Gennady Golovkin Homecoming and Final Fight

Martinez is too old and broken down. A guy like Michael Zerafa would be ideal IMO

 

Would be nice for him to smash Eubank and retire lol…

 

GGG has been looking to retire for a while now. Ever since he left Sanchez he has been focused on collect the big money and path of least resistance.

 

Surely not Martinez ffs.

Golovkin is the number 1 MW in the world, he doesn't need a soft touch, he needs to fight the next young hungry lion and pass the torch.

 

If no Martinez then Paul Williams is being considered as back up.

 

Not in his own country in his last ever fight.

He would be humiliated and never return

 

You dont know what you are talking about. The champion in his weight class ducked him for years and even vacated his belts to swerve him. Then when GGG was slipping he then got in the ring with him.

 

Many thought GGG did better in the rematch than he did in the 1st. There are GGG fans who think he won both the first 2 but had him winning the rematch wider. I also saw GGG doing slightly better in the rematch than in the 1st. Which makes sense because the style that Canelo employed in the first match frustrated GGG to a far greater extent. He made it clear that he wanted Canelo to fight differently in the rematch, and there's a reason why that is.

So on the one hand there are those like yourself who see only the first match's scoring as controversial but saw Canelo winning the rematch and the 3rd match. Then there are those who saw GGG doing better in the rematch than he did in the first match. And the main reason for people thinking GGG won the rematch is because how he finished the match. There's an argument that GGG won the last 3 or 4 rounds of the rematch, after clearly being down on the cards after about 7 or 8 rounds. In the first match GGG had his best work in the middle rounds, and Canelo came back late in the fight. In the rematch Canelo was the one who started pulling away in the middle rounds, with GGG rallying late and finishing strong. So the ebb an flow of the first 2 matches were very different which led to many different interpretations of which was more controversial.

All this suggests is that there's a lack of consensus around the first 2 matches. Some saw both the first 2 matches as controversial, whike others only saw the first match's result as controversial, and there's some like @m.s. who thought that GGG deserved to win the rematch because he didn't get the decision in the first match.

People's opinions about the first 2 matches are really all over the place when you really dissect the arguments. Then there's me, who sees the results of the first 2 matches are very fair and representative of what happened. But even me who sees both as Canelo victories sees no problem with those arguing that GGG won either match.

From your perspective while you see no argument that Canelo won the first fight, you did see it as either a draw or a GGG win. So if you can see the first fight as a draw or a GGG win then you should have no problem with the result as a draw.

 

He's a good fighter.

 

If he's gonna vacate his belts first fair enough.

But if he's defending his world championship it should be against the best challenger.

 

GGG is beltless as far as I am aware

He vacated because he didn't want tough mandatories and his heart isn't in the game anymore.

Him leaving Sanchez over money showed where his heart and priorities lay

 

But you also said the first fight was dubious. Given that the result was a draw, then there was nothing "dubious" about the result.

If you found Byrd's 10-2 scorecard "dubious", I get that and I would agree that was dubious. But the result itself wasn't dubious. There's a pretty big disconnect between outrage over Byrd's scorecard, the result itself, and the argument that Canelo won.

We all agree that 10-2 Canelo was far too wide. If you see it as a narrow GGG win or a draw, that's fine. But to go from being OK with a draw to saying there's no way Canelo won, that doesn't really add up. If you're OK with a draw, then all that would be needed is one other round to flip and you have a Canelo victory. That's the issue here. I get the outrage over the 10-2 Canelo scorecard. But then there's who actually won and what is considered reasonable. There were very few rounds in that match that were won convincingly by either fighter. That first fight had a ton of possible swing rounds if we're honest. So I'm just trying to understand how you can so strongly claim that there's no way Canelo won to being OK with a draw. The difference between a draw and a 7-5 Canelo victory is extremely small.

 

What a ridiculous argument.

Might as well say if you're ok with a shutout for one fighter you're ok with a shutout for the other one.

 

No, that's a completely different argument at the other end of the spectrum.

 

It's the exact same argument. If one score is close enough to the other it's acceptable you said. Well that gets from 12-0 to 0-12 eventually.