GGG is - at the very least - the Greatest middleweight since Hagler

I don’t want to take away or diminish the win for Miguel at all. It was a very good win and he did move up and was the underdog. I just think Miguel isn’t a true Middleweight and didn’t carve out a legacy at 160 to really make a mark in the division. To his overall legacy the lineal world title at 160 is a huge accomplishment for Cotto.

 

I didn’t invent any facts nor asked you to accept them. That was just my unique perspective. The 160 lineal title has been passed around more than a ***** in a brothel and the catch weights diminished it’s value.

 

Officially, yes it was probably a better win as far as the 160lb division is concerned. However, Bumlovkin's win over Jacobs is questionable. Many observers saw Jacobs winning that fight...

 

No, just a few of you idiots saw Jacobs win. Coincidentally enough, you same douchebags think canelo won... Glass should be as transparent as you are...

 

His fight with Danny was very close. I thought Danny may have done just enough to edged the fight but couldn't argue that Golovkin got the benefit of the doubt as the champion. I think the knock down may have been the difference. It wasn't an easy one to call at the end of 12. Danny did well after the KD and rallied a bit.

I'm one of the guys that think the challenger has to "take" the belt from the champion but it was a pretty even split amongst fans who saw it for Danny and for those who saw it for Gennady.

 

I think those that take the train of thought that the challenger has to take it from the champion are just looking for an excuse to not give credit to the skill aspects of the game.
Never understood that train of thought considering one must use the scoring criteria and score on a round by round basis.
Nevermind that the challenger lands cleaner and harder while backing up, he didn't go forward, so he didn't take it from the champion. LOL!

 

Angry much racist douche? Watch my tone? Why, you going to be some internet tough and threaten me with a bunch of garbage? Everyone knows about you here loser, you made your bed, go **** more in it...

 

No argument with your stance but obviously I disagree. The caveat for my stance is when a championship fight is very close. Boxing is an art....a science, so skills I appreciate, along with the craft and savvy of elite level pugilists. I give credit where it's due.

If at the end of 12 in a championship fight and the match is even, I think the champion should get the nod....or in rounds that are razor thin and the champion is the one pushing the action, I believe he/she deserves the round. I don't think a challenger can win the title from the champion in a close fight if he or she is not looking to take the fight to the champion. The demeanor and disposition of the challenger should be one that shows a sense of urgency, since they're looking to take something away from the champion. If the fight has a clear/decisive winner...and the challenger controls the fight then this is irrelevant.

 

When you can converse as an adult maybe people will take you seriously ...but I doubt it.

 

There's another train of thought that doesn't make much sense to me either but that I hear all the time, "in a competitive fight the fighter taking the championship rounds deserves to win."
To me and the official judges, that was Canelo.
......but of course that mentality and though is just as flawed as the notion of "you have to take it from the champion."

I mean really, instead of trying to find things from the scoring criteria to scrutinize a close round one is going to reason, "that was a close round, I'm giving it to the champion." LOL!

.....just doesn't make sense my friend.

 

So, is was you, Drenlou and Shadow?

Got it.

 

You somehow misinterpreted what I posted. Your comprehension is a bit off kilter bud. Lol. I definitely never said "in a competitive fight the fighter taking the championship rounds deserves the win". No worries...You're a little giddy which might have contributed to the confusion?

I'm assuming you are talking about the Canelo/GGG fight? I'm asking because I didn't mentioned it in my post you replied to. Interesting. You're entitled to your own opinion. If you feel it's flawed that a challenger to the crown needs to take the fight to the king in order to take his throne, that's on you. I'm just here to provide and gain different perspectives...sometimes infuse insights to those who need it, but I'm never here, posting to save anyone.

Giving razor thin rounds that could go either way to the champion, is a lot better than giving the round to the fighter you "like more" or are biased towards.... or have an affinity for. That's judging off emotions which a lot of fans do. I think they label those guys as fanboys?

Im sure you can see how emotions can effect perception and create a false reality? Of course clear rounds go to the fighter who was more effective, those are easy to score for most fans who aren't swayed by their emotional connection to a certain fighter(s). Most of the GGG/Alvarez rounds were clear so It wasn't even on my mind until you brought it up. Which ignites my curiosity...why did you bring it up? Lol.

Both GGG and Alvarez are champions and the fight wasn't really close. That can be attested by the overwhelming number of fans who had GGG beating Alvarez clearly. Most of the time the judges get it right...and it's alright to side with the judges when they provide a solid judgment. In those instances you should feel good about aligning with the 3 judges. In this case the few who aligned with 2 out of the 3 judges that scored it a draw or for Alvarez are suspect for one reason or another.

 

Cotto beating a shopworn and injured Martinez isn't a better win than Golovkin beating Jacobs. People forget that Murray was robbed down in Argentina, when he fought Martinez. Cotto was just fighting Murray's leftovers. And Golovkin beat Jacobs fair and square, no controversy. I've watched it a few times, and there aren't seven rounds that I saw where Jacobs outworked Golovkin, or outlanded him. Anybody saying Jacobs won seven rounds is just hating on Golovkin, plain and simple.

 

You're the one that brought up giving close rounds to the champion, my interpretation of that was that it is just as flawed as believing a particular fighter should win because he closed strong. Both of those trains of thought are flawed imo.

As far as I'm concerned when a fight starts, there is no champion and there is no challenger, and I would hope the judges would view it as such and not give anymore credence to what the champion is doing just because he happens to be the champion defending his belt.

To me, the champion walks to the ring with his belts but leaves them on the table to be had, once he steps foot in that ring those belts are being fought for and he shouldn't get any special treatment by the judges just because he's the champion.
At least that's the way it should be but unfortunately not how it always figures.

For some reason, people are always looking for a reason not to score a round for what it is.
For instance, Nacho Beristain instructs Juan Manuel Marquez that he's well ahead and not to take any crazy chances in the 3rd fight with Pacquiao.
Marquez proceeds to fight like he would normally do, but because Nacho was heard in the corner instructing Marquez not to take any chances, the HBO broadcast team and in turn a lot of the fans watching at home hearing it, run with that as an excuse for the judges to side with Pacquiao in a fight Marquez clearly won.
This is what I mean about actually scoring the rounds as they play in the ring and not off a notion that a fighter should get the benefit of the doubt because of x,yand z.
There were actually idiots who score the last rounds of that 3rd fight to Pacquiao just because HBO said Nacho was instructing Marquez to back off. LOL!

Whether you're a champion, challenger, or some crazy trainer barking out instruction, you're not supposed to judge that, you judge was is actually occurring boxistically in a ring.
That's how I score fights, if you don't, than I say you're going about scoring the wrong way.

 

Hey wait a second, I don't remember saying that I thought Jacobs beat Bumlovkin ! There you go again BCS8 just making stuff up lol. I do recall plenty of people on here thinking Jacobs won though, yet whenever I've talked about the fight I've always stressed that it's hard to argue Jacobs won because 1) the knockdown and 2) Jacobs appeared to throw himself out in the 11th round and didn't seem to have anything left in the 12th. I know he won the last round on 2 out of 3 of the judges scorecards, but if he didn't get knocked down and if he won the 12th on the other scorecard he probably would have won the decision. Jacobs just seemed completely gassed in the 12th and I remember thinking at the time had he not been so gassed at the end, it may have been the difference. It turns out that the 12th didn't affect the verdict, but certainly the fight was close enough to argue he won. It was also a lot closer than many thought it would be, as many including myself came away impressed by Daniel's performance.