Why was Rigo over the hill at 37 yet GGG is prime at 36?

He moved up 2 weight classes for the Loma fight... Most people still don’t understand what does it mean.

And Loma is already an ATG.

 

Who fought after two years of inactivity and on a short notice... Who had never fought at middleweight before...

 

And Golovkin destroyed him.
Like i said, Vanes was a lesser fighter and Golovkin had an easy time with him. Could Golovkin honestly have done that if he was no longer able to pull the trigger?

Just because Vanes was inactive, doesn´t mean he lost the ability to fight.

 

Rigondeaux was inactive, and at least to my eyes, noticeably slower in his last three fights. He is over the hill, but he would likely still crush any 122 pounder even now. He'd abuse Dogboe. Golovkin is still near his peak from what I see. Canelo getting a gift decision doesn't all of a sudden mean Golovkin is past it. Some of you Golovkin haters, and Canelo nut gurglers are hilarious, trying to use a bad decision, to state a fighter is shopworn or past it.

 

Golovkin would look like **** had he moved up to fight Andre Ward.

Give Rigo Sor Rungivisai and he might hand him a boxing lesson.

 

Pure BS. I still see Rigo as #1 at 122 and probably 126 as well. Size did not play a factor as much as people claim, Loma is just better than him.

 

The problem is it isn't the haters that are stating this, it's GGG's fans that are doing it making themselves look foolish.

 

Agree completely. Same goes for Rigo except whatever slight decay in ability is more due to inactivity than anything else, imo. Loma was just too big plus too good. That simple. I wish they'd keep him busy. Even watching him beat up the hopelessly outclassed is enjoyable. Like I wouldn't turn my nose up at listening to Wynton Marsalis play blues instead of jazz.

 

I don't think either is shot. Golovkin is visibly slower than he used to be. It's indisputable. I haven't followed Rigo that much but if he's not slower than he was 5 years ago I'd eat my hat. Agendas, I think.

 

Excellent post,

I have no intention on downgrading the strength of this post by saying this but everything you mentioned is plainly obvious. Seems like the the person attempting to surface an agenda has his/her own agenda.

Lol

 

Inactivity plays a big part in a fighters ability to look fresh and sharp in the ring. GGG was very active which was why he performed so well in his last couple of fights. Rigo wasn't sharp or mentally ready due to his inactivity. That's as clear as day.

 

Folks have touched in this already and in all honesty fans will interpret a fighters level of physical deterioration based on a number of different factors. It’s based on the eye of the beholder and ultimately predicated on the individual fighters level of depreciation and not age.

You’re likely overestimating the severity of the double standard based on the opinion of a minority. All things equal neither man was “shot” enough to create enough viable caveats to supporting the justification for a loss.

The real issue I have is you’re doing to much speculating when you decided to remove all the other factors such as layoffs, size and age when doing a compare and contrast of the two fight scenarios....it’s an unacceptable way to conduct a strong, substance full and objective analysis.

 

It's harder to tell where Rigo is at at his career cause other than a year of it he has mostly fought domestic level guys and been inactive.