Comments Thread For: WBC Prez: We've Had Canelo as P4P #1 Since He Beat Golovkin

[Stev3]

I can't wait for P4P #1 BELT to be announced by Sulaiman.

Or the BMF belt like what the UFC did

[aboutfkntime]

I can't wait for P4P #1 BELT to be announced by Sulaiman.

the WBC already pulled that stunt...

the Franchise Belt is really the... " we love Canelo "... belt

oh, and apparently they let Loma play with it every now and then

this time is different... because, everyone else is saying the same thing

[Larry the boss]

Since clenelo didn't beat ggg in second fight (another gift decision) I have ggg higher than clenelo

not possible by any place in reality to have GGG ranked higher then Canelo

[Larry the boss]

But the majority of people saw GGG win those fights, so it’s not some fantasy speculation like your comparison.

You’re as dumb as your little videos suggest.

so you did a poll on every person who watched the fight in the world??

[Elastic Recoil]

He lost both Golovkin fights, has used PEDs in his career and sytematically targets weak or aging fighters... he COULD NEVER be considered p4p #1 Its Loma, Inoue, Crawford in that order!

[Elastic Recoil]

Canelo entire career is not the two Golovkin fights. He beat Trout, Lara, and Smith winning 3 belts at 154, beat Cotto for lineal title at 160.

Then on top of that got a draw vs Golovkin when everybody on the damn planet expected him to get KNOCKED OUT. Then ran it right back for a rematch, and fought aggressively and got the win.

I’m not saying his best wins were not close wins. I’m not saying that all of his fights were absolute clear decisions where universally everyone felt that he won. Yes he’s had close fights that could go either way, but he’s won them and his resume is the best in the sport. He’s P4P #1 with grade A clenbuterol Mexican beef. Especially now that he’s added 175 belt to become 3 weight champ. If you stack up names and HOF opponents it ain’t close.

To Address your post... he should've lost to Lara but was given the nod in a close fight when rally Lara should've got the win. Cotto was not a true middleweight and was on the slide by the time he fought Canelo. He CLEARLY lost to GGG in the first fight but was GIFTED a ridiculous draw. Most people will agree Canelo lost the rematch in what was a close fight - at worst it should've been a draw but again the judges gave canelo the advantage.

The recurring theme here is throughout Canelo's career hes been involved in close fights but the judges ALWAYS side with him. A boxer literally cannot get a decision win over him without a knockout which is utterly pathetic and makes a mockery of the sport. How can someone like that ever be considered p4p #1. If you're at the top of that list you should be fighting all comers including mandatories and blowing them away in devastating style - this is not Canelo! Also people talk about resume but it aint fooling nobody but casuals with it - boxing hardcores dont respect the targeting of aged fighters, catchweights and rehydration clauses he uses.

[skinnystev]

somebody needs to tell Sulaiman that alvarez lost the 2 fights with golovkin and is a convicted drug cheat Sulaiman can't change that

[JLC]

But aside from that, p4p is really supposed to be, if size wasn't a factor, who would be the best.

Now if Canelo did have a size and weight advantage over Crawford and Loma,
You think he'd beat them?

If weight wasn’t a factor who would be the best ? That is spot on. And how do we determine this? By the eye test (who looks to be the most talented) but also and more importantly (IMO) the resume of the fighter and how that fighter has navigated weight classes in his career.

Who has Terrance heat to make you think he could defeat Canelo ? What true TOP GUYS has he even fought ?

Who has Lomachenko beaten to make you think he could hear Canelo ? What top guys has he fought ?

They need to do more. I’m sorry. Loma had a tough fight with Jorge Linares. You don’t think Canelo is 5x better than Linares ?

Canelo has fought tons of styles and has gotten much better since Floyd fight. If all of them were the same weight, with their current resumes and experience today I would absolutely make Canelo the favorite to win. I base that in wins over Lara, Golovkin, Jacobs, Cotto, and any other name I can’t think of while driving. It’s not all about the eye test. Resume should hold the most weight.

[Jab jab boom]

If weight wasn’t a factor who would be the best ? That is spot on. And how do we determine this? By the eye test (who looks to be the most talented) but also and more importantly (IMO) the resume of the fighter and how that fighter has navigated weight classes in his career.

Who has Terrance heat to make you think he could defeat Canelo ? What true TOP GUYS has he even fought ?

Who has Lomachenko beaten to make you think he could hear Canelo ? What top guys has he fought ?

They need to do more. I’m sorry. Loma had a tough fight with Jorge Linares. You don’t think Canelo is 5x better than Linares ?

Canelo has fought tons of styles and has gotten much better since Floyd fight. If all of them were the same weight, with their current resumes and experience today I would absolutely make Canelo the favorite to win. I base that in wins over Lara, Golovkin, Jacobs, Cotto, and any other name I can’t think of while driving. It’s not all about the eye test. Resume should hold the most weight.

what can't and shouldn't be ignored is that those names you mentioned that Canelo "beat", many were controversial. Strong arguments can be made that he has 2 wins and 3 losses against them. The favoritism he receives from judges can't be ignored. Nor can the age advantages he's had over most of his main opposition. As far as the eye ball test, I don't see much that Canelo does better than Crawford or Loma. You can mention level of comp, but when Roy Jones was p4p king, everyone knew he was better than Oscar despite Oscar having the better resume. If you know boxing, you can tell regardless. Crawford and Loma have better offense than Canelo, they're more active, better foot work and better stamina. Punching power for their respective weight classes is fairly similar as are defensive skills. I think Lomas defensive ability is better than canelos as he doesn't get hit as consistently as Canelo does. Crawford is also way more versatile in his ability to switch stances, box and brawl. Not quite sure where Canelo surpasses them skills wise.

[JLC]

what can't and shouldn't be ignored is that those names you mentioned that Canelo "beat", many were controversial. Strong arguments can be made that he has 2 wins and 3 losses against them. The favoritism he receives from judges can't be ignored. Nor can the age advantages he's had over most of his main opposition. As far as the eye ball test, I don't see much that Canelo does better than Crawford or Loma. You can mention level of comp, but when Roy Jones was p4p king, everyone knew he was better than Oscar despite Oscar having the better resume. If you know boxing, you can tell regardless. Crawford and Loma have better offense than Canelo, they're more active, better foot work and better stamina. Punching power for their respective weight classes is fairly similar as are defensive skills. I think Lomas defensive ability is better than canelos as he doesn't get hit as consistently as Canelo does. Crawford is also way more versatile in his ability to switch stances, box and brawl. Not quite sure where Canelo surpasses them skills wise.

I agree that Loma and Terrance have better defense.

I agree that Terrance is obviously more versatile

I will add that Loma has better consistent footwork and movememt.

I think that Canelo obviously has much better power than either guy.

I think he is a slightly better counter puncher than either guy.

My thoughts. That is all eye test level stuff, which does play a large factor in determining P4P. But again, resume should hold the most weight. I understand P4P is an imaginary title, and is subjective, but when substance and results can be used, they should be, and dammit, resume matters more to me. LOL.

In regards to his close decisions, I will paste in something that I said in a different thread: https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...7#post19432547

Lara and Cotto were great wins. No asterisks. Close fights. I thought Alvarez lost both of them but they were close and debatable. Lara was prime. Cotto was still good and at a comfortable weight.

The wins over Golovkin were great. Again, thought Alvarez lost the first but clearly won the second. Tough tough fights.

And further explanation

Also, Canelo beat Lara, Trout, and Golovkin. He beat them. They were close fights, but close victories count too. Just because you or me don’t agree w a decision does not make it a robbery or put an asterisk next to it. That’s the Teddy Atlas syndrome where any decision that he doesn’t agree with he is having a coronary because the fight was a robbery. There is a such thing as close fights.

BTW I thought Cotto beat Canelo. I thought Lara beat Canelo. I thought GGG beat Canelo first fight. All of them were close though so I’m not out here screaming the fights don’t count or have an asterisk cuz it didn’t go the way I saw. He gets credit for those wins. He let his nuts hang and got in the ring w the top guys and came out with the W. Close wins count!

He won the fights. He gets credit for the fights. Not all fights are going to be a clear 115-113 or better, and there is nothing that Cotto or Lara did to Canelo to make me thing they dominated him. Close battles I thought they won, and the judges thought they lost.

GGG had the clearest "victory" over Canelo to me in the first fight, but was most certainly outfought in the rematch.

Unless we are talking Pacquaio Bradley 1, or a robbery on that level, I count a guys wins as wins.