Comments Thread For: Hearn Details How Eubank Jr. Lost Golovkin Shot Over a Photo

[Citizen Koba]

nah i totally hear you...the mark of intelligence is to be able to hear/understand both trains of thought without accepting them as truth

i get it....its just...when i look at golovkins career and how it has played out i think my version falls more in line with how they operated

i dont doubt that golovkin is a good dude...and a real pro...i just think he left alot of the career stuff up to the guys in charge of him....and i think they are a little more deft than we might care to admit....

It's an opinion, man. I followed the dude from about 2011 and through all the ups and downs, all the big fights he tried to get but fell through for one reason or another, often genuinely through events that just weren't his fault, so it simply doesn't ring true to me that he avoided the challenges. Ach... I can go into it more, but you know all the arguments anyways so I'd be wasting my breath..

Besides, dudes resume is nowhere close to the list of bums some folk try to make it. Look at the Ring Rankings for 2011 and 12 and the MW landscape Golovkin came into and you'll see what I mean, or Roldys top 20 of the decade, problem is that MW was a Euro heavy division and half the dudes just weren't known to most US fans. It just is what it is, but repetition seems to have diminished what he did accomplish, like extended title runs and unifying is just commonplace whichever division its in. Besides, it's a simple reality that dudes with smaller promoters get fewer opportunities, no need to talk about anyone avoiding fights when even with biggest promoters and even when dudes are under the same banner in can take years for the best fights to come together. How many top 10 opponents and wins do other figthers get in the 7 and a half years GGG had since restarting his career in the US?

Suffice to say that I think we'll all be better off as a community if folk started giving all fighters their due instead of crapping on fighters in order to score points in whatever fanbase rivalries or battles they got going on.

[Curt Henning]

It's an opinion, man. I followed the dude from about 2011 and through all the ups and downs, all the big fights he tried to get but fell through for one reason or another, often genuinely through events that just weren't his fault, so it simply doesn't ring true to me that he avoided the challenges. Ach... I can go into it more, but you know all the arguments anyways so I'd be wasting my breath..

Suffice to say that I think we'll all be better off as a community if folk started giving all fighters their due instead of crapping on fighters in order to score points in whatever fanbase rivalries or battles they got going on.

i respectfully agree to disagree

[Citizen Koba]

i respectfully agree to disagree

I hear ya man. World would be a dull place if we all saw things the same way anyways..

[SteveM]

i respect you for keeping it real with that post

and yeah degale had another fight...but i dont think it was anything special...they could have scrapped that fight for a bigger fight degale/golovkin.....but golovkin didnt fancy that type of fight

yeah its ballsy on the end of brook and khan....and tbh fighting canelo is now basically the equivalent of fighting a 2010 manny/floyd.....so you cant fault khan...cant fault brook either....but it doesnt look good on the end of golovkin dragging a WW up, when he himself is a career MW(at least canelo campaigned at 147/154), and you talked down on canelo for the khan fight

i have no issues with loma, usyk, beterbiev kovalev etc....but golovkin has always left a bad taste to me...

I don't remember if I crapped on Canelo for the Khan fight, but it sounds about right at that time. He was fighting at 155 and avoiding good 154 title-holders and yet not moving up to 160 where he'd have immediately been even more pressured to make the Golovkin fight against a prime seemingly unstoppable Golovkin at that time.

So yeah, the Khan-Canelo fight .... 10/10 for ballsiness to Khan, not so much for Canelo. Ditto Brook-Golovkin. If you are going to crap on Golovkin for fighting Brook then you have to do the same to Canelo. In fact Brook was unbeaten and Khan had already been KO'd a few times even at 140 - so being objective - extra dissing Canelo is justified for that fight.

I think part of Golovkin's sour demeanor since Canelo 1 took place and especially since Canelo 2 is that first he thinks the results were wrong but second he realised that he has been played by the bigger star and his team. Imo GBP have done a brilliant job in maximising Canelo's career and part of that is they waited for Golovkin to decline and waited for the first signs of decline so in the words of Breadman; Golovkin was still in his prime but he was coming off of his peak-prime (as you'd expect for a 35 year old).

Golovkin and team Golovkin can't complain though. He was a totally obscure fighter coming from an obscure background and he has done very well from his career - hard to see how he could have done better apart from KO-ing Canelo and maybe getting more sponsorship off of that.

Now, since the Canelo-Khan fight Canelo has charted a more adventurous course than most other fighters. It's still well managed though. I think Oscar has reflected on his own career and thought "yeah, you can fight everyone and you'll lose a few, but it doesn't have to be that way" and that is how Canelo is being steered - it's a fine balance between risk and reward - timing is everything.