Is GGG in decline?

let me know what you tihnk wlads prime is, and then comment.

 

Well.. All boxers decline with time as they step up in competition and get older.. Very few defy father time. I dont think hes in decline.. Hes defintely not getting any younger but not in decline.. Hes beaten everyone thats been put in front of him.. And fights will only get harder but I can see him fighting strong for at least two or three more years.

 

This has nothing to do with the thread

 

A real way to guage his decline, is if he were to rematch Lemieux. If Lemi does a lot better, we have the answer!

 

In pure strength sports like powerlifting yes you can be. Many put up the biggest weights of their career at 35, 36. It's actually normal to peak at 35 there. They have masters categories, but then you look and the 45 year old guys are doing almost the same weight (not far off at all) as a 33 year old in the open class. I've seen it before in real life where you have these 42 year old dudes who are smokers, can't run a lick, can't jump at all, can't play basketball worth ****. But then they get ahold of you or shake your hand and every bone feels like it's going to shatter. They call it old man strength and it's real.

But something that requires anything, but pure strength yes it's impossible to be at your best at 35.

 

Pacquiao won a controversial decision. To suggest that it was a robbery when the media was basically 50/50 split on the decision is not telling the whole picture. Pac wasn't in decline in 2008 when he rematched Marquez. But he wasn't in his best weight class. His best class like Marquez was the 126 pound division. If anything I think Marquez was beginning to lose a half step in the rematch and not Pac. Remember that it was Pac who was only 29 there. Marquez seemed to me was still 95% or so of himself, but to my eyes he wasn't quite as crisp, sharp or on point as he was in the first match 4 years earlier. Which makes sense since a 30 year old counter puncher is usually a better version than his own 34 year old self.

 

Too many people want a quick, easy, agenda driven answer. They don't look at the whole context. They want an absolute, but that's just not how most things work. I agree, it's a combination of the last two. Are Jacobs and Canelo better fighters than Murray and Lemiuex? I think so, we don't really know though for sure to be honest. Since who exactly have they beaten to justify that? Lara is a 154 pounder and was disputed, Cotto was old and small. And while Jacobs did fight a super legit and well schooled 160 pounder once before GGG. That fight also ended with him flat on his back looking up at the arena ceiling with his eyes glazed and brain trying to process WTF was actually going on. So these guys are not bums, but let's hold off on saying they are levels above the likes of Lemiuex and what Martin Murray once was. How about they beat say David Lemiuex himself convincingly before we elevate Jacobs and Canelo with confidence.

 

If you can go 2-1-1 against a fighter with a size and style advantage. And that add to the fact that particular fighter was really, really, really ****ing great then yea you may be doing something really special. You might stop and think well **** that guy was the man back in the day.

 

On what basis do you consider Pirog was a super legit and well schooled 160 pounder? His best win was Jacobs, which you're saying might not even be better than Murray and Lemieux, and Jacobs was only 23 years old.

Just to be clear I'm not saying Pirog wasn't legit, just trying to understand your post a bit more clearly.

 

He was a well schooled fighter who had never been beaten in the pro ranks. Well over 200 amateur fights.

 

past his prime

 

Yes in decline. Remember by age 34 both Hagler and Mozon had retired.

GGG is in decline, and in the last fight had 2 judges against him.

However he's still very good. Canelo showed defensive and countering abilities. Not ever fighter has that.

 

I think he's past his best. Not by much but perhaps by a couple of years.

He's definitely not shot, otherwise he would be so far past his best he would be almost unrecognisable as a fighter from his former self. He's just a bit slower, and his stamina seems to be worse. Also he seems to have become more of a head-hunter in his last few fights or so.

Whilst he has stepped up in competition I don't think that's the reason for his recent close fights. His decline is something that can be visibly seen when watching him fight.

 

No he's not in decline. He just finally met someone that is actually legitimate and proven.

If you guys properly watch the Brook fight, Brook was also on the way to doing the same if it wasn't for the natural weight advantage that Golovkin had which quickly overwhelmed and broke Brook down.