As an official "win" on his resume, you could say Nelson. Or McGirt. Ya know, two Hall of Famers. You also got non-HOFmers like Haugen and JL Ramirez, who were far better than any legitimate Golov victims. I would leave an ATG like Pea out of a Borat topic. It's an insult to Pernell.
It was you who initially brought up the "defining fight" point. You said GGG won the fight, virtually everybody who saw it agrees Golovkin was robbed. Since you're a fan of one you decide that the official decision means zero in one fight, and matters little in the other.
Canelo-GGG I is way overblown as a robbery. A draw is a very fair result, it's just the way it got there which was awful. Chavez-Whitaker was just plain bad.
This. Whitaker-Chavez was the second worst draw of all time. The only one thats worse is Lewis-Holy 1. Canelo was a HELLUVA lot more competitive than Chavez and Holy were.
I disagree, I thought G pretty much dominated the fight from around the 4th round onward. Canelo spent about two-thirds of the fight on the defensive while G clearly outjabbed and outworked him by a mile. It was the Nelson-Fenech of the modern era IMO.
'it's just the way it got there which was awful' I already know the 118-110 card was blatant corruption.
GGG clearly won both Canelo fights imo. Canelo performed much better in the second fight and it was definitely closer but the rounds had fairly clear winners for the most part. I've rescored that fight twice now and I really fail to see how anyone can have Canelo winning.
how about the other dickhead trella who had it a draw yet gave round 7 to alvarez? even the crooked broad gave that round to golovkin
Calzaghe proved himself to be better than GGG. Took him until it was too late, but in the end, he did. GGG was jobbed against Canelo but after that his resume is even worse than Joe's, which says something. MTF