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

You're on point with me saying that I'm more likely to give Champions the benefit of the doubt in razor thin rounds. But where did you get "in a competitive fight the fighter taking the championship rounds deserves to win."? Lol

If you are now expanding on your thought that it's "just as flawed" as giving rounds to the champion in razor thin rounds, then I have no qualms with that. Again, I don't agree with your assertion that it's flawed, but by actually using "quotations" around a statement I never made, had me laughing because I wasn't sure if you believed I said that or you were trying to convince me that I made that statement. I appreciate the clarity.

I hear you.....I think you have a point around your statement that is no champion and no challenger when the bell rings. But the reality is there is a champion and a challenger. Just like there are hometown fighters, "A side" fighters, "blue chip prospects" and a slew of other labels that boxers take on in this sport.

I don't believe in bias or preferential treatment and I tried to make that clear in my position that the champion should get the benefit of the doubt in "very close rounds that could go either way".....or when I say a challenger should be expected to "take the champions title". I'm in no way saying the champion should just be given rounds or should be awards decisions just because they are the champion. Hopefully you don't think that but I want to make it clear that's absolutely not my stance.

I completely agree a lot fans look to score rounds based more on what they want to see vs what actually happens in each individual round. That's where the emotional link that some fans have with certain boxers impact their ability to be impartial when scoring boxing matches.

I thought JMM beat Manny in the rubber match. It was competitive but agree Juan deserved the win. The 1st fight was ultra close, The draw was fair even though one of the judges failed in scoring the 1st round appropriately which caused the draw. The 2nd fight I thought Manny deserved the win and the 4th encounter couldn't have been more decisive with the KO Juan scored. Sometimes commentary can influence how fans see fights, I think that's more associated with casual fans who can be swayed by commentators. I could be wrong? I just know I'm not impacted by the commentary.

I score round by round and have metrics I use to measure which fighter was more effective. It could be dictating range, clean effective punching, effective pressure, controlling the pace, who is doing more work...it could be a combination of these measurables but I consistently look for the obvious and subtle things both boxers show to aide me in deciding a round.

 

As far as the whole "you have to take the belt from a champion" I mean that's a mantra that has been said historically and can be attributed to certain fights as far as how a fight was scored. Generally when the judges are more familiar with a proven reigning champion they may be more likely to score close rounds to him, especially when the challenger is not "coming forward" so to speak.

JohnnyDrama99 of course is using this mantra to basically apply this to Canelo Triple G, seeing as G is the multiple belt-holding MW Champion, the irony though is that you are using this argument to claim that close rounds should go to the reigning champion, but yet you claim that his fight was Canelo wasn't close and was exceedingly clear to where you wouldn't even need to utilize this mantra lol. But surely it's not a contradiction on your end JohnnyDrama99 as "you're just being honest" right : in your mind Alvarez can't win close rounds vs G because he doesn't come forward right, and you need to take the fight to the champion to be the champion. Even though the rounds weren't close since it was such a clear cut victory for G that this wouldn't apply, and even though Canelo is the Ring and Lineal Champ. It really makes perfect sense Johnny that you abide by that mantra.

 

The only thing I'll add to the "you have to take the belt from a champion" saying is that "To be the Man you need to BEAT the Man" and right now Saul Alvarez (like it or not) is the Man at MW because he's the Lineal Champ. So with the shoe on the other foot, G didn't become the Man despite having multiple belts at MW becuase he hasn't beat the Man. He didn't do what Cotto did to Martinez or what Alvarez did to Cotto. And frankly despite his reign and his success, it's hard to argue he's the Greatest MW Champ since Hagler without that distinction.

 

I was just guessing. So I was wrong, shoot me

A reasonable assessment from Shadow? What's happening? Who are you?

 

The guy that hasn't won a single fight at the 160lb limit?

 

u invented a mythical lineal that 3G has by deciding it was by general consensus and owning other belts, not by your own perspective alone.

do me the honour of not pretending you didnt do it, that would be a double lie,.

 

"What ever anybody has said about you, you are better than that. All my years in boxing, I have been a long time, he is the best 160 pounder I have ever seen... I have been in boxing since 1970´s" - Gary Shaw (Promoter with no financial or promotional ties with Golovkin)

 

u believe a promoter's word?

thats like believing Tom Cruise, an actor who fakes it for living, when he says he does his own stunts.

 

I have a feeling it´s a bit different story if you are making statements like that to fighters that have no ties to your promotion company. Just a thought..

 

i did read that, but I still would trust someone with knowledge rather than a lifetime of talking rubbish.

 

By far, Nunn, McCallum or Toney. By far.

 

Calm down. No, I didn’t invent a brand new lineal title just for Golovkin. There’s only one. I said GGG is considered the lineal champion by the overwhelming consensus based on being viewed at the “man” at 160, holding most of the belts and for beating Alvarez who was gifted a draw. The Alvarez lineal title at 160 and the draw he was given against GGG hold the same value to me.

 

I have Jones jr, Toney and Hopkins ahead of ggg by Miles! All of them beat ggg! Damm even martinez beats ggg easily!

 

I'll never be mistaken for a fan of ol' 9G but I do think he would have handled Sergio. Sergio would have wilted at some point. Sergio at his best still needed to take 2 rounds off after 4 good ones. I think Sergio would have landed some highlight reel stuff to start and along the way but I would actually pick Golovkin here and it would get ugly for Sergio late in the fight if it made it. Sergio's stamina, chin, and balance were his weakest attributes. Pretty much the three deficiencies you don't want against Golovkin. But I wouldn't call anyone a total fool for thinking Sergio takes him. Sergio would need to fight a perfect fight and honestly he never did that.

As for the thread, you can't say "at the very least" when Hopkins reigned after Hagler. At all.

 

Holding "most of the belts" doesn't make you the "Man". What makes you the Man is beating The Man. It's a very simple concept : The Lineal Title is a Direct Line of Champions that Alvarez is a part of, that Gennady isn't because Gennady has never fought (until fighting Alvarez) or beat anyone in the Lineage.

It's literally absurd what you're saying, trying to say he's the Man because he has some belts. It's real simple : To be the Man you need to Beat the Man. And as difficult as it must be for you to accept, Gennady hasn't done that. He hasn't beat the Man. Therefore, Alvarez remains the Man.