Is Canelo the most avoided Middleweight in history

[ShaneMosleySr]

He’s not even the most avoided middleweight right now. That would be andrade, the guy Canelo has ducked for 10 years.

[Chuckguy]

Really tho! This situation is worse than gggs because PPL are ducking hi risk hi pay. GGG on the other hand claimEd to be overpaying oponents just to get them to fight was a 90k payday and a guarantee they we’re getting KTFO. Remember vanes only got paid 250k at the height of gggs popularity.

Come on Johnny why you gotta troll like this. Just when I started to like you bro

[chirorickyp]

Hell no. In the fight game the goal is to make the biggest bucks against the biggest opponent on the biggest stage. He's the most pursued fighter. Canelo is the biggest name, the biggest purse and the biggest stage.

This has to be a tongue and cheek post.

[Chuckguy]

He’s not even the most avoided middleweight right now. That would be andrade, the guy Canelo has ducked for 10 years.

Hey do Conelo and GGG avoid this dude he isn’t even that good. Make him a decent offer and take him out and shut him up right?

[ShaneMosleySr]

Andrade and Canelo were champions at 154 for about nine years and never fought.

Andrade moved up to 160 and won a piece of the undisputed championship.

And still no one will fight him.

He’s clearly more avoided than Canelo.

Hey do Conelo and GGG avoid this dude he isn’t even that good. Make him a decent offer and take him out and shut him up right?

[Thuglife Nelo]

Canelo is the People’s Champ!

[TonyGe]

Hagler for sure was the most avoided Middleweight. Maybe avoided more than anyone in any division except Robinson.

[JohnCastellanos]

Come on Johnny why you gotta troll like this. Just when I started to like you bro

Just a small jab at the army Chuck I didn’t really mean it lol

[_Rexy_]

He's so avoided that he was given a made up belt so he would never have to fight against someone he doesn't want to.

[Ritz Kola]

I appreciate you bud.

You just happened to touch on something I was never comfortable with and was actually a bit personal.

I am Puerto Rican, white skin. Like a lot of PRs I have a lot of black family. Uncles, aunts, cousins, ranging from, you know, like medium tone to crystal black.

In my own family they just ****ing hate 'colored'. It's not a term they want to hear, they like black. They own black if you get that. Which is why when I refer to my own black family members I use black.

So here I am doing some boxing research finding out all these guys were left out of title contention due to the color of their skin AND(!) to this day their exclusion still reigns over that history.

What I mean is, look on International Boxing Research Organization, Cyber Boxing Zone, International Boxing Hall of Fame, Boxrec, etc, the places that keep record of history.

Look at their line of champions and notice 5x champion Langford is still, today, not seen as an equal, viable, champion....because the color of his skin excluded him then and because no one in boxing history today wants to elevate the Diaspora's champions to equal or at least worth mention on the same page as the lineals and sanctioning champions.

This won't do! This is bull****. I know in my bones Sammy, Godfrey, Thunderbolt Smith, Frank Childs, Peter Jackson, etc are champions.

Every single champion from Sullivan to Braddock should get an asterix and that asterix should point directly to the diaspora champion who was excluded from the challenge.


Okay, so I set out to make a rumble, and this is were my issue comes in. Colored seems wrong. I know my own family doesn't like that term, but, black exists as a different title and I do not want to give these ivory tower historians any reason to disregard me. Which, if you call the colored title black I promise instead of addressing your issue they will focus on the difference between the colored championship and the black championship.

So to be heard properly I used colored with the respected historians.

We still rumble today, but, there is no confusing or spinning it like they're confused. Still, every time I call Sam colored I can hear my uncle Ed asking me " What's wrong with you fool?"

I know it's a term we should kill off and let go with time, but, I don't really know how else to approach the situation and have never, not once before this, been given the chance to speak directly to terms and why I use them....I am open to suggestions.


Revisionism isn't something I am actually a fan of, but the story of boxing, I can tell you that from Sparta to now and I'm telling you the biggest shock is the modern depiction of the colorline era. It's still unfair, it's still bull****, those white guys who were scared of diaspora fighters are still elevated.

When it comes to Boxing (among other things) I don't consider it revisionist. I consider it exposing the truth. Because whites lied and twisted so much to keep my people down in the world. I can't just repeat that twisted history they left behind to oppress my people when I have the knowledge to expose or correct it. So you're not revising anything. You're just exposing the truth. Because you have family you care about you'd hate to see members of your family go through that BS because of the color of their skin.