How come some people like 3G can keep a title they are given but not won they win?

[GhostofDempsey]

Yeah and Goodman and Sulaiman bent over like two betches and named Canelo a Franchise Champion. No honest authority would do that unless they intentionally conspired foul play before hand.

The War Gods favor Canelo Alvarez. And still, PAC avoid drug testing blaming it on blood drawn and socks for the Morales fight... go figure.

Who failed a test? Manny sued Floyd for those false accusations. A year later he agreed to blood testing. Floyd readily admits he was the one who marinated their fight for five years to make it bigger. He was also the one with the illegal IV. He was never dehydrated enough to need it, IMO he was masking something.

So Canelo actually cheated and got caught, Floyd got caught but the corrupt USADA gave him an exception two weeks after since Haymon pays USADA big money to "test" their fighters, who often refuse testing (Charlo).

Manny never failed a test.

[DreamFighter]

so no ideas as to why GGG fr instance come unstuck when its a title he had to fight to win?

but he can make loads of ibo defences.

[Citizen Koba]

so no ideas as to why GGG fr instance come unstuck when its a title he had to fight to win?

but he can make loads of ibo defences.

The better question would be why the 70 odd other paper titlists who were also elevated from interim status in the last 20 years or so couldn't even make as many defenses of their titles as Golovkin.

Who are these obscure no names you ask? Yeah... the list includes but is not limited to; Maidana, Thurman, Lara, Bivol, Dorticos, Gamboa, Cuellar, Chocolatito, John Ruiz, Roy Jones, Jermall, Maravilla, Haney, Tim Bradley, Salido, Ricky Burns and JMM... twice. About 50 others too.

Yet I'm not seeing you start thread after thread about these dudes suggesting they're fakes and paper champions. Could it be you weren't aware of just how common it is?

[DreamFighter]

The better question would be why the 70 odd other paper titlists who were also elevated from interim status in the last 20 years or so couldn't even make as many defenses of their titles as Golovkin.

Who are these obscure no names you ask? Yeah... the list includes but is not limited to; Maidana, Thurman, Lara, Bivol, Dorticos, Gamboa, Cuellar, Chocolatito, John Ruiz, Roy Jones, Jermall, Maravilla, Haney, Tim Bradley, Salido, Ricky Burns and JMM... twice. About 50 others too.

no clearly I was not referring to guys who fought good fighters, though a tiny few of these wouldnt count of course, well done on bringing a tiny proportion of relevant matter in, well done.





Yet I'm not seeing you start thread after thread about these dudes suggesting they're fakes and paper champions. Could it be you weren't aware of just how common it is? [/QUOTE]

[Citizen Koba]

no clearly I was not referring to guys who fought good fighters, though a tiny few of these wouldnt count of course, well done on bringing a tiny proportion of relevant matter in, well done.

You know a sure sign of a hypocrite doncha? It's when a dude starts coming up with reasons why the criticism he makes about one fighter don't apply to others.

All the guys I mentioned were considered legitimate champions and the fact that they started out as interim titlists was never brought up once they started making defenses of the title. It's either a legitimate criticism or it isn't and since it wasn't for other fighters then it's clearly hypocritical to claim it is for Golovkin.

If you want to criticise the quality of his opposition that's a different question, although a legitimate one. To be honest though any dude who's calling top 10 fighters in any division 'bums' has already shown his colours even without the clear hypocrisy you're showing.

You might want to ask yourself why Golovkin is mysteriously so highly rated by the TBRB, Ring, Boxrec and the sanctioning orgs. Is it because they're all part of some conspiracy to elevate some random Kazakh to boxing stardom or is it because in fact making 15 or 20 defenses of any title in any division is a rare and prestigeous accomplishment or that having the 4th best record against top 10 opponents over the course of a decade is special in itself... Is it, in short, your ignorance of the wider sport that's the problem here rather than some mad conspiracy to pull the wool over the boxing publics eyes?

Sorry man, but you got not the slighest credibility with me after that dumb 'bum' stuff, and even if you did, whose opinion do you reckon I'm gonna value more, Breadmans and the TBRBs or some weird obsessed internet troll who keeps pulling random crap of his ass to discredit one of the decade's best fighters and the most accomplished Middleweight of his generation.

[Larry the boss]

Look I think GGG is overrated but damn...MODS CAN YOU PLEASE STOP POSTERS FROM SPAMMING WITH THE SAME DAMN HATE THREADS OVER AND OVER AGAIN??

TBear jaded BostonGuy

[DreamFighter]

You know a sure sign of a hypocrite doncha? It's when a dude starts coming up with reasons why the criticism he makes about one fighter don't apply to others.

All the guys I mentioned were considered legitimate champions and the fact that they started out as interim titlists was never brought up.

it wasnt brought up by me either for any of them or GGG.

I understand from this that you needed to invent an argument in order to win one, because mine was one you couldnt handle.

[Citizen Koba]

it wasnt brought up by me either for any of them or GGG.

I understand from this that you needed to invent an argument in order to win one, because mine was one you couldnt handle.

Argument? There was no argument, merely me pointing out why your entire thread, in fact most of em, have no substance. Hell, even your thread about Danny Jacobs' ears started with a false premise... can you get anything right?

You keep doing the same thing, coming up with what you imagine to be a clever dig at GGG without seeming to realise that the exact stuff that you belittle Golovkin for has been done by many, many fighters who are regarded as good or even great. Every time I comment on one of your threads it's the exact same pattern.

[DreamFighter]

Argument? There was no argument, merely me pointing out.

having a point of view means you had an argument.


endeth lesson.

[Citizen Koba]

having a point of view means you had an argument.


endeth lesson.

Ah semantics? I think we are talking about a different usage of the term my man. I was assuming you meant the other one.

argument
/ˈɑːɡjʊm(ə)nt/


1.

an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
"I've had an argument with my father"

2.

a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"

By all means we'll call my views an argument then:

I'm making the argument - or case, if you will - that your underlying argument is a pile of nonsense and can be applied equally well to dozens of other fighters who you're excluding from the same criticism. I'm also making the argument that you're a troll and almost certainly a hypocrite. I believe this thread provides strong evidence in support of said argument.