During his prime he would have fought him. He might not have fought him at the age's of 38 to 40 after he was robbed twice, but then again, maybe he would.
Well, again for the 300th time, we know why you are technically able to make that boast. Because GGG was robbed. Robberies in boxing are the gift that keeps on giving.
Double robbery, as if the robbery draw wasn't enough. The first fight isn't even debatable. Not even worth pretending GGG didn't win it.One big case of boxing politics, the writing was on the wall, as long as GGG didn't knock him out. So using the" GGGS best win is Jacobs" Card then down playing Jacobs isn't going to work. Jackson barely got by Thomas Tate before that bout. He was on his way out. That being said, i respect your opinion, you aren't one of these guys that weren't around during these fights.
The fact is both fights were close saying otherwise is showing blatent bias.I know you won`t believe this but i actually wanted GGG to win but i scored it as i saw it
I think that this is the difference. McClellan far too hittable against a boxer-puncher like Golovkin, whereas GGG hunkers down in that shell of his and is actually pretty hard to hit clean. McClellan hits hard for sure but I don't fancy his wild swings against Golovkin's timing and precision punching.