Comments Thread For: Golovkin's Trainer Dismissive of Immediate Third Fight With Canelo

[Chollo Vista]

I don't need to quote line by line,

Of course you don't because you're too damn ****** to do it

You know I was getting ready to hit you with that uppercut like Charlo did JRock

Don't b1tch out now. Quote me line by line like I did you so we can get this thing over with

[Jab jab boom]

Of course you don't because you're too damn ****** to do it

You know I was getting ready to hit you with that uppercut like Charlo did JRock

Don't b1tch out now. Quote me line by line like I did you so we can get this thing over with

this has been over and done with for a while now. You're just too ****** to know it. You're like the fighter who got knocked out but his brain is too scrambled to know he's been kicked silly. Your point has been squashed. The fact that you swear I'm bread or think I care about j Rock shows what a desperate idiot you are. This must be the highlight of your miserable life. I've accomplished what I've set out to do. 1. I proved that you're an internet Puss. 2. I've proved that you're an idiot whose arguments are easily exposed as straight bulls***.
BTW, I think you should rip down your Canelo posters and replace them with trout posters since he's now known as the fighter who's taken the most risks other than pac. Lmaooo

[Chollo Vista]

I don't know how to quote line by line. Can you help me, please?

Of course I can, I thought you'd never ask.

Here's what you do:

Step 1. Highlight the part of my post that you want to quote.

Step 2. Look above this text box, to the right of the "insert image", icon. If you hover your mouse over it, you'll see a pop up that reads "Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text.

Step 3. Click said said icon.

4. The part that you want to quote will have html code at the beginning and ending of said quote. Place your reply beneath it.

5. Step 5, wash and repeat.

See, that was easy. Now quote this so I can knock your punk ass out and get this over with:

fine, you want to be ethered yet again

Boy you couldn't ether me if you were Nasir Jones and I was Shawn Carter. Sit down, Breadman.

1. P4p lists and their ages. It's known that you decline in sports, especially boxing, by 35. So aside from the names on the list, does anyone really think that ggg and pac are the same fighters they were 10 yrs ago?ggg damn near lost to dervenchenko

Prove to me who GGG was years ago? Let's start there. His first real fight was against Daniel Jacobs. Golovkin didn't even show up in America until he was 30 and had his first real fight against Jacobs at 35. So who was he, really? Explain it to me.

And yes, I'm glad you mentioned "he damn near lost" to Derv because most believe he did. As well as Jacobs.

and pac went life and death with horn

The fcuk is your point here, you casual boxing fan? Pac also lost to Torrecampo and Sangsurat when he was in his early 20's. Pac lost to Horn, which was HIGHLY debated, but then went on to beat Mathysse, Broner and Thurman. Your logic doesn't even make sense man. He's currently #3 in his weight class behind Crawford and Spence, but because he lost a questionable decision to Horn 3 years ago, none of that matters? Weren't you the same guy who said "rankings don't matter, but performance does"? Ok, so Pac just beat a young hungry Keith Thurman, who beat your boy Danny Garcia. I'm sure you'll find a way to tell us that doesn't count, right?

Regarding age, yes, age does factor at times. But many people/fighters age differently. Foreman, Pac, Hopkins, Mayweather have been able to fight past their late 30's and into their early 40's. Again, everyone ages differently. Which is why it baffled the hell out of me when you tried to mention Shane Mosley on Canelo's resume as if your agenda wasn't clear.

At 40, are Mosley and Pac the same caliber of fighter? Hell no, which is a testament to how not all fighters age the same, you dumbass.

At 35, Kovalev was still #1 in his weight class as is Beterbiev now. As was Mayweather and Hopkins when they were 35.

So yes, pac and ggg have cleared declined and Canelo minimized risk by facing all of the 35 and older opponents he did.

I already smashed this point. Based off this theory, it's impossible for Loma, Usyk or Crawford to lose in 2-3 years or else it won't count regardless if they're still undefeated by then.

Never said there was 0 risk but it was minimized as each guy was not the best versions of themselves due to advanced age.... Which was my point. Beterbiev has only had 15 pro fights and been a pro for 6 yrs... So his wear and tear isn't what it'd be for a guy who's been pro for much longer with 40 plus fights. Duhhhh

Beterbiev has been fighting since 2004 at least. He doesn't have the wear and tear like someone with 40 fights, but guy's like Pac who have close to 70 fights are still going strong. Oh yeah, and Pac is 6 years older than Artur as is Mayweather who could still come back right now. It all depends on the fighter and how they look as of late.

But then on the flip, if Canelo beats Beterbiev, if you don't talk about his age, you'll then just talk about his "inexperience" since he only had 15 fights... It's a no win situation.

If he beats the #1 Light Heavyweight, you'll say he's too old. And then as soon as I debunk that claim, you'll say he was too inexperienced. But then if he had over 40 fights, you'll say he had too many fights. So on and so forth making it "IMPOSSIBLE" to have a good resume.

And this is what you call "destorying" someone's post??


2.
I laid out who you need to be concerned with you illiterate troll:

- Trout #3
- Lara #2
- Cotto - #1
- Golovkin - #1
- Smith - #9
- Jacobs - #2
- Kovalev - #1

Trout - a proven gate keeper

Trout was undefeated and the #3 JMW at the time you Monday morning quarterback troll

This is what I'm talking about with you. You say Canelo only picks on old men over 35, but Trout was a 27 year old undefeated JMW CHAMPION when Canelo beat him and you still hate on him? This takes special trolling from a sad piece of schit.

Lara - deserved the win vs Canelo and either way made him look terrible. Only landed 9 jabs the whole fight.

Ok and Jacobs/Derv deserved the win against G, still didn't happen. But to your point, Lara was a 31 year old champion who was on the P4P list and was the #2 JMW, the same thing that Andrade is RIGHT NOW. Canelo faced and beat him, which further debunks your ass backwards theory of him only fighting 35 year olds.

Hell, Lara is still ducked TO THIS DAY and was ducked by guy's like GGG who you ironically defend while accusing Canelo of doing the stuff that was clearly done by others. More hypocrisy from Breadman.

Cotto - 36 yrs old, looked to be 20 pounds smaller than Canelo and his recent wins were vs delvin Rodriguez, a 40 yr old gimp in Sergio and Daniel geale.

Ok, great, now we're back to talking about age again. As far as wins, are you missing the fact that Cotto moved up in weight and KO'd GGG's only beaten champion at the time? Cotto was the #1 MW who had just beat the long reigning champion in Martinez.

Secondly, Cotto was the fight that Golovkin himself was fighting to get. Would you have said the same thing if GGG beat him? Of course not, you would've included it on G's resume. And if Cotto was much smaller than Canelo, how the hell do you think he'd fair next to Golovkin? You don't even make any sense man.

GGG - top mw, showed signs of slowing at 35, most believe he beat canelo in both fights... Of 100 press row cards in both fights.. No more than 4 had canelo winning either.

And most believe GGG lost to Jacobs and Derv. What the fcuk is your point? You want me to start digging up press row scores now? If so, let's do it for all the close victories throughout history. Should we do it for Mayweather vs Castillo, SRL vs Hearns II, Ali vs Norton III? Schit happens man.

Smith - C level fighter and not in the class of the other 154 pound belt holders at the time, both Charlos and lara

Smith was a 26 year old, #9 ranked, JMW at the time. The same rank Andrade and Charlo were when Canelo was fighting Trout and Lara at #2 and #3, but that still didn't stop you from schitting on those victories, did it Breadman?

Again, Smith was #9, just like Charlo/Andrade were when Canelo fought Trout and Lara. But if Canelo fought Charlo/Andrade back when they were in their early to mid 20's, you'd be on here crying telling us how Canelo fought the #9 guy, instead of fighting proven champions like Trout and Lara lol

So you see, it's a no win situation with re ta rds like you.

Jacobs - good fight. Had already lost to ggg and had a toss up fight with dervenchenko.

The only reason you consider it a good fight is because GGG "beat" Jacobs. If not, you'd be talking about Sergio Mora's knockdown and Pirog, you clown.

Kovalev - 36 yrs old, ko'd in back to back yrs and had a tough fight just 10 weeks before facing Canelo.

You talk schit about this victory, but I'm still waiting on you to name one win GGG has on his resume that's better. I've been waiting since YESTERDAY

Kovalev was #1 in his weight class. Just like Beterbiev is #1.

All of the above I already schooled you on but you're trying to pretend it didn't happen. See, a simple moron such as yourself only looks at rankings but ignores the real substance behind each opponent. Which i just broke down for you with facts.

You didn't school anybody on schit, other than the art of "trying" to destroy a resume. Anybody can do that, just see some of these trolls on NSB with 10 posts.

3. Now for your underdog betting odds, I've thoroughly dismantled that so refer to my prior posts regarding trout, Garcia, brook, Rosado and porter as it pertain to facing underdogs and their wins in those match ups. Dumbest point you've made of all your arguments.

So let me understand this. You're seriously trying to compare guy's like Canelo, Pacquiao, Mayweather, etc to guy's like Trout, Rosado and Porter?

The odds theory doesn't apply to guy's like Emmanual Burton. The point of the odds theory was to give a look into how "risky" a fight is "at the time" that it happens which all plays a role in evaluating a fighters legacy and greatness. The fighter's you mentioned aren't great.

Secondly, don't just make claims, let's post some facts with sources. Post the fighters that you mentioned (e.g. Trout, Garcia, Brook, Rosado and Porter) last 20 fights and include the following categories I named and see how they match up.

Fighting as the underdog as Daniel Boone is different than fighting as the underdog as Mayweather, Pac, Golovkin or Canelo you re ta ded idiot.

But yeah, let's start with Garcia. Since you made the claim, it's on you to post Garcia's odds from the last 20 fights so we can see how he adds up against the great's of this era.

Hopefully you find your balls and it doesn't take you 24 hours to respond to this post line by line.

[Jab jab boom]

[QUOTE=Chollo Vista;20526872]Of course I can, I thought you'd never ask.

Here's what you do:

Step 1. Highlight the part of my post that you want to quote.

Step 2. Look above this text box, to the right of the "insert image", icon. If you hover your mouse over it, you'll see a pop up that reads "Wrap

tags around selected text.

Step 3. Click said said icon.

4. The part that you want to quote will have html code at the beginning and ending of said quote. Place your reply beneath it.

5. Step 5, wash and repeat.

See, that was easy. Now quote this so I can knock your punk ass out and get this over with:



Boy you couldn't ether me if you were Nasir Jones and I was Shawn Carter. Sit down, Breadman.



Prove to me who GGG was years ago? Let's start there. His first real fight was against Daniel Jacobs. Golovkin didn't even show up in America until he was 30 and had his first real fight against Jacobs at 35. So who was he, really? Explain it to me.

And yes, I'm glad you mentioned "he damn near lost" to Derv because most believe he did. As well as Jacobs.



The fcuk is your point here, you casual boxing fan? Pac also lost to Torrecampo and Sangsurat when he was in his early 20's. Pac lost to Horn, which was HIGHLY debated, but then went on to beat Mathysse, Broner and Thurman. Your logic doesn't even make sense man. He's currently #3 in his weight class behind Crawford and Spence, but because he lost a questionable decision to Horn 3 years ago, none of that matters? Weren't you the same guy who said "rankings don't matter, but performance does"? Ok, so Pac just beat a young hungry Keith Thurman, who beat your boy Danny Garcia. I'm sure you'll find a way to tell us that doesn't count, right?

Regarding age, yes, age does factor at times. But many people/fighters age differently. Foreman, Pac, Hopkins, Mayweather have been able to fight past their late 30's and into their early 40's. Again, everyone ages differently. Which is why it baffled the hell out of me when you tried to mention Shane Mosley on Canelo's resume as if your agenda wasn't clear.

At 40, are Mosley and Pac the same caliber of fighter? Hell no, which is a testament to how not all fighters age the same, you dumbass.

At 35, Kovalev was still #1 in his weight class as is Beterbiev now. As was Mayweather and Hopkins when they were 35.



I already smashed this point. Based off this theory, it's impossible for Loma, Usyk or Crawford to lose in 2-3 years or else it won't count regardless if they're still undefeated by then.



Beterbiev has been fighting since 2004 at least. He doesn't have the wear and tear like someone with 40 fights, but guy's like Pac who have close to 70 fights are still going strong. Oh yeah, and Pac is 6 years older than Artur as is Mayweather who could still come back right now. It all depends on the fighter and how they look as of late.

But then on the flip, if Canelo beats Beterbiev, if you don't talk about his age, you'll then just talk about his "inexperience" since he only had 15 fights... It's a no win situation.

If he beats the #1 Light Heavyweight, you'll say he's too old. And then as soon as I debunk that claim, you'll say he was too inexperienced. But then if he had over 40 fights, you'll say he had too many fights. So on and so forth making it "IMPOSSIBLE" to have a good resume.

And this is what you call "destorying" someone's post??


2.
I laid out who you need to be concerned with you illiterate troll:

- Trout #3
- Lara #2
- Cotto - #1
- Golovkin - #1
- Smith - #9
- Jacobs - #2
- Kovalev - #1



Trout was undefeated and the #3 JMW at the time you Monday morning quarterback troll

This is what I'm talking about with you. You say Canelo only picks on old men over 35, but Trout was a 27 year old undefeated JMW CHAMPION when Canelo beat him and you still hate on him? This takes special trolling from a sad piece of schit.



Ok and Jacobs/Derv deserved the win against G, still didn't happen. But to your point, Lara was a 31 year old champion who was on the P4P list and was the #2 JMW, the same thing that Andrade is RIGHT NOW. Canelo faced and beat him, which further debunks your ass backwards theory of him only fighting 35 year olds.

Hell, Lara is still ducked TO THIS DAY and was ducked by guy's like GGG who you ironically defend while accusing Canelo of doing the stuff that was clearly done by others. More hypocrisy from Breadman.



Ok, great, now we're back to talking about age again. As far as wins, are you missing the fact that Cotto moved up in weight and KO'd GGG's only beaten champion at the time? Cotto was the #1 MW who had just beat the long reigning champion in Martinez.

Secondly, Cotto was the fight that Golovkin himself was fighting to get. Would you have said the same thing if GGG beat him? Of course not, you would've included it on G's resume. And if Cotto was much smaller than Canelo, how the hell do you think he'd fair next to Golovkin? You don't even make any sense man.



And most believe GGG lost to Jacobs and Derv. What the fcuk is your point? You want me to start digging up press row scores now? If so, let's do it for all the close victories throughout history. Should we do it for Mayweather vs Castillo, SRL vs Hearns II, Ali vs Norton III? Schit happens man.



Smith was a 26 year old, #9 ranked, JMW at the time. The same rank Andrade and Charlo were when Canelo was fighting Trout and Lara at #2 and #3, but that still didn't stop you from schitting on those victories, did it Breadman?

Again, Smith was #9, just like Charlo/Andrade were when Canelo fought Trout and Lara. But if Canelo fought Charlo/Andrade back when they were in their early to mid 20's, you'd be on here crying telling us how Canelo fought the #9 guy, instead of fighting proven champions like Trout and Lara lol

So you see, it's a no win situation with re ta rds like you.



The only reason you consider it a good fight is because GGG "beat" Jacobs. If not, you'd be talking about Sergio Mora's knockdown and Pirog, you clown.



You talk schit about this victory, but I'm still waiting on you to name one win GGG has on his resume that's better. I've been waiting since YESTERDAY

Kovalev was #1 in his weight class. Just like Beterbiev is #1.



You didn't school anybody on schit, other than the art of "trying" to destroy a resume. Anybody can do that, just see some of these trolls on NSB with 10 posts.



So let me understand this. You're seriously trying to compare guy's like Canelo, Pacquiao, Mayweather, etc to guy's like Trout, Rosado and Porter?

The odds theory doesn't apply to guy's like Emmanual Burton. The point of the odds theory was to give a look into how "risky" a fight is "at the time" that it happens which all plays a role in evaluating a fighters legacy and greatness. The fighter's you mentioned aren't great.

Secondly, don't just make claims, let's post some facts with sources. Post the fighters that you mentioned (e.g. Trout, Garcia, Brook, Rosado and Porter) last 20 fights and include the following categories I named and see how they match up.

Fighting as the underdog as Daniel Boone is different than fighting as the underdog as Mayweather, Pac, Golovkin or Canelo you re ta ded idiot.

But yeah, let's start with Garcia. Since you made the claim, it's on you to post Garcia's odds from the last 20 fights so we can see how he adds up against the great's of this era.

Hopefully you find your balls and it doesn't take you 24 hours to respond to this post line by line.

more of the same. Copy and paste.......pathetic b***h.

[Chollo Vista]

more of the same. Copy and paste.......pathetic b***h.

You claim I'm changing the subject, I have proven you are.

The only way we can finish this conversation is if you quote me line by line so points can't get ducked, misconstrued and the subject doesn't get changed. It's the only way.

Are you refusing and waiving the white flag or do you need more "training"?

Let me know dumbo

[Verus]

You claim I'm changing the subject, I have proven you are.

The only way we can finish this conversation is if you quote me line by line so points can't get ducked, misconstrued and the subject doesn't get changed. It's the only way.

Are you refusing and waiving the white flag or do you need more "training"?

Let me know dumbo

In deference to the COVID-19, the Swine Flu, Ebola, the common cold, and the demise of Mad Magazine, how about if you and Jab Jab Boom agree to a cease fire and resume hostilities after the Second Coming?

[Chollo Vista]

In deference to the COVID-19, the Swine Flu, Ebola, the common cold, and the demise of Mad Magazine, how about if you and Jab Jab Boom agree to a cease fire and resume hostilities after the Second Coming?

He said he was going to take it to the dome. I'm patiently waiting

[Jab jab boom]

He said he was going to take it to the dome. I'm patiently waiting

I didn't say anything about any dome. I don't even know what the fk that is. Stop making s*** up.

[Chollo Vista]

I didn't say anything about any dome. I don't even know what the fk that is. Stop making s*** up.

Now you're gonna sit up here and lie?

The damn link to the T'dome is sitting on your page. You even responded and said ok.

Listen man, just reply to my post line by line and we'll settle that tough guy schit offline

[icha]

where is boliodog ??? cant make this **** up, LMAO...