Do you think it's just a coincidence that three out of Golovkin's last four fights have gone the distance? Based on Canelo, a) never having gone 15 rounds before, b) fading down the stretch of 12-round fights and, c) not demonstrating enough to me yet that he is as tough as either Antuofermo or Duran. If you are unaware of the question marks about Canelo's stamina issues; the fact that it has been observed that he fights in spurts; that he has fought to close and controversial decisions before the Golovkin bouts, as a result of this, then I suggest you look into it, rather than casually pass glib comments on actual 15-round fights, involving actual 15-round fighters, as though they carry the weight you seem to think they do. Please stop trying to make out that I am not understanding your simplistic premise! Putting the theory into practice requires the ability to do so, without suffering negative impact on one's overall performance and, in turn, an increased risk of exposure (to losing). I asked a question designed to get you to think about this but you ignored it. I can only assume you think that simply trading-off one's output (a lowered pace) for an increased number of rounds would not have a broader impact on the result of the fight. Pretending that no more effort and corresponding use of energy is required for a 15-round bout to avoid such an adverse impact is foolery - especially, when you're in against an opponent, who is able to switch it up in the latter rounds like Hagler. Canelo's output is sporadic, at the best of times. How much more intermittent does it need to become before a fighter like Hagler overwhelms him, without having to even push the envelope himself. Do you honestly think that Canelo merely winning the 12th round (on two cards), this weekend, cancels out the fact that he faded in the championship rounds? It doesn't and it's strange that you think it does. Me too. I'd used the money I won from you on Hagler/Alvarez to fund my bet on Barkley beating Canelo. Because, right now, Alvarez has fought only one genuine middleweight, twice, and gone 1-0-1 in extremely close bouts. That's not the kind of form I'm backing, just yet.
Two of them were against Canelo. In the third he scored a KD. No modern fighters have. By that logic no one of them could actually go 15. He didn't fade or look tired at all against Floyd, Lara and Trout as I remember. He just had a hard time catching up to them. In the fast paced fights with GG he has looked more tired, but never close to being stopped. In the last one he looked a bit better in the closing stages and won the last round. Well, you show again that you don't, though. Because the ability you speak of is what pro fighters do. Ali was absolutely exhasuted after 12 in his second fight with Norton. He didn't look like he would have been able to go 15 like that, but we all know that he went 15 numerous times. So a very simplistic statement is to say with certainity that a fighter who has looked tired over 12 can't go 15. That "one genuine MW" is widely considered the best of his generation. And Canelo became the first to beat him, the first to not get floored or stopped by him and the first to back him up. And while Cotto wasn't a "genuine MW" weight wise, he certainly proved himself at MW by dismantling the lineal champion.
Yes - it has nothing to do with Jacobs and Canelo being somewhere in the world class bracket, does it now, a flash knockdown notwithstanding? Taking a single point from a collective set of valid observations, in order to define my logic, is a schoolboy error, on your part. It forms just one small part of the reasoning behind my speculation on Canelo, of which there are many more parts; another being (for example) that he'd be up against Hagler, who would ask more of Canelo than Golovkin did. You really should know better. What is it that leads you to believe that either of those fights register highly on the 'pace' scale? But, that's not the case I've made, is it? Once again you ignore the fact that this is not a simple matter of being 'as broad as it is long'; that more effort and the corresponding use of energy is required for a 15-round bout, in order to avoid one's activity level from dropping. Are you actually aware of how limited Canelo's output is over 12 rounds, at present? Do I really need more evidence than Canelo's last two bouts with Golovkin, in order to speculate on whether or not Canelo could last 15 rounds with Hagler? You keep honing in on single points I've made and calling them simplistic or criticizing their logic. You ignore other points made in conjunction and, in general, fail to look at the whole. So, I'm not really sure where this is going, other than you repeatedly nitpicking and, at the same time, reinforcing your 'faith'. Because, at the moment, I can't see you presenting an argument. Depends on how you want to define a "best of his generation" and what that means in real terms, when making credible comparisons with Hagler in a 15-round contest. Golovkin has carved out for himself a reputation, based on knocking over cans - only to find himself struggling against a better class of opponent. Looks nice and shiny for Canelo, but it was going to happen to Golovkin, sooner or later. What is it supposed to tell me about Canelo's chances against Hagler over 15 rounds? Very little. He's still a low output fighter, who struggles over 12 and he still nearly let the fight slip away from him by letting a resurgent Golovkin back into the fight, during the Championship rounds. As I say above, it seems you're just looking for bits and pieces of positivity to pile on Canelo, instead of producing a well-reasoned case for the matter at hand. If you have one, I'd love to read it.
Two thirs of it has to with Canelo - which has been my Point all along. He has very good defense and takes a great shot. He also had a harder time landing on Jacobs than previous opponents and that has probably to do with Jacob's gigher level. But when he did land, Jacobs went down. And it was not a flasah KD, since Jacobs clearly was rattled and Went for survival mode the remainder of the round. Canelo has not shown anything like that reaction to any of GGG:s shots. Take a breath. I never made it out like your whole case dependent on that point, I just adressed that particular point. Then I adressed the others. But, sure, I didn't have to adress that poitn individually. You and I will just have to disagree that Hagler's pressure is so very much harder to withstand than GGG:s. GGG has a fantastic KO ratio, and quite a few of his victims were ranked, so I personally think he ranks higly among MWs whose pressure is hard to withstand. As of right now, only my eye test. Haven't dug out any stats about punch stats, but they were probably quite high in total on GGG:s part. As for Canelo, the stats probably don't tell the whole story. He puts a lot in every shot, especially the power shots, and that takes a lot out of you. Other opponents than GGG would slow their pace in face of such punches coming back. What makes you believe that Hagler's fighst that Went the full 15 register high in terms of pace? From meomory, the one against Vito was only high paced when Vito took over during the last half. The one against Duran was quite low paced and tactical during the first 12. Only the last three really had high pace. I can't see you saying anything I haven't adressed before here. You just don't grasp that over 12 you usually use more energy a round than you do over 15. It's called pacing yourself. And I don't think Caenlo looked done aftter 12 in any of the fights with GGG. And I can absolutely ensure you that none of them would have exterted nearly as much energy in the 12th round if there were three more rounds to go. Why was Ali much more tired after 12 rds against Norton in the rematch in 1973 than he was in the rubber in 1976? Had his stamina improved with age. Of course not. Rather the opposite. It was simply that he fought a 12 round limit fight in 1973 and paced himself accordingly. "Cans"? So now ranked fighters are "cans"? That's just silly. Not many KO's ranked fighters with the ease he did. Yes, he has looked less impressive against a higher quality of opponents like Jacobs and Canelo, but that doesn't make the other "cans". Regularily mowing through ranked opponents like they are nothing is not that usual. He' has done better than anyone over 12 against GGG, and he struggles? You really warp facts here. And as for output. Try three minutes on the heavy bag with many light punches and then three minutes with only fully leveraged blows with close to maximun power in every one. I can guarantee you that you will throw many more punches yet be much less tired after the first round.
It was a flash knockdown. You can make more out of it, if you feel it necessary, but he was no more, in fact, probably far less flustered by the Golovkin KD than when he was floored by Mora. Either way, the point here is that Golovkin's power has been put into perspective against decent opposition. A lot of people were predicting this would happen before he stepped up. He stepped up; it happened. This is actually a compliment to Canelo, but let's not replace one overhyped puncher with a now alleged superman. I'm not suggesting that Golovkin isn't a very hard puncher, but it's an aspect that has been overcooked. Canelo certainly took some good digs. I'm just not going to get too excited about it, just now. I haven't missed one, all day. That much is obvious. The material facts, however, do not support your position, unless you downgrade Hagler's performances and opposition. The comparison is between a tomato can crusher in Golovkin who, until last year, had never gone 12-rounds, and a proven 15-round fighter, in Hagler. The latter was jobbed against the tough Antuofermo and later put on a clinic, in the last two rounds of a 15-round bout, against one of the best boxers of all time. A KO ratio against tomato cans is, at very best, iffy. I think I know who'd I'd back to bring the pressure over 15 rounds. Canelo averages around 42 punches thrown per round. He takes plenty of breaks, which he can get away with against fighters, who are less of an offensive threat (I know Golovkin doesn't fit that mold, but he took a steady approach to the rematch, only ramping up in the latter half). Just to put that into some perspective, Old Hagler (vs returning Leonard) - in a 12-round bout renowned for Hagler's stalling on the grid, still threw an average of 66 punches per round. I watched them. You should watch them again. OK - we should drop this. I get exactly what you are saying. It seems you would rather not acknowledge that the implementation of your simple strategy would have a broader implication on the performance, over the course of the fight, and impact the result significantly. For references on Canelo's known stamina issues. See: https://bleacherreport.com/articles...eather-questions-canelo-alvarezs-conditioning https://www.boxingnews24.com/2015/08/roach-canelo-is-lazy-and-has-stamina-problems/ http://combatpress.com/2017/09/hbo-boxing-canelo-vs-golovkin-preview-and-prediction/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2018/09/16/ggg-vs-canelo-2-live-round-round-fight-updates/ https://www.express.co.uk/sport/box...ovkin-2-Las-Vegas-live-results-boxing-updates http://ringsidereport.com/?p=70797 Whatever you say. I don't remember Ali's stamina being a long-standing issue, like it has been for Canelo. A one-off case is not really a useful benchmark, against what seems to have been a systemic problem for Alvarez. See above links. What can I say? A very shallow talent pool in the Middleweight division, today, but ten or eleven boxers need to fill the gaps in the rankings, I suppose. No warping of facts. Canelo struggles with his stamina. It's a widely accepted problem. I could probably find Canelo himself talking about the issue. Golovkin is not exactly Mr Cardio, either. He's not had to be, for the considerable majority of his career. Canelo couldn't push the envelope and prevent Golovkin from getting back into the fight. I get you on the stamina theorizing and the fact he loads up on his punches. I just don't think it explains years of this issue following Canelo around in competition and it doesn't instill confidence enough in me to back him against Hagler, over 15 rounds.
Not if you know the difference between power and the ability to land it. You should. He's the only one of GGG:s nearly 40 opponents who haven't been either stopped or decked. One of two to go the distance. You really sound like you belong in the Gerneral Forum with that "tomato can" talk about ranked contenders. He KO'd seven ranked contenders, hardly losing a round. There are so many more things than simple punch stats. You know who Ali threw the most punches against? Mac Foster. Does that make it one of his most intense fights? No, actually it was one of his least intense. It's the velocity and leverage of the shots as well. Even more so actually. And if you ever sparred you know that you get tired from only the tension of being in range of the other guy, which makes mid-range and close range more exhausting than poking from long range. What simple strategy? To pace oneself? I certainly can't take credit for that strategy, it's probably been along as long as the sport. Didn't read through all, but one was from an unhappy Trout who thought he had been robbed the win against Canelo, the other from Roach in the lead up to a fight between Canelo and Roach's fighter Cotto. But you're trying to make this into a pure question of stamina and it isn't. Not for me anyhow. Stamina is very good to have, but you don't have to have great stamina to be durable. Chin and defense goes a long way Just look at Toney. He didn't have very good stamina, in fact it was often **** poor, but his defense and iron chin stopped him from ever being stopped. Even in very high intensity fights and against HW bangers. Canelo is similar fighter, even though his stamina is much better than Toney's often was. Canelo also fights in spurts and relies on his defense and chin in between those spurts. His defense and chin are the main reasons why he's never gotten close to being stopped. That had to do with fighters pacing themselves after how long the fight is. Not stamina as such. Ali gave his all over 12 rds in 1973 because it was a 12 round limit. In 1976 he wasn't as tired after 12 rds, but not because his stamina had improved at 34 years of age but because he paced himself to last the whole 15. As I said above, Canelo, like Toney, relies more on chin and defense. Attributes which permits him to work in spurts and which so far has helped to never getting close to being stopped. But him working in spurts probably is as much a tactical decision as anything else. It makes sense for a stocky, explosive fighter. To go 24 rds with Golovkin without ever being in trouble goes a long way for me. Golovkin looks to have great stamina to me, along with chin, strength and power. His stamina is better than Canelo's, but Canelo has the better defense. Hagler was very hard to go the distance against, never mind beat. My guess, though, is that Canelo would last the distance because of his chin and defense and because he has the artillery to keep the other guy honest. In fact, I'd give him a better chance of beating Hagler at his best than anyone of Hagler's actual opponents bar Leonard.
OK - so anyone making the same observation just doesn't "know". Fine. Sorry. Nothing's happening. Maybe excitement on this one is going to take some time to mature, which isn't surprising, given Canelo is essentially 1-0-1 at middleweight. LOL - The term "Tomato Can" has been around for decades and is much older than the Internet. Tomato Cans find their way into the rankings frequently. But, in all seriousness, the quality of opposition has been ridiculously poor, I'm trying to remember a time in living memory it's ever been this bad. How many genuinely world class challengers has Golovkin faced? Forget the rankings. How many class operators have there been to share a ring with Golovkin? Everything has a context but are you seriously trying to dismiss a clear comparison of workrate? And, don't take the numbers for granted - I don't and never do - watch the fights to see the difference. The tension effects everyone differently. That is: Some people are concerned about being in the pocket whilst others thrive on it. Anyway, I've really lost track of the point you were making now. Sorry, do you think Canelo is just beyond reproach and capable of beating a Middleweight Duran, Hearns and Antuofermo, in your opinion? I've forgotten. Jesus. I could find loads more, if it were worth it. It's not. No, I'm not. That's what you've made this into. I started out by saying " This content is protected ". I also think he'd have a hard night against some of Hagler's other top opponents. That was my speculation from the outset. In short, I am not overwhelmed by Canelo and think his recent success will be placed into perspective over time. OK - so, you're classing Canelo alongside Boxers I just I wouldn't, at the moment. I heard you the first time. If he does, as you suggest, rely on his chin and defense, like Toney, I can't see him lasting that long - because, he does not possess the skill of Toney. Not by a long chalk, in my opinion. He's going to need something more. That's a huge statement. I hope Canelo can continue to prove he is worthy of such faith.
Yeah, Golovkin's challengers prior to Jacobs don't really look much to the eye test. But to be honest, neither does many of Hagler's. Vito, Hamsho, Roldan... Better than Lemieux, Macklin and Geale? Perhaps, perhaps not. They really look nothing special to me. They look a level or two below the guys that that came right after Hagler - Nunn, McCallum, Kalambay etc. Duran wasn't great anymore at that time and weight. Laing had beaten him, Benitez had schooled him, Hearns would obliterate him. Hearns himself... He had some top attributes even at MW, yes, but also major weaknesses. Hagler is great to me for much the same reasons Golovkin is: He dominated a generation of contenders that mostly look pretty mediocre to me on film. His win over Hearns is good, but still, Barkley did the same in one round less. I can definitely entertain the thought that Hagler was consistent in being a level above average contenders but that his true level was shown against a rusty, blown up Leonard. Perhaps that isn't fair, just like it perhaps isn't fair to think that GGG:s true level has been shown against Jacobs and Canelo, but I do think there's reason to entertain the thought.
There is a school of thought, which considers Hagler's opposition to be less than par. It certainly wasn't replete with all-stars, but I would argue against the idea that Antuofermo, Hamsho and Roldan were comparable or beneath Lemieux, Macklin and Geale; three of the most nondescript challengers I can ever recall, save maybe Nunez, Rubio and Wade. Of course, Nunn and Kalambay brought some flair; McCallum brought his class up from 154 and they were standouts for the times, along with James Toney. They were in and of themselves a bit of a Middleweight Title Merry-Go-Round, which perhaps helps pose some interesting speculative questions. However, other than McCallum, I do not think they were light-years ahead of everything that had just come before them. Nunn proved to be vulnerable and unable to sustain/regain his title-holding, as did Kalambay. McCallum even dropped the ball against Kalambay but, in the main, just grew old against Toney, who in turn, just couldn't maintain his weight for the division. It was an interesting time, but not an especially great one, from my perspective. That said, I do wonder, had McCallum been 5 to 10 years younger, when he faced Kalambay that first time, would we have seen a different result and another long-term champion rule the division, carving a great legacy? I can't say I've known anyone before suggest that Hagler's true level was shown against Leonard. To this day, I consider it a vanity fight, which kept Hagler from retiring after Mugabi and provided a showcase for Leonard's return; not an especially great bout and yet it seemingly outshines much of what has come after it. A prime Hagler demonstrated significant superiority in his skills and physicality, above all of his peers. He was more than a level above average and I do not consider a good few of his opponents, as average. But that's my view on things and, having watched enough boxing over the years, I feel quite comfortable with seeing it the way that I do.
Who knows? It's not always the easiest on the eyes fighter that get the win, for example Hamsho-Benitez. Had Golovkin beaten Martinez, when he still was useful, Cotto (who of course perhaps hadn't come to MW if Martinez was already out of the picture, so perhaps Pirog or someone else) and Sturm, he'd not be too far from Hagler right now for me. But it would still of course depend on what he achieves from here and also somewhat on what Canelo and Jacobs achieve.
I think he could be pretty well beaten by Saunders, which would make GGG:s efforts against him look unfairly poor, since GGG just is a much better stylistic match-up for Canelo than Saunders is imo.
