Canelo vs Golovkin postponed until Fall 2017

[JordanwiththeWiz]

So instead of getting fights worth watching with elite talent we gotta sit back and watch them fight of bunch of cherry pick fights so they can "build" no wonder I have no interest in renewing HBO or Showtime subscriptions at least the PBC mismatches are on free TV. Can't wait to see what stooge De La Homo picks to fight Canelo in the next overpriced PPV ripoff i'm hoping it's fat man Marcos Maidana if they can drag him away from the buffet.

The only thing Maidana is fighting for the last piece of chicken

 

[mitter]

I dont believe its about being scared or anything of the sort. It IS realistically the BIGGEST upcoming fight in boxing and they need to maximize the profit each one can make before one out of two of the biggest names in boxing suffer a defeat.

Delaying the fight does a few things.

Allows the hype to build. (More money)

Allows either fighter to fight other boxers for one or a couple more pay days (More money)

Allows their careers to go unblemished for another year (because neither one will pick very risky opponents) to pursue and field other business opportunities. (More money)

Its just both teams maximizing the amount of profit before either teams biggest cash draws suffer that money draining L.

(Canelo lost to Mayweather but in the world of boxing, it was almost a given and is pretty much considered a free L, being his first)

Why does a loss have to be considered a setback that a fighter may potentially not recover from? It could set up a rematch or a series of rematches that could make each fighter that much bigger.

When the top fighters fight, someone has to lose. A fighter's visibility and reputation is often enhanced more by a loss in a big fight than a win over a no-name average fighter.


Look at Sugar Ray Leonard. He lost to Roberto Duran, and that was followed by a rematch a few months later that made Leonard even bigger.

Look at the Gatti/Ward trilogy. The first fight was epic, and it set up two epic rematches. Who won was almost an afterthought

Other examples of fighters benefiting from losses in big fights more than winning fights nobody cared about:


George Foreman losing to Evander Holyfield in 1991. Foreman showed he wasn't a fat joke beating up tomato cans, and the fact that he could hold his own for 12 rounds against a champ in his prime made people take him more seriously.

Roberto Duran losing a relatively close 15-round decision to Marvin Hagler in 1983. It was impressive that the naturally much smaller Duran was able to fight so competitively against a middleweight of Hagler's caliber. It set up a big fight for Duran against Thomas Hearns (he got KTFOed, but that's another story...)

Thomas Hearns getting KOed by Marvin Hagler in 1985. Hearns' performance in an all-time great fight made him that much bigger.

Ken Norton narrowly losing a rematch to Muhammad Ali in 1973 (after beating Ali earlier that year). The decision really could have gone either way. It showed that Norton's earlier win was no fluke, and established him as a top heavyweight. Norton then got a title shot against Foreman (he got KTFOed, but that's another story ... )

Razor Ruddock losing twice to Mike Tyson in 1991. The first time, Ruddock lost in a TKO on a controversial stoppage. That set up a big rematch where Ruddock went the full length of the fight and lost a decision. Ruddock enhanced his reputation by holding his own against Tyson, and this landed him a big 1992 fight against Lennox Lewis, with the winner to get a shot at the undisputed title. (He got KTFOed, but that's another story ...)


Evander Holyfield losing to Riddikk Bowe in 1992. Holyfield made a legendary, valiant effort against a younger, bigger, stronger top-tier fighter. It showed that Holyfield was a true top shelf heavyweight, and not just a blown-up cruiser weight beating up on and B-level heavyweights.


The list goes on ...

 

[Tide Run This]

Why does a loss have to be considered a setback that a fighter may potentially not recover from? It could set up a rematch or a series of rematches that could make each fighter that much bigger.

When the top fighters fight, someone has to lose. A fighter's visibility and reputation is often enhanced more by a loss in a big fight than a win over a no-name average fighter.


Look at Sugar Ray Leonard. He lost to Roberto Duran, and that was followed by a rematch a few months later that made Leonard even bigger.

Look at the Gatti/Ward trilogy. The first fight was epic, and it set up two epic rematches. Who won was almost an afterthought

Other examples of fighters benefiting from losses in big fights more than winning fights nobody cared about:


George Foreman losing to Evander Holyfield in 1991. Foreman showed he wasn't a fat joke beating up tomato cans, and the fact that he could hold his own for 12 rounds against a champ in his prime made people take him more seriously.

Roberto Duran losing a relatively close 15-round decision to Marvin Hagler in 1983. It was impressive that the naturally much smaller Duran was able to fight so competitively against a middleweight of Hagler's caliber. It set up a big fight for Duran against Thomas Hearns (he got KTFOed, but that's another story...)

Thomas Hearns getting KOed by Marvin Hagler in 1985. Hearns' performance in an all-time great fight made him that much bigger.

Ken Norton narrowly losing a rematch to Muhammad Ali in 1973 (after beating Ali earlier that year). The decision really could have gone either way. It showed that Norton's earlier win was no fluke, and established him as a top heavyweight. Norton then got a title shot against Foreman (he got KTFOed, but that's another story ... )

Razor Ruddock losing twice to Mike Tyson in 1991. The first time, Ruddock lost in a TKO on a controversial stoppage. That set up a big rematch where Ruddock went the full length of the fight and lost a decision. Ruddock enhanced his reputation by holding his own against Tyson, and this landed him a big 1992 fight against Lennox Lewis, with the winner to get a shot at the undisputed title. (He got KTFOed, but that's another story ...)


Evander Holyfield losing to Riddikk Bowe in 1992. Holyfield made a legendary, valiant effort against a younger, bigger, stronger top-tier fighter. It showed that Holyfield was a true top shelf heavyweight, and not just a blown-up cruiser weight beating up on and B-level heavyweights.


The list goes on ...

Yeah everyone scared to take L's boxing fans these days act like if you lose 1 fight your a bum it's the Mayweather mentality.

 

[patscorpio]

Why does a loss have to be considered a setback that a fighter may potentially not recover from? It could set up a rematch or a series of rematches that could make each fighter that much bigger.

Yeah everyone scared to take L's boxing fans these days act like if you lose 1 fight your a bum it's the Mayweather mentality.

both of these are on point

 

[Remote]

The only thing Maidana is fighting for the last piece of chicken

 

[Remote]

Why does a loss have to be considered a setback that a fighter may potentially not recover from? It could set up a rematch or a series of rematches that could make each fighter that much bigger.

When the top fighters fight, someone has to lose. A fighter's visibility and reputation is often enhanced more by a loss in a big fight than a win over a no-name average fighter.


Look at Sugar Ray Leonard. He lost to Roberto Duran, and that was followed by a rematch a few months later that made Leonard even bigger.

Look at the Gatti/Ward trilogy. The first fight was epic, and it set up two epic rematches. Who won was almost an afterthought

Other examples of fighters benefiting from losses in big fights more than winning fights nobody cared about:


George Foreman losing to Evander Holyfield in 1991. Foreman showed he wasn't a fat joke beating up tomato cans, and the fact that he could hold his own for 12 rounds against a champ in his prime made people take him more seriously.

Roberto Duran losing a relatively close 15-round decision to Marvin Hagler in 1983. It was impressive that the naturally much smaller Duran was able to fight so competitively against a middleweight of Hagler's caliber. It set up a big fight for Duran against Thomas Hearns (he got KTFOed, but that's another story...)

Thomas Hearns getting KOed by Marvin Hagler in 1985. Hearns' performance in an all-time great fight made him that much bigger.

Ken Norton narrowly losing a rematch to Muhammad Ali in 1973 (after beating Ali earlier that year). The decision really could have gone either way. It showed that Norton's earlier win was no fluke, and established him as a top heavyweight. Norton then got a title shot against Foreman (he got KTFOed, but that's another story ... )

Razor Ruddock losing twice to Mike Tyson in 1991. The first time, Ruddock lost in a TKO on a controversial stoppage. That set up a big rematch where Ruddock went the full length of the fight and lost a decision. Ruddock enhanced his reputation by holding his own against Tyson, and this landed him a big 1992 fight against Lennox Lewis, with the winner to get a shot at the undisputed title. (He got KTFOed, but that's another story ...)


Evander Holyfield losing to Riddikk Bowe in 1992. Holyfield made a legendary, valiant effort against a younger, bigger, stronger top-tier fighter. It showed that Holyfield was a true top shelf heavyweight, and not just a blown-up cruiser weight beating up on and B-level heavyweights.


The list goes on ...

Ken Norton won 2 of the fights vs Ali. And arguably all 3.

 

[FaTaL]

I dont believe its about being scared or anything of the sort. It IS realistically the BIGGEST upcoming fight in boxing and they need to maximize the profit each one can make before one out of two of the biggest names in boxing suffer a defeat.

Delaying the fight does a few things.

Allows the hype to build. (More money)

Allows either fighter to fight other boxers for one or a couple more pay days (More money)

Allows their careers to go unblemished for another year (because neither one will pick very risky opponents) to pursue and field other business opportunities. (More money)

Its just both teams maximizing the amount of profit before either teams biggest cash draws suffer that money draining L.

(Canelo lost to Mayweather but in the world of boxing, it was almost a given and is pretty much considered a free L, being his first)

You can't build hype when both fighters are fighting cans. Nobody even knows who ggg is and now your going to let him fight cans because there's no names at 160? There never fighting

 

[Tide Run This]

Glad to see this shyt is pretty much getting buried by everyone that doesn't have De La Hoya panties on he gonna give us some Canelo vs Lemieux bullshyt ass PPV and tell the public we give the fans the fights people want

 

[L. Deezy]

ahhhhh, the Mayweather tactics of waiting til your big name opponent slows down a little bit and then take the fight.

I see you Cornello

 

[FaTaL]

ahhhhh, the Mayweather tactics of waiting til your big name opponent slows down a little bit and then take the fight.

I see you Cornello

Difference is mayweather is older then pac

Nice try bitter nikka

 

[mitter]

Difference is mayweather is older then pac

Nice try bitter nikka

short attacking fighters age much more quickly than defensive technicians

 

[L. Deezy]

Difference is mayweather is older then pac

Nice try bitter nikka

whoa ho ho hoaaaaaaaa.. I touched a nerve

 

[Luke Cage]

Yeah everyone scared to take L's boxing fans these days act like if you lose 1 fight your a bum it's the Mayweather mentality.

depends on how they lose tho, if its a great fight and they lost fine.
it they just get dominated like a newb, then yeah i think they're bums now.

 

[Jay Kast]

Why does a loss have to be considered a setback that a fighter may potentially not recover from? It could set up a rematch or a series of rematches that could make each fighter that much bigger.

When the top fighters fight, someone has to lose. A fighter's visibility and reputation is often enhanced more by a loss in a big fight than a win over a no-name average fighter.


Look at Sugar Ray Leonard. He lost to Roberto Duran, and that was followed by a rematch a few months later that made Leonard even bigger.

Look at the Gatti/Ward trilogy. The first fight was epic, and it set up two epic rematches. Who won was almost an afterthought

Other examples of fighters benefiting from losses in big fights more than winning fights nobody cared about:


George Foreman losing to Evander Holyfield in 1991. Foreman showed he wasn't a fat joke beating up tomato cans, and the fact that he could hold his own for 12 rounds against a champ in his prime made people take him more seriously.

Roberto Duran losing a relatively close 15-round decision to Marvin Hagler in 1983. It was impressive that the naturally much smaller Duran was able to fight so competitively against a middleweight of Hagler's caliber. It set up a big fight for Duran against Thomas Hearns (he got KTFOed, but that's another story...)

Thomas Hearns getting KOed by Marvin Hagler in 1985. Hearns' performance in an all-time great fight made him that much bigger.

Ken Norton narrowly losing a rematch to Muhammad Ali in 1973 (after beating Ali earlier that year). The decision really could have gone either way. It showed that Norton's earlier win was no fluke, and established him as a top heavyweight. Norton then got a title shot against Foreman (he got KTFOed, but that's another story ... )

Razor Ruddock losing twice to Mike Tyson in 1991. The first time, Ruddock lost in a TKO on a controversial stoppage. That set up a big rematch where Ruddock went the full length of the fight and lost a decision. Ruddock enhanced his reputation by holding his own against Tyson, and this landed him a big 1992 fight against Lennox Lewis, with the winner to get a shot at the undisputed title. (He got KTFOed, but that's another story ...)


Evander Holyfield losing to Riddikk Bowe in 1992. Holyfield made a legendary, valiant effort against a younger, bigger, stronger top-tier fighter. It showed that Holyfield was a true top shelf heavyweight, and not just a blown-up cruiser weight beating up on and B-level heavyweights.


The list goes on ...

You can't build hype when both fighters are fighting cans. Nobody even knows who ggg is and now your going to let him fight cans because there's no names at 160? There never fighting

Mister, I actually agree with you. Though, for every fighter you mentioned - there are dozens more that never recovered from losing, stopping their momentum and effectively ending their career. It's all risk vs reward, and right now the name of the game is the least amount of risk for the most amount of reward. The fight is highly risky, bottomline. Is there a guarantee that either will lose in a salvageable fashion to where people would pay to see a rematch?

Although, this is all simply my opinion.

Fatal, this is already one of the most anticipated upcoming fights and neither have really fought very worthy adversaries if you ask me (other than Mayweather).

 

[Remote]

Mister, I actually agree with you. Though, for every fighter you mentioned - there are dozens more that never recovered from losing, stopping their momentum and effectively ending their career. It's all risk vs reward, and right now the name of the game is the least amount of risk for the most amount of reward. The fight is highly risky, bottomline. Is there a guarantee that either will lose in a salvageable fashion to where people would pay to see a rematch?

Although, this is all simply my opinion.

Fatal, this is already one of the most anticipated upcoming fights and neither have really fought very worthy adversaries if you ask me (other than Mayweather).

Who is it risky for?

Canelo? Who cares if he loses? He's still going to be a box office powerhouse with his Mexican fans.
And Golovkin? If it was risky for him, he wouldn't be pressing to fight ASAP.

GGG wanted the fight in the Spring. He agreed to take the interim fight vs Wade because Canelo and Golden Boy wanted more time...and the idea was that GGG would get his shot in September.
So Canelo fought Khan in May.

And now we're being delayed another full year?
How is this benefiting GGG at all?