Why do people rate Canelo's resume so high, even relative to GGG's?

[Robbie Barrett]

Golovkin has 1 good win. Jacobs, which is debatable that he won.

Canelo has Golovkin, Jacobs, Lara, Cotto, Trout.

[uppercut510]

canelo has a good resume, its just that he hasn't won any of the big fights hes had convincingly. they are always close and debatable

[Boxing_1013]

Golovkin has 1 good win. Jacobs, which is debatable that he won.

Canelo has Golovkin, Jacobs, Lara, Cotto, Trout.

Eh...I mean people not giving GGG any credit for the Murray win/destroying is just kind of my point about how I don't think people really keep it real when evaluating his resume...Jacobs in only not considered a bum because he went 12 rounds.

If he went 3 rounds or 11 rounds he would be a bum...but because he went 12 now people can try and say he won...because if any fight goes 12 rounds some people will try and make a case for one side lol...when I don't really see how that fight could go any other way than like 8-4 GGG...pretty straightforward in my view.

I would add that in my view...GGG has 2 clear wins over Canelo and clear wins over Murray and Jacobs as 'great' wins. GGG beat Jacobs more convincingly than Canelo did imo (8-4 vs 7-5 plus GGG had the KD)...Lara was a good 7-5 win for Canelo, give him full credit for that...Cotto was a pretty good win, but it wasn't a prime Cotto at WW where he was his best.

It was a pretty shot version at 155 and Canelo still went 12 rounds with him without getting a KO...Trout was a good win but it was another decision...Trout has shown to really be no better than Willie Monroe or someone of that caliber tbh.

[Robbie Barrett]

Eh...I mean people not giving GGG any credit for the Murray win/destroying is just kind of my point about how I don't think people really keep it real when evaluating his resume...Jacobs in only not considered a bum because he went 12 rounds.

If he went 3 rounds or 11 rounds he would be a bum...but because he went 12 now people can try and say he won...because if any fight goes 12 rounds some people will try and make a case for one side lol...when I don't really see how that fight could go any other way than like 8-4 GGG...pretty straightforward in my view.

I would add that in my view...GGG has 2 clear wins over Canelo and clear wins over Murray and Jacobs as 'great' wins. GGG beat Jacobs more convincingly than Canelo did imo (8-4 vs 7-5 plus GGG had the KD)...Lara was a good 7-5 win for Canelo, give him full credit for that...Cotto was a pretty good win, but it wasn't a prime Cotto at WW where he was his best.

It was a pretty shot version at 155 and Canelo still went 12 rounds with him without getting a KO...Trout was a good win but it was another decision...Trout has shown to really be no better than Willie Monroe or someone of that caliber tbh.

But Steve Weisfeld knows more than you and he had Canelo winning. I remember you now.


Golovkin's resume is garbage. This threads has to be a troll.

[Thuglife Nelo]

Golovkin has 1 good win. Jacobs, which is debatable that he won.

Canelo has Golovkin, Jacobs, Lara, Cotto, Trout.

TS is probably Rene Box Young.

I'm surprised nobody has asked the TS why GGG never asked anyone other than Chavez Jr. or Froch at higher weights?

He's talking about 'relative' as if these guys are retired. We've got guys at LHW and SMW wanting Canelo and Canelo vise versa whereas GGG wants Canelo and nothing to do with Andrade or whoever.

The TS wants to bait old news vs CURRENT things happening. GGG fans NEED Canelo in any narrative to steer away from other competition above 164.

[Boxing_1013]

canelo has a good resume, its just that he hasn't won any of the big fights hes had convincingly. they are always close and debatable

Yeah it's not bad...I think that's just why I rate GGG so highly...I don't think guys like Monroe, Stevens, Macklin, Murray, Brook, Geale, Lemieux etc are HOFers...but they were all good fighters, different types of styles, in their primes, at their best weights more or less...and just clear convincing wins for GGG in every one...none could go 12 rounds or even close to it really...and usually couldn't win a round.

I like guys that get KOs in part because it makes it clear who the better man was...I also don't really subscribe to the notion that a a guy is a 'bum' just because he gets KOed or loses...that seems to be the only way to hate on some guys who get KOs, is to retroactively say that guy sucked.

Wilder-Ortiz a good recent example...I was excited to see that fight to see what Wilder had...thought Ortiz would probably win but wasn't sure...Wilder gets a nice KO and some nice KDs and wins...and suddenly overnight Luis Ortiz aged 50 years lol...people started saying he was 55 years old...I heard none of that before the fight.

Idk I guess I just don't really have a vested interest in trying to slight certain guys...if I see them produce in the ring, I find it pretty easy to give them some props...seems like some people honestly want to stick to a certain narrative being true, regardless of what happens in the ring

[Dodger07]

Serious question/thread...just never really understood the hype on Canelo's and hate on GGG's.

Even without the two GGG-Canelo fights with each other...let's just look at some names:

Canelo's good wins - Trout (never scored/watched it all), Lara (I had Canelo 7-5), Jacobs (7-5), Smith (good KO), Cotto (shot and at a higher than best weight...but good win), Kirkland (KO), Angulo (KO).

Canelo's OK wins - Lopez, Cintron, Chavez, Mosley, Baldomir, Khan.

GGG's good wins (besides Jacobs all KOs) - Jacobs (8-4 imo), Murray, Brook, Lemieux, Geale, Macklin,Monroe, Proksa, Ouma, Stevens, Vanes.

GGG's OK wins (all KOs) - Rosado, Adama, Rubio, Ishida, Rolls.

GGG has more good wins imo...and more dominant in most of those wins...winning by KO and hardly losing a round...and more OK/Good wins total, almost all by KO...compared to quite a few decisions for Canelo.

That's without even getting into the 2 Canelo-GGG fights which I felt were pretty straightforward wins for GGG...outlanding Canelo in 18/22 rounds (2 ties)...that's 80+% of the rounds that he was outlanding Canelo...pretty impressive on that for sure.

So genuinely - what am I missing?

Edit - not to mention the clear loss Canelo has to Mayweather...but I don't really slight him for that...he was pretty green then and it was not an ideal weight for him.

None of the bolded are good wins, and if Khan is an ok win for Canelo then Brook is for GGG as well. I wouldnt have kirkland or angulo as top wins for Canelo either.

Overall, GGG doesnt have a terrible resume like some have said. He's fought loads of top 10-15 fighters while legitimately being avoided for awhile. That said, his resume is definitely less than Canelo's and it's not really close. Their first fight was dubious for sure but the rematch could have gone either way. They gave it to Canelo which wasn't a bad decision.

[SkiPete]

The big W over Chavez jr makes him a legend.

[boliodogs]

Relative? Start with age and what each have accomplished? Lol

“Relative” ffs

Age? An old man beat a man 9 years younger than himself twice and got robbed twice. GGG is the better fighter with the better wins as the man said and explained. He is right and you are wrong as always, Canelo lover.

[Robbie Barrett]

Age? An old man beat a man 9 years younger than himself twice and got robbed twice. GGG is the better fighter with the better wins as the man said and explained. He is right and you are wrong as always, Canelo lover.

Welcome to bolognesedogs fantasy world. Where he "thinks" constantly and writes complete garbage.