Why I think GGG is a top 15 all-time middleweight.

Maybe people were reserving judgement, until the alleged injustice of Golovkin/Alvarez (I) was put right by Golovkin in the rematch. It wasn't and so, the close loss he has suffered in their second fight gives more credence to the first result and perhaps serves as a magnified setback for him.

Combine this with the stage Golovkin is at, in his career, and the likelihood of him rectifying this situation, let alone furthering himself towards a place in the top-15 of all time, is looking slight.

Just a theory...

 

You saved me some typing.


GGG won both fights but neither was a robbery.

You could make a case for a draw in h first and a close Canelo victory in the rematch.

 

The resume of a champion like Golovkin, can continue to accrue even after he has retired.

It only takes somebody that he has beaten, to beat somebody significant.

That having been said, the clock is obviously ticking.

 

How did you score the fights? I thought Golovkin clearly outpointed Canelo in both fights, but I'm going to go back and rescore them some time.

 

I think Jacobs, who Golovkin beat, would probably beat Canelo, if that counts.

 

I think the first match could have gone either way but, in the rematch, Golovkin made no real improvement on his first performance, whereas I think Canelo did. The scoring of the rematch was more or less on point, in my opinion, and Canelo won a close decision.

 

Michael Marley

Agree with Teddy Atlas, one fighter had 117 score in Big Fight but it was Canelo not Triple GGG. I had it 117-11, giving often ineffective Gennady only eight, 10 and 11. Canelo made Golovkin backpedal with effective aggression and ring generalship so even though every round was CLOSE i HAD IT 9-3 for the Mexican hero....Third bout would be more of same.....

 

The question that people need to ask, is why the scoring has favored Canelo in both fights?

Was he just lucky to benefit from a slightly odd interpretation twice, or was the deck stacked in his favor from the outset?

 

I think it's obvious it's bias at this point.

If this was a decision that happened once I could write it off as a close fight, but there's such a consistent pattern in the discrepancy between the fans and judges.

As much as I hate it, there's biased decisions in every sport though.
Maybe we should go back to Newspaper decisions.

 

Agreed. However, I wonder who Golovkin has beaten that, in conjunction with the pool and the level of potential opposition that is currently out there, could create such a significant knock-on effect in Golovkin's favor?

And, what would it take, for that matter?

 

Well, to start with, I don't think the rematch was as close as the first fight. I think the case for Canelo is much stronger in the rematch, because he was pretty much covering all the bases, until he faded in the championship rounds. So, given that Canelo improved on his previous performance (while Golovkin didn't), is it really odd that he'd be viewed as doing better in the rematch?

The 'oddness', I find, is that the argument for Golovkin having actually won his last three bouts seems to rest almost entirely on punch stats and, in particular, him landing more jabs than his opponent. Now that's what I call a curiosity.

Personally, I think the only real bias here is that which has been shown by the press and television media, in favor of Golovkin.

 

Let us see.

Any of them picking up a strap after his retirement, would be significant!

 

But Golovkin still won both fights, and lost them both on the cards!

That is the bottom line.

 

OK - So, Jacobs regaining a strap, which he will likely do, no matter who he has to beat to win it, will be a significant boost to Golovkin's all time status?

That scenario, being highly probably, will not really change my view on Golovkin's historical status too much, to be honest.

 

That might be how you see your bottom line, but I don't view it in such an absolute way.

I don't think Golovkin won both of the fights. Neither of his performances against Canelo were sufficient enough for there to be a complaint of bias. He particularly fell short in the rematch; too far off to question the verdict with genuine certitude, in my opinion.

I'd certainly be glad to read your analysis on how Golovkin managed to clearly win 7 of the 12 rounds in the rematch, convincingly, i.e. beyond any reasonable doubt.