That's a brilliant observation and I'm glad someone on here is thinking deeper about all this stuff, because the official half-witted narratives are killing my love for the sport. I'll put it a slightly different way to you - Golovkin is by far the better technical boxer than Canelo. That might seems counter-intuitive given the shallow, 2 dimensional nature the sport is covered in nearly all media. The official narrative of Canelo (Boxer) v Golovkin (Puncher) is a cognitive shortcut that has little to no basis in reality. The real headline would be Golovkin (Boxer, Puncher) v Canelo (Athlete, Speed, Youth, Reflexes, Style, Tricks … also drugs and a very good chin) Not as catchy but much more accurate. Golovkin is a masterful boxer-puncher - almost incomprehensibly so - you could say he looks like a guy who's had 300 amateur fights in the strong Eastern Block system and won the Amateur World Championships, usually fighting bigger men … hmmmm His defence is neglected somewhat but his footwork is majestic and the way he sets himself to throw shots (both textbook and unorthodox) is out of this world. His relative weakness is said neglect of defence (instead preferring to trust his chin), and, now he's in his late 30s, a fraction of a second off his speed, which given his methodical approach to begin with is starting to take its toll and make him look bad. The 2 worst kind of fans in modern boxing: Golovkin fanboys who think he's a no-skill killing machine Golovkin haters who basically think the same but that he's been managed against poor/handpicked opponents The nuanced truth is he's one of the greatest boxers in any weight class out of Eastern Europe who was avoided like the plague until it becomes impossible to do so and who possessed slightly overrated power, and a massively underrated skillset. The sport will be infinitely poorer without him
All that is very true. I find it amusing for people to claim that he was never a good fighter, that he was overrated, etc, when he took Canelo to two very close decisions. By definition that makes either him AND Canelo very good, or neither.
Very even fight with a ton of close, competitive rounds. It could have gone either way. I scored it a draw.
Agree. I also thought that Golovkin won the second more clearly, despite it being the harder fight. The difference is that in the first it was Canelo landing the big counters and hard shots and GGG winning on workrate. In the second Golovkin landed the bigger shots and outworked him.
I actually felt the same way but I knew once he started backing up the judges were gonna score a lot of those rds for Canelo.. GGG and Kovalev really got raw deals tbh.. Kovalev was definitely finished in the 2nd fight but he won 8-4 with a knockdown in the 1st.. They were suppose to have a trilogy.. GGG imo won both fights vs Canelo..
Thissssss. 20 years from now when all the negotiations and buildup bull**** is forgotten, and the fight is viewed as a fight, only, people will be scratching their heads wondering how Canelo was given the win.
Teddy Atlas made much of Golovkin's jab in the rematch - reasoning why he believed he won - but it wasn't keeping Canelo honest, wasn't stopping him come forward. This isn't the amateurs. I scored the rematch a draw.
If you didnt have Canelo winning the first 7 rounds of the bout then ydksab and shouldn’t have an opinion on scoring a fight.
