Lil g is the biggest coward known to mankind. let's hope Canelo,Jacobs ignore him

[The Big Dunn]

You act like Floyd-Pac was the root cause, not the result. I think its clear many "boxing fans" always had pro-black, pro-black American, anti-white, anti-foreigner "allegiances." Floyd and the "black consciousness movement" both just came to prominence around the same time, and started to use social media at the same time, so it was a perfect storm that brought a lot of those types to the forefront. Then all the objective non-racist people could see that that there was this huge group that hated them and anyone like them, a group that was completely illogical due to their bias to the point that they would defend Floyd denying fans the best fights and holding up divisions, to the point they would defend the literal ruining of the sport of boxing so long as they thought it benefited their racist agenda, which has since happened as you can see the sport has become a complete joke in the wake of "Mayweather era," so all the objective non-racist people started rooting against Floyd and what he represented because they could see it was destroying the sport not to mention it was just pure ignorance and not a good thing to root for.

I dont like to agree with Arum, but he's correct in one respect. Racism is a cancer. So yeah, when average people started to realize there was this huge racist group pushing an agenda behind a certain fighter and adviser, average people recognized that racism as the cancer it was to the sport of boxing, not to mention, you know, life, the world, etc, so those average people obviously found themselves against that. That doesn't make them a toxic fanbase or an equal offender. They were just the natural, normal reaction, sort of like the human body has its natural response when a virus enters the body and starts causing problems. When a cancer takes over the sport of boxing, true boxing fans are going to root against it and write comments criticizing it. That's normal. But the way you put it is like there are the biased Floyd fans and the biased Pacquiao fans and the two are equally ignorant and equally problematic. I dont agree at all. Yes Im sure there are some racist Philippinos who exist who rooted for Pacquiao for the same reasons so many Americans rooted for Floyd, but that's the exception not the rule in my opinion. I think most people just rooted for Pacquiao because he was exciting and good for the sport, and because they were rooting against the ruining of the sport of boxing which is what Floyd represented.

So yeah... I see what you're saying in general, but I think equating the virus of boxing (racist people in the sport and racist fans pushing racist agendas usually with the help of corruption, since the two often go hand in hand, to the detriment of good fights being made and to the detriment of the competitive integrity of the sport across the board) with its potential cure (i.e. the people speaking out about how there is a virus in boxing right now, and criticizing it, and saying why it's ruining the sport, and how to fix it, and calling on other fans and people in the media and fighters and anyone involved with the sport to start speaking out about it as well and start changing things where they can) is very unfair, and a big reason why the virus of boxing continues to go stronger. It's because people are not differentiating the passionate racist fans who are destroying boxing from the passionate fans who are passionate not due to racism, but due to a desire to fix the sport and save it from that mix of corruption and racism which have hurt the sport so much the last 15 years anyway. They just throw all the passionate fans into the same bucket, as if being passionate about the right things is not different than being passionate about the wrong things. That's obviously not true. Maybe in some philosophic debate under a certain context it could true, but when it comes to boxing and the quality of the sport itself, it's not true and its damaging to the sport for people to act like it is.

Wow this is utterly garbage. It's Floyd's fans fault that people hated him and were jealous of him beating their favorite fighters and thus created the stupid logic we see today.

This is the exact kind of dude you should've complained about chrisJS years ago but didn't.

[mcdonalds]

You act like Floyd-Pac was the root cause, not the result. I think its clear many "boxing fans" always had pro-black, pro-black American, anti-white, anti-foreigner "allegiances." Floyd and the "black consciousness movement" both just came to prominence around the same time, and started to use social media at the same time, so it was a perfect storm that brought a lot of those types to the forefront. Then all the objective non-racist people could see that that there was this huge group that hated them and anyone like them, a group that was completely illogical due to their bias to the point that they would defend Floyd denying fans the best fights and holding up divisions, to the point they would defend the literal ruining of the sport of boxing so long as they thought it benefited their racist agenda, which has since happened as you can see the sport has become a complete joke in the wake of "Mayweather era," so all the objective non-racist people started rooting against Floyd and what he represented because they could see it was destroying the sport not to mention it was just pure ignorance and not a good thing to root for.

I dont like to agree with Arum, but he's correct in one respect. Racism is a cancer. So yeah, when average people started to realize there was this huge racist group pushing an agenda behind a certain fighter and adviser, average people recognized that racism as the cancer it was to the sport of boxing, not to mention, you know, life, the world, etc, so those average people obviously found themselves against that. That doesn't make them a toxic fanbase or an equal offender. They were just the natural, normal reaction, sort of like the human body has its natural response when a virus enters the body and starts causing problems. When a cancer takes over the sport of boxing, true boxing fans are going to root against it and write comments criticizing it. That's normal. But the way you put it is like there are the biased Floyd fans and the biased Pacquiao fans and the two are equally ignorant and equally problematic. I dont agree at all. Yes Im sure there are some racist Philippinos who exist who rooted for Pacquiao for the same reasons so many Americans rooted for Floyd, but that's the exception not the rule in my opinion. I think most people just rooted for Pacquiao because he was exciting and good for the sport, and because they were rooting against the ruining of the sport of boxing which is what Floyd represented.

So yeah... I see what you're saying in general, but I think equating the virus of boxing (racist people in the sport and racist fans pushing racist agendas usually with the help of corruption, since the two often go hand in hand, to the detriment of good fights being made and to the detriment of the competitive integrity of the sport across the board) with its potential cure (i.e. the people speaking out about how there is a virus in boxing right now, and criticizing it, and saying why it's ruining the sport, and how to fix it, and calling on other fans and people in the media and fighters and anyone involved with the sport to start speaking out about it as well and start changing things where they can) is very unfair, and a big reason why the virus of boxing continues to go stronger. It's because people are not differentiating the passionate racist fans who are destroying boxing from the passionate fans who are passionate not due to racism, but due to a desire to fix the sport and save it from that mix of corruption and racism which have hurt the sport so much the last 15 years anyway. They just throw all the passionate fans into the same bucket, as if being passionate about the right things is not different than being passionate about the wrong things. That's obviously not true. Maybe in some philosophic debate under a certain context it could true, but when it comes to boxing and the quality of the sport itself, it's not true and its damaging to the sport for people to act like it is.

Lmao the man who fought the most champions in the history of boxing was "ruining the sport" you can't make this sht up.



But the man who prevented the biggest fight of all time from happening at the right time wasn't "ruining the sport". Event though he has a history of keeping fighters in house and preventing fights from happening. He also has a history of fcking over his own fighters. Yet people like you would rather ignore that and criticize someone like al haymon who currently has the biggest stable in boxing, gives us great fights because of his deep stable and doesn't fck them over.



Weirdos like yourself always have to make everything about race too. Which is why you guys rather become hardcore supporters of eastern euros or other foreigners and root against top American fighters for whatever reason you make up in your head. It's boxing, it's not that deep. The only people making it about race are weirdos like yourself

Pathetic

[DreamFighter]

Nope, Truax, QUillin, Derev are merely world class (and I'm harsh, 2 are world champs, one is a decorated amateur).

Jacobs is elite and above that level.

Jacobs is an elite fighter period, ask any fighter, trainer.

You don't own the definition on what is elite in boxing mate

So we disagree, period

u r welcome to your opinion.

[BillyBoxing]

It doesn't matter how Charlo would do. GGG is choosing the easier fight for more money.

You seem ok with GGG not fighting Charlo when you posted he would beat Charlo, right? You are giving him a pass because you like him. That is very disappointing.

I'm giving him a pass because there are 7 options around better in terms of Legacy wise and even maybe Money wise.

Nelo
Jacobs
Andrade
BJS stripped or not
Benavidez
Smith
Ucaztegui

So I dunno how Charlo is the most logic option for GGG.

[Jubei]

Some of you guys have issues, its hilariuos. GGG still the most dominant figure in boxing and threads like this make it 100% clear. Not a single active US fighter gets even close to GGGs popularity.

The most dominant fighter in his prime, the most avoided fighter in his prime, the most defenses of his MW title.
Was fighting in the amateurs till age 25 and was champion and won medals from 140-160lb (4 weightclasses). Only when he was past prime the opponents came out of their holes and dared to challenge him and GGG still won in the eyes of the public and boxing fans. Only corruption was able to defeat one of the best Middleweights ever and some of you fools obviously diggride corruption because it suits your agenda and racism.

[chrisJS]

Lmao the man who fought the most champions in the history of boxing was "ruining the sport" you can't make this **** up.



But the man who prevented the biggest fight of all time from Happening at the right time wasn't "ruining the sport". Event though he has a history of keeping fighters in house and preventing fights from happening.



Weirdos like yourself always have to make everything about race too. Which is why you guys rather become hardcore supporters of eastern euro's or other foreigners and root against top American fighters

Pathetic

Kind of a hollow claim when in modern boxing there are between 68 and 102 "champions" at one time. Typical of a noobie fan to talk this way. I think Floyd has fought some good fighters, two great (JMM and Pac and we know they were much smaller and past their best) but you wouldn't give more credence to Harry Greb, for example with 13 hall of famers beat for roughly 40 victories? Or Robinson for beating 11 hall of famers for roughly 30-40 victories, similar for the likes of Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford etc; etc; etc;?

Bottom line it's much easier to be a world champion today than it was in other generations no matter how little you have researched those eras. On the flip side Floyd has never beaten even one man who's been an undisputed champion which he also hasn't been. Do you believe Andre Berto, Carlos Baldomir etc; to be equal or more legit than say Jose Napoles, Luis Rodriguez, Emile Griffith for example? Welterweight fighters you probably should know and there's footage of them available looking much better than everything on Floy'd resume. Do you think it was harder to fight more world champions in previous era's with 8, then 10, then 12 then 24 championships available vs. the almost 100 of today?

You also show hypocrisy there defending Floyd for not hurting boxing when you then attack Arum who's been a part of making some of the biggest events in the last 50 years of boxing. Arum is no angel but nor is Floyd. You are very biased just as you are when you discriminate foreign fighters. It's ok to support one's own but to discriminate others is not super cool.

[mcdonalds]

Kind of a hollow claim when in modern boxing there are between 68 and 102 "champions" at one time. Typical of a noobie fan to talk this way. I think Floyd has fought some good fighters, two great (JMM and Pac and we know they were much smaller and past their best) but you wouldn't give more credence to Harry Greb, for example with 13 hall of famers beat for roughly 40 victories? Or Robinson for beating 11 hall of famers for roughly 30-40 victories, similar for the likes of Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford etc; etc; etc;?

Bottom line it's much easier to be a world champion today than it was in other generations no matter how little you have researched those eras. On the flip side Floyd has never beaten even one man who's been an undisputed champion which he also hasn't been. Do you believe Andre Berto, Carlos Baldomir etc; to be equal or more legit than say Jose Napoles, Luis Rodriguez, Emile Griffith for example? Welterweight fighters you probably should know and there's footage of them available looking much better than everything on Floy'd resume. Do you think it was harder to fight more world champions in previous era's with 8, then 10, then 12 then 24 championships available vs. the almost 100 of today?

You also show hypocrisy there defending Floyd for not hurting boxing when you then attack Arum who's been a part of making some of the biggest events in the last 50 years of boxing. Arum is no angel but nor is Floyd. You are very biased just as you are when you discriminate foreign fighters. It's ok to support one's own but to discriminate others is not super cool.

Bro just stop. I just read your first paragraph and can already tell you're full of ****.

Even if you only count the WBA and the WBC (the two oldest sanctioning bodies) floyd STILL has faced and beat the most champions in the history of boxing.

Keep on listing fighters from the 1930's even though you have never watched them fight nor know much about them. You only name these guys to appear more knowledgeable. You're one of those guys who think the sport hasn't evolved and think those old fighters are way superior.

[chrisJS]

Bro just stop. I just read your first paragraph and can already tell you're full of ****.

Even if you only count the WBA and the WBC (the two oldest sanctioning bodies) floyd STILL has faced and beat the most champions in the history of boxing.

Keep on listing fighters from the 1930's even though you have never watched them fight nor know much about them. You only name these guys to appear more knowledgeable.

LOL, you just exposed yourself. Rodriguez, Griffith and Napoles were 60's and 70's fighters LOL. You have never seen any of them fight correct? Quiz me on any of those fights and I can explain what happens or something unique I'm sure. I'd be curious if I listed 20 all-time greats from the 1950-1970's if you could recognize their face or even have seen them fight. I doubt it.

What 1930's fighter did I just mention? None of them fought in the 1930's and why wouldn't I, as a boxing fan research and watch content of Charles, Robinson, Napoles, Rodriguez etc;? They are all-time greats and I enjoy the sport. I've collected close to 10,000 fights and spent a lot of money into books and rare footage over 20 years. I still to this day watch on average 4-5 hours a week of old footage and read as much as possible. Why wouldn't I? What would be the benefit of saying I do "to appear knowledgeable"? Do you just ignore the past to appear un-knowledgeable?

You are a casual noobie fan who just ignores anything pre Floyd's career because that's the fighter that got you into the sport and you don't appreciate or love the sport enough to do research or watch old films.

[The Big Dunn]

I'm giving him a pass because there are 7 options around better in terms of Legacy wise and even maybe Money wise.

Nelo
Jacobs
Andrade
BJS stripped or not
Benavidez
Smith
Ucaztegui

So I dunno how Charlo is the most logic option for GGG.

The 1st 2 fights are not happening next and you know it. GGG hasn't said he wants to go to 168.SO the last 3 fights are not realistic.

He said he wants a 3rd Canelo fight. The easiest way to position yourself for that is beat Charlo and become the mando opponent for the WBC belt.

Why would you fight Saunders, a drug cheat with no title, over Charlo?

The best options available are either Andrade or Charlo, the 2 fights he seems most reluctant to make.

[mcdonalds]

LOL, you just exposed yourself. Rodriguez, Griffith and Napoles were 60's and 70's fighters LOL. You have never seen any of them fight correct? Quiz me on any of those fights and I can explain what happens or something unique I'm sure. I'd be curious if I listed 20 all-time greats from the 1950-1970's if you could recognize their face or even have seen them fight. I doubt it.

What 1930's fighter did I just mention? None of them fought in the 1930's and why wouldn't I, as a boxing fan research and watch content of Charles, Robinson, Napoles, Rodriguez etc;? They are all-time greats and I enjoy the sport. I've collected close to 10,000 fights and spent a lot of money into books and rare footage over 20 years. I still to this day watch on average 4-5 hours a week of old footage and read as much as possible. Why wouldn't I? What would be the benefit of saying I do "to appear knowledgeable"? Do you just ignore the past to appear un-knowledgeable?

You are a casual noobie fan who just ignores anything pre Floyd's career because that's the fighter that got you into the sport and you don't appreciate or love the sport enough to do research or watch old films.

Stopped reading after the 1st sentence. I'm not gonna waste my time on someone who doesn't understand what a hyperbole is. Just keep being that guy who lists these old fighters to appear more knowledgeable than you actually are and keep being that guy who thinks the sport hasn't evolved for the better.

I confronted you with a FACT and you just ignored it by talking about these old fighters again. It's telling when you do that and try to defend a weirdo like "Boxing Logic" who tries to make everything about race.