that I doubt guys like Golovkin or Loma or Usyk saw their amateur careers as a means to an end, although again as new generations see the wealth and success they've had that may be changing.

****... I could rattle on about the changing era of modern boxing all day - and it's far more productive the dozen pointless paragraphs I've written here... ****.. Mrs Koba's fuming cos of the amount of time I've spent on here cos of this thread.

[Citizen Koba]

noone here assumed anything except you, assuming that GGG's amateur days were particularly draining.

Neither more nor less than the pros is all I've said. What I've said is we've no means of making a comparison. Other dude said pros were tougher.

Hell. I like your stubbornness at least. Let's give this **** up.

[ddeg10]

Don't know what you're talking about, man. 'Sugar' Nicky Valuev was the slipperiest, slickest 7' tall world champion ever to lace 'em up.

LOL!

[DreamFighter]

Neither more nor less than the pros is all I've said. What I've said is we've no means of making a comparison. Other dude said pros were tougher.

Hell. I like your stubbornness at least. Let's give this **** up.

an active pro career is usually more physically demanding than an amateur one, as long as its not about being a tomato can. In that you dont need to work another job to get a wage, so you can 100% commit to boxing.

It would be harder to be a successful amateur AND earn a living outside it, but I mean that mentally, not as a physical thing.

[Citizen Koba]

an active pro career is usually more physically demanding than an amateur one, as long as its not about being a tomato can. In that you dont need to work another job to get a wage, so you can 100% commit to boxing.

It would be harder to be a successful amateur AND earn a living outside it, but I mean that mentally, not as a physical thing.

Olympic level athletes are full timers, though. Top level amateurs compete year round and get funding kinda dependent on their performance. In fact in the main top level ammys are competing at a higher level and generally more often than fledgling pros... Canelo's a rare occurance of a pro fighter fighting at the very top level from his early 20s, but in mostly a top level ammy would be far more accomplished than most pros of the same age.

Like I say though it's essentially impossible to make an informed comparison - what formula would you even begin to use. 1:1, 2 pro rounds 1 ammy, 2 pro years to 1 ammy?

Thing is, as I've pointed out, it's kinda irrelevant anyway in this context, cosI'm not trying to compare Golovkin to Canelo, but to compare a younger Golovkin to an older Golovkin. The argument against (that my man Curtis was trying to use although he wasn't necessarily explaining it very well) is not that aging isn't a thing, but that Golovkin hadn't declined significantly by the age of 35. I'm trying to establish that even if he had declined only a fraction it validates my point that he would have been better off fighting Canelo in 2016 than 2017.

I'm not arguing - just for clarity - that that means he would have won, merely that he would have had a higher probability of winning.

[DreamFighter]

Olympic level athletes are full timers, though. Top level amateurs compete year round and get funding kinda dependent on their performance. In fact in the main top level ammys are competing at a higher level and generally more often than fledgling pros... Canelo's a rare occurance of a pro fighter fighting at the very top level from his early 20s, but in mostly a top level ammy would be far more accomplished than most pros of the same age.

Like I say though it's essentially impossible to make an informed comparison - what formula would you even begin to use. 1:1, 2 pro rounds 1 ammy, 2 pro years to 1 ammy?

Thing is, as I've pointed out, it's kinda irrelevant anyway in this context, cosI'm not trying to compare Golovkin to Canelo, but to compare a younger Golovkin to an older Golovkin. The argument against (that my man Curtis was trying to use although he wasn't necessarily explaining it very well) is not that aging isn't a thing, but that Golovkin hadn't declined significantly by the age of 35. I'm trying to establish that even if he had declined only a fraction it validates my point that he would have been better off fighting Canelo in 2016 than 2017.

I'm not arguing - just for clarity - that that means he would have won, merely that he would have had a higher probability of winning.

since he still loses who cares? Golov cant deal with elite level, this is all there is to it.

[Citizen Koba]

since he still loses who cares? Golov cant deal with elite level, this is all there is to it.

Where did I say he still loses? I just said that wasn't the point I was arguing. But if you think that Golovkin at 35 proved by getting a controversial draw with a prime Canelo that he 'can't deal with the elite level' then you're telling me you think Canelo ain't elite. Is that about right?

Look, man. I'm done here... you can't have it both ways without twisting the facts to make yourself a hypocrite, and I already wasted a lot more time than I shoulda on this BS.

[DreamFighter]

Where did I say he still loses?

who cares what oyu say, he did lose. what happened counts, not your imaginary world.

[JJRod]

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

This is ridiculous. GGG was besting top ten guys in his division and knocking them out. We can complain all we want about the quality if those opponents but all you can do is fight the person in front of you. He earned his shot at Canelo and in the end it wasn't as if Canelo destroyed GGG. It was a draw and a close fight that could have gone either way.

Stop making embarrassing threads.