If Golovkin got proper decisions over Canelo in first two fights.

Name a worse duo than GGG getting a fair decision vs Canelo in fights 1+2. The official results are backwards. Canelo has a draw and win over GGG on his resume that don't belong there. GGG has a draw and a loss to Canelo on his resume that don't belong there. There is of coarse a consensus that clearifies the facts.Golovkins best win is against Canelo, and Canelo's best win is against Golovkin, if he actually won. One guy officially gets full credit, while the other guy who actually did better gets none.

 

Yep, the only difference would likely be bragging rights i suppose. GGG would officially have 2 wins over Canelo, and Canelo would have at best one win vs a 40 year old GGG. Canelo would have L-12, L-12, to GGG. That looks alot different than a W-12 doesn't it?

 

The Canelo fights speak for themselves. And 20 consecutive middleweight title defenses (18) by KO say otherwise. If Canelo's career could do fine without Golovkin, they wouldn't have felt the need to rob GGG. Your right, two competitive losses to GGG wouldnt have ruined Canelo's career. Canelo couldn't do it on his own though, had to go the rout of the thief. They had to get those W's one way or the other.

 

I give credit to Canelo beating a 40 year old GGG, thats one of his best wins. The thing is, GGG wasn't even trying to win that fight and almost won it by incident. Canelo was falling apart the last 4 rounds. He was all red faced, huffing and puffing. Canelo was over the moon when it was over.A little more by the old man and he might have dropped him.

 

GGG'S best title defenses were his last to of the 21 consecutive, and that was vs Canelo.

 

Never forget, that nobody buys that b.s. The proof is in the videos. Only 4 of ringside media in the 2 fights total out of over 60 combined gave it to Canelo. Look up the ringside media results. In the 2nd fight it was like, 30 for Golovkin, 15 had it a draw, and 2 had it for Canelo.and that's the 2nd fight! The first was even worse.