Gennady Golovkin vs Thomas Hearns

well i did tihnk 3g might stop hearns but now i am not sure given the new evidence stated by the other side, and the weak evidence given by pro 3g guys such as "hearns would break his hands on 3g" lol what the idiot crud is that.

 

Firstly , the media is biased toward s GGG and has a grudge against Canelo. Most , if not all media pundits predicted GGG to win both fights , so in the case of a close decision , they are obviously not going to give it to the guy the picked against.

The same situation happened with Pacman vs Horn. 95% of the media said Pacman won. Horn clearly won that fight so media bias and citing fake news outlets means nothing.

Secondly , there's no way the consensus was 90% in Golovkins favour for the rematch. Thats just not true. Canelo won the second fight fair and square. Close but clear.

 

I believe it was, GGG winning or draw .. @Mendoza posted every card on the planet after that fight, refer to that thread
"Canelo won the second fight fair and square. Close but clear." ….. fair post

 

Herol and Dino are professional Golovkin haters, let's just be aware of that.

I personally had Golovkin winning both fights against Canelo by the same margin: 8-4.

He outlanded Canelo in both fights and while Canelo at least stood his ground in the second, and landed more punches, so did Golovkin. The difference to me was that in the first fight the top 3 punches landed were probably Canelo's. There's a reason why guys like guys like Shadow111 hammered on the "best punches landed" for that fight. In the second fight that metric was reversed. Golovkin was getting caught in traps by Canelo in the first fight - in the second Golovkin was catching him. Golovkin landed by far the harder and more effective punches, even as Canelo tried to make up lost ground through his body attack.

To give Canelo his due, though: his defence is second to none and his chin is simply unbelievable nowadays. If he had a better gas tank he could rule MW for many years.

 

I agree. And GGG is now at this point getting older and being inactive, so the third match might be very different.

 

Hearns at 30 was an older guy. He had been in superfights and had fought all the legends at that point Cuevas, Leonard,Benitez,Duran,Hagler. Up and down in weight, great fights everything. Had he retired at that age his legacy stands. GGG no..

 

i picked 3G by KO. Are you trying to look a fool on purpose?


It is only because I read some of your awful posts supporting 3G with fake ways that I am now unsure. YOUR CONTENT actually weakened my resolve in picking 3G.... such as

"oh, Hearns will brek his hands on 3g so 3g will win haha"

WTF??? Is this some kind of joke argument for 3G???

Not only did you fail, but you achieved the opposite of your intent, persuading people to choose against 3G with your awful pro 3g arguments.

It would be better for 3G if you simply hadnt posted at all in this thread, for all involved, so wrong are you.

 

Herol "duuuhhhh uhhhh svhm,mv uhhhhh"

^ I don't reply to people who make up quotes for me. Except to maybe mock their slug-like intellects (yes, that's you) or to point out the fact that they're liars - and yes, that's you again.

 

Let's assume that you are right. Hearns fought everybody, that's a fact.

This still feels like double standards to me.

Golovkin is six years older than Hearns was in the Kinchen fight, he had an extremely long amateur career and he's being criticised for performances that he had at the tail end of his career - against far better fighters than Kinchen, I may add. It's the same situation as where GGG just got ripped into for "swelling up" and then when I looked at pics of Hearns he looks like a bowl of cocoa puffs, he's so lumped up. Hearns swells worse and there's no mention of that?

 

Hearns did fight everyone and moved around in weights and was pretty busy .A fighter who fought as long as Hearns in different parts of his career and the way he went up and down in weight will have bad performances. But if you point to those bad performances and say GGG is better than Kinchen, well that is not knowing the whole story. The fact is Hearns would be in great shape and weight for GGG like he was for Ray months after Kinchen. The question I have about GGG separate from Hearns is why when he fought better guys like Jacobs and Canelo did he look worse. And he did fight a guy between the Canelo fights where he dominated like before.

 

Why you denying you wrote that if Hearns broke his hand on Hagler, he would on GGG too?
I dont understand what you gain from lying, and then pretending the OP is lying. Everyones read what you wrote.

 

The main reason I brought up Kinchen is because some posters here seem to think Golovkin is doomed from the get-go because his reach is much shorter than Hearns'. But, Kinchen has the same reach as GGG and is shorter, and he landed no problem on Hearns. So, there goes that theory. Secondly, look at Hearns' body. The dude is shredded. He's in shape.

Golovkin is fighting at the top level at an age when most guys are retired. He's old. He's pushing 40, FFS. Does anybody remember how good RJJ looked near GGG's age? That is probably the main reason.

Jacobs and Canelo are both younger and excellent fighters, is the second reason. I actually think Jacobs is going to whup Canelo (assuming he handles the weight drain) but that's another story.

The third reason is that Canelo is very likely on PEDs and Jacobs skipped the IBF weigh in so that he could rehydrate to an even bigger size to maximise the weight advantage over Golovkin. After that fight the IBF actually changed their rules for unification bouts because they realised the IBF champion would be at a significant disadvantage.

 

u fail

 

35 and 36 is not pushing 40. Why do u lie.

 

The Kinchen fight was #48 for Tommy, Canelo was #38 and #40 for GGG … Hearns had roughly 22% more fights. It's significant. Give GGG 10 more fights against tough opponents, things might have been different... Tommy was more shopworn