anyone in the weight catergory above at the mo. i think the size, reach and style of smith would be a good test.
James5000 is a troll. He thinks 3G was bigger than Danny Jacobs on fight night... He might be new, but at least he isn't a stupid, blind, troll...
GGG has had his boogey man fight and Oscar pulled out all the stops to keep his man from losing. Canelo wont take another L ever again and it'll back to juicing once more.
Really bad. Not only is Jacobs naturally bigger, he also didn't keep weight for the IBF, so he was building himself back up longer than GGG had, crucial advantage and also a little unsporting imo
You know what the hilarious thing about that is? Many claimed GGG was only 170 fight night (which according to HBO he was, but clearly he was never actually weighed fight night as he looked like 180+). If he weighed 170 in the morning and 170 fight night what actual disadvantage did he have? He apparently was already fully hydrated lol. It would have only been a disadvantage to Jacobs if he had to make the weight. I mean it's only with the IBF belt on the line that they have the same day weigh in. Any other fight and Jacobs would have been able to fully hydrate? Why did GGG look so hittable in that fight? I always said GGG was severely effected by the IBF weight restriction, its not a funny coincidence he has looked so poor since it was introduced. Now he can't just balloon up and physically dominate his opposition so easily. Facts Jacobs did have a huge advantage missing the weigh in, GGG had to to severely dehydrate that much longer. I can only imagine the pain it causes to his insides.
The guy that was recently removed from the picture with a questionable doping positive, since you know, the B sample came back negative. But hey, everyone can go back to ducking him now with a built in excuse. How convenient.
Either Warren has been truly incompetent getting the info about the B sample into the public domain - I've not read about this anywhere but here - or it's not accurate and both A & B were adverse results. Because it's my understanding both samples - which are from the same source - have to show positive for an adverse finding to be confirmed and acted on. Why isn't Warren on his soap box about this?