Is Golovkin an All Time Great ?

That's why I can't take you guys serious.

 

He shouldn't be either TBF.

 

Unbelievable.

 

Corruption, let that sink in.

 

Corruption? That first fight was a draw, the second fight Canelo won a close fight.

 

Summed it up perfectly, every boxer under 175 is called old and washed up when they're over 35, yet a 35 and 36 yr old GGG has two wins over Canelo in his prime years

 

A different set of judges would of scored that 118-110, 117-111, 119-109. Jacobs was absolutely schooled by Canelo.

According to Compubox, Canelo outlanded Jacobs 188-131, 58-30 in body shots. And Canelo DOUBLED his % landed 40.3% to 20.2%. As you know BCS8, Canelo is a fighter good enough to beat fighters while being outlanded in total punches. The fact that Canelo had that kind of advantage in landed punches should tell you something.

The rounds that the judges gave Jacobs were rounds that could have gone either way. The rounds that Canelo won were clear, no doubt about it Canelo rounds. The fight was not as close as the judges had it.

 

Corruption! Would you say the same if it went to GGG? There is alot of smack talk after a guy gets robbed, splitting hairs about best wins, when you all know that GGG could have just as well got those decisions, and should have. He is definitely a hall of famer, and I'll say head to head he can hang in any era.

 

The first Canelo-Golovkin fight had one judge score the fight 118-110 to Canelo though.
Was that corruption, incompetence or just favouritism? Can we really respect or trust that sort of judging?

 

Lots of places where this convo went, but my main entry point is that Hopkins, Taylor, Pavlik, and Martinez all also got **** for reigning over weak middle weight divisions. The Middleweight division has been a top heavy since I've been following it since Hopkins.

Hopkins looked pretty ordinary against guys like Segundo Mercado, Robert Allen, and Antwun Echols. His victories over Trinidad and DelaHoya got him some notoriety, but they were largely seen as him beating up some blown up welterweights, and considering they didn't do much in the weight class it was hard to classify those as ATG wins. When he lost to Taylor a lot of fans rejoiced that one there was finally a worthy competitor in the weight class and that he was exposed for having ruled over a weak division. If he would have retired after the Taylor fights I think he would have been largely forgotten. It wasn't until after he left middleweight that we saw how good he was defeating the likes of Tarver, Wright, Pavlik, Pascal, Cloud. That was quite a tear for a fighter past his prime.

Taylor, Pavlik, and Martinez were decent champs, and deserve praise as dominant lineal champs, but don't think they will be seen as ATGs in the weight class either. Basically it's what you wrote. There is so much history in this sport that becoming ATG requires going beyond what most champions in the past have done. So I don't think it's a knock to consider GGG HOF worthy, but not an ATG, the standards are just that high for most of us boxing fans.

 

Nah jacobs lost that fight.

 

Not even close.

Foreman clearly beat Briggs.

Both Golovkin-Canelo fights were close and you can make arguments for either guy or a draw.

 

It's like wht Jean Pascal said after the first Hopkins fight. Hopkins called it a robbery and Pascal said to him "you should never call a close fight a robbery". That's the problem with calling Canelo GGG a robbery. They were both close fights. We can debate who won till the end of time but calling either result a robbery is ludicious. I can make a great argument that Canelo did better and deserved the victory both times. You can argue GGG won both of them, too. That's what happens in close fights, it can be seen and interpreted a multitude of ways.

 

A canelo fanboy complaining about judging Now I have seen it all.

 

In your opinion.