Where is Golovkin?

the ****ing old stuff came out after the fight. A little like Duran after some of his fights. Why pay him if he was not worth the fight. GGG fought a war. That was not an old guy he just didn't have a guy who folded like the other guys he fought. Canelo was higher quality. He could fight defense and offense.

 

Prime Golovkin would have knocked out Canelo. Sorry buddy. Unless age is just a number.

 

That is good excuse. He got old because he lost, but had he been younger he would have beaten him. That fight between the Canelo fights he looked like the GGG we knew. Canelo didn't fold. He was better than the other guys. That happens.

 

So when a fighter fights a guy when he is older, if he wins he gets credit but if he loses he has an excuse?

 

Golovkin also got older, his abilities declined.

 

That is only an excuse. He lost to the best guy he fought and no matter what that affects his legacy.

 

He didnt really lose though you bloody spastic, corruption in boxing beat him. And age isnt just a number.

 

He lost. If the judges score it a loss, he lost. Believe me if they do not fight again, Canelo came out of those fights in better condition. Using age as an excuse is poor. He was bigger and had a smaller guy in front of him and he couldn't knock him out and it went to the scores two times. Whose fault if that?

 

So youre saying Golovkin deserved to lose because he didnt knock him out? The judges are corrupt, boxing is corrupt, and these things are taken in to account when determining a fighters legacy, no historian in their right mind would say that Sven Ottke truly won all his fights. No historian in their right mind would claim Kovalev lost to Ward in the first fight, and wasnt fouled in to submission in their second.

Youre not even a boxing fan, just another bigoted lunatic with an agenda.

 

No, did I say that? I said if he wanted to make sure of a win he would have knocked him out like the other guys he fought, but Canelo was better. He fought defense and offense, not just a guy who once he started to hit him he built momentum and knocked him out. You cannot make the rules. The official story always stands. No agenda. I have been a fan of boxing for 40 years. I don't need your testimonial to post here.

 

Golovkin was past prime against Canelo but mention a potential fight against Charlo or anybody else and he's prime again and wins by knockout

 

This is how it works. When someone loses the excuses start to come. Almost to disregard a loss.

 

The official story is irrelevant when taking in to account corruption. Every decision has a description, it isnt just the official decision that stands. Sorry bud.

 

it is. Look, my favorite fighter is Thomas Hearns. Most people think he won that fight against Ray in 1989.. I did. But I knew when the fight was said to be a draw, the only way Tommy would win is if he got another fight and won the 3rd fight. The official story stands more than anyone ever wants to admit. One point on one judges card means a lot to a legacy. Believe it or not.

 

The official story is irrelevant if taking in to account corruption and god awful decisions, these things matter, a lot.