I simply disagree that Saunders hits harder than Canelo. His volume of stoppages (regardless of the 5 or 6 lbs lower) is far greater than Saunders who has one stoppage in the past six year plus on "British" stoppage where his opponent was well able to continue. It's mostly the 'eye test.' And Canelo is bigger than Saunders on fight night, even when he was at 154. I would favour Saunders (slightly) over Canelo, but by a UD. If it's a KO, it's probably Canelo, who has superior chin and superior power.
Canelo knocked out glass jawed guys and past it, over the hill blown up fighters and journeymen at welter and junior welter. Saunders would school Canelo. Canelo and Oscar want nothing to do with him. How do you know Canelo's chin is superior? He's only been in with one big puncher and he was fighting negatively all fight. He did well but still.
You keep asking for "proof" and "how-do -you-know" These terms don't apply here. We are dealing with matters of OPINION. In your first post, you stated: "Saunders is a bigger puncher than Canelo." What this statement implicitly means is: In my opinion, Saunders is a bigger puncher than Canelo. I came back with "No" What that mean was, "In my opinion, he isn't" You came bak asking for proof. despite not having offered any proof for your original assertion. I mentioned that "proof" doesn't belong in the discussion, but we could present EVIDENCE. I presented evidence supporting my position. You poked some holes in my evidence and presented some counter-evidence. Now you're back to asking how I know Canelo has a better chin ? I don't know, any more than you 'know' that he doesn't. It's opinion formed from evidence and what I've seen of both fighters. I've already said that I would favour (slightly) BJ over Canelo by decision, but if I didn't see the fight and was told the result was a KO, then at a guess, I would say probably Canelo won.
You're the one who said ''No''. You're dismissing what i said and i asked you to provide proof but you could not. I asked you and logic overrode your opinion. You're comparing a guy with stoppages at welter and junior middle vs a seasoned middleweight.
He didn`t get knocked out by Norris he got knocked down twice in their bout, the only time Leonard was stopped is when he fought Camacho in `96 because he was 40 years old, this is the man that took Duran`s shots for 15 brutal rounds in Montreal and walked down the lethal Tommy Hearns I`d say his chin gets the thumbs up at welter anyway.
"Would" is a huge word. I'm not sure I'd say any MW in history "would" beat GGG. There's a certain level you reach that not much separates one from another. Small things like form of the night could mean victory or defeat. The usual suspects like Hagler, Monzon, Greb would probably be the first mentioned, due to the inherent sheer class of those boxers. I'm not sure that Golovkin really has a particular weakness in his skillset and style that allow him to be exploited by a specific sort of boxer. He's a solid well rounded technician through and through, tough as nails and as hard hitting as they come. For every guy that you can argue "would" beat him, I could make a fairly convincing argument that the "would" is really only a "could" and that you'd be foolish to put money against him on some sort of expectation of defeat.
Has to be the marvellous one for me in his absolute Hungary Prime, still close. A good fight would be the guy that gave Marvin fits & that in my book was John the beast Mugabi,I know he was mainly a LMW but he was tough ,tough Cookie ,he & the Marvellous one would IMV gain GGG's respect