This is what history says about GGG v Canelo 1 The cards from people covering or in boxing. 116 = GGG won 021 = Draw 009 = Canelo won [includes 2 Golden Boy promoters] 116/146 = 79% had GGG winning the fight. 021/146 = 15% had a draw. 009/146 = 06% had Canelo winning the fight. It was a robbery. And that one robbery does not take away from who GGG was. Anyone who had 20 title defenses should rate as an all great in the weight class. Or are you going to dispute that? Yes or no? As I pointed out, Canelo made GGG wait to a punt where he was older. Later Canelo tested positive, so not only was this fight a clear robbery, it has a tainted aura based on Canelo's drug test.
Re-read what I said. GGG beat his guys past his prime, Rocky was the younger man by far in his matches with Walcott and Moore. It's also debatable if Rocky won the 1st LaStarza match. He was losing the second match until he landed a mean shot on the break and a hard low blow, then LaSatarza slowed down. The film is there to see this. Prior to the two fouls, LaStarza was in the lead.
Yes. Ok? Doesn't make them not prime(or close to it). You said Marciano's opponents were past their prime. I corrected you. It isn't, he won. The supplemental scoring system was in place both before and after Rocky came around, Marciano won. This decision is the only claim someone can make to beating Rocky. Canelo, SD and Jacobs can argue they won. Ok? He still lost...
This really isn't a Marciano thread, but Charles went south quickly after the 2nd Marciano fight and Walcott never won another match. Easy facts. It's hard to argue both guys were prime, at least in the 2nd matches. I advise you not to read the Rocky vs Ted Lowry 1 " The crowd of 3,696 booed the decision and some wondered if Lowry had thrown the fight. "There were some questions as to whether Lowry, who had come close to knocking out Marciano in the second, third and fourth rounds, deliberately bogged down in his attack after the fourth stanza," Thomas wrote. "Lowry stopped using his uppercut after the fourth. He went into a shell and only occasionally landed power shots. He seemed to be carrying Marciano." In his book [url]Rocky Marciano: The Rock of His Times[/url], Russell Sullivan wrote the following: "It was Lowry, not Marciano, who was on the verge of scoring an early knockout, stinging Marciano with two terrific rights in the first round and then rocking him with two mighty uppercuts in the second. By the fourth, a staggered Marciano seemed just one punch away from being knocked out. But then, inexplicably, Lowry stopped fighting and retreated into a shell despite warnings from the referee to open up and a cascade of boos from the crowd. To many, it appeared that Lowry was deliberately carrying Marciano. Was foul play afoot? Was Lowry getting paid to lose? Or was he merely tiring? Whatever the reason, a revived Marciano managed to rally in the late rounds even though many of his punches missed their mark or lacked force. On the basis of his aggressiveness and constant punching, Marciano won a unanimous decision from the judges. Most observers felt, however, that Lowry should have won." Lowry, who earned $2,500 for the fight, denied he threw the fight. "I beat Rocky that night and that’s it," he said. "He changed his strategy in the fifth round and made a fight of it, but I won two of the last six rounds after winning the first four. It was a hometown decision." This isn't Marciano thread, but GGG never lost or struggles to anyone of Lowry's caliber.
I concur, this shall be the last reply. I said Charles was past it. You think Walcott's body, at 38, could take a war like the one in the first fight? Lowry was a crazy little ******* who was a tricky night for most. He didn't win much, but he was like a HW Emmanuel Augustus. Marciano was also green as ****, having not fought any real competition, having virtually no amateur career. Rocky had been pro for two years before hand, and had 20 fights; meaning he had an average of fighting a little over once a month. He'd also fought 3 weeks beforehhand. These factors obviously contribute to a fighter's performance, especially an inexperienced one. And even still, Marciano destroyed him in the rematch. Ok. Let him fight once a month with no amateur background for 2 years then throw him in with someone like Lowry. He'd be lucky to do so well.
You can call it what you like. It will always be a Draw. The result of a boxing match is not decided by a show of hands, across a random selection of spectators. And especially, by those who are clearly fans of one of the boxers, in question. It wasn't "a robbery" - only hurt fans use such language for a fight that was very close. Whatever taint you think the fight has, it was resolved when Golovkin couldn't make it count the next time around. Golovkin was a good fighter; a can crusher, but not a high-ranking Great.
The question was: Who would have beaten him. You're looking at hypothetical H2H fights. How they'd have matched up stylistically. Toney only had one good win? A lucky one? What are you talking about? It doesn't matter how many fights Roy had at the weight. Again, it's H2H. Both James and Roy could definitely have beaten GG.
I appreciate the effort you've gone to here. You've given it a lot thought. Personally, I do think that GG is overrated by some. But then all fighters are either overrated or underrated by fans. I don't think he has a great resume, but then he would have had a better one had he have gotten the opportunity to fight the guys who he wasn't able to fight. Just one quick point regarding the MW's of the past retiring or slowing at GG's age: You have to note that those guys fought many more fights than GG. Greb and Monzon had 100 plus fights.
I presented 50+ score cards, that suggest a robbery. You do know Canelo " in " with the people in boxing. If that fight was a draw, why even bother with the judges? 116-112 is the best card, and that is not close. " Can Crusher's " don't have 20 title defenses. Anyone with 20 consecutive title defenses is an all time great, you can count those who had more on one hand.
Monzon had 100. If you add in GGGs long amateur career, his record was 345–5 plus his pro fights. That might be more than even Greb had. When you have 20+ successful title defenses, won perhaps ever pro fight ( judges BS aside ), have never been floored, and are clearly one of the best punchers ever @160 pounds, you are an all time great @150 pounds. Those who say he isn't are fanboys or don't know much about boxing.
I don't think you can compare amateur fights to pro fights, but I understand where you're coming from. GG fought a lot and he has great longevity. Greb was fighting scheduled 10-15 round fights though, and he sometimes fought 3 times in the same month. It was crazy back then. I have no real issue with GG being placed highly. It's very hard to rank fighters. Because you have to use objective criteria and it's just so hard comparing fighters of different eras. And stats alone aren't enough for me, and I also rank guys a lot on a H2H basis.
GGG doesn't have 20 title defences. Also, Armstrong, Hopkins Pedroza, Gomez, Louis, Mikalshevski, Calzhage is enough to need two hands...
Clearly they do, if their defenses have been, in the main, against mediocre to poor opposition. And, Bernard Hopkins is just that... ...with 6 of his 20 defenses, as the Undisputed Middleweight Champion of the World; the first since Hagler.
