How Different Would Austin Trout's Career Be If He Acted A Fool...???

Very much so, the risk far outweighed the reward with Saunders, stylistically Golovkin suited Canelo much more than Billy Joe, so Canelo took the riskier option that paid more with Golovkin, because he probably thought that his defense was solid enough that he could avoid eating too many bombs, and that he could at least give the appearance that he was winning, so he knew that if he saw the final bell he could get the win. Whereas with Saunders he can do neither, so if he gets his typical gift decision it would be far more outrageous, and add to that no one knows who Saunders is and it wouldn't pay well enough. So yeah Canelo ducked Saunders. Why fight a stylistic nightmare that pays you very little, that you look bad against and probably lose to, when you can take on a stylistically favorable opponent that will pay you a s*** ton win or lose, and look like an ultra brave badass in the process for doing so. Everything I said about Canelo here also applies to Golovkin.