Canelo: Erislandy Lara Floyd Mayweather Austin Trout James Kirkland Alfredo Angulo Miguel Cotto Golovkin: Dominc Wade Willie Monroe Marco Antonio Rubio David Lemieux (Rubio's son) Martin Murray Daniel Geale One fighter has fought much better opposition, including proven fighters in Cotto, Trout, Lara, and Mayweather. The other fighter's best win is either David Lemieux or Daniel Geale Do the math buddy
Golovkin is a far bigger fraud than Canelo. Canelo besides Khan, has a very good resume with top names and boogeymen, and even with the Khan fight, Khan was always seen as the one who will outbox Canelo, and Khan was up 4-1. With Golovkin-Brook, Brook is barely going to win any rounds and Golovkin has a bog standard resume. Bum beater, that's ALL he is so far, just good at dominating them.
This is not about the resumes you re****, it's about Canelo fighting Khan and GGG fighting brook, both matches are ridiculous. Canelo can't be defended for that.
They gonna push GGG vs Canelo in Europe and mainly England, a fast emerging boxing market. make$ bu$ine$$ $en$e :deal
Why not. Canelo has fought a nice list of top, dangerous, proven fighters. If he takes a soft touch here and there its fine numbnuts. Golovkin on the otherhand has not fought or done anything to land a big fight, and then he clowns and trashes Canelo for fighting Khan, and 2 months later he does the same damn thing.:-( One guy has proven to fight dangerous high risk/low reward fighters, even agreeing to CWs proposed to him, while the other (GGG) hasn't fought anyone of note and is now doing the same thiing he clowed Alvarez for doing... Yeah, whose the fraud?