Comments Thread For: Golovkin's Trainer Dismissive of Immediate Third Fight With Canelo

[Chollo Vista]

you simple fool... That was my point... The biggest names On his resume are primarily 35 and over. So I mentioned the biggest names he's faced and you can see clear as day, how many were 35 and over and who wasn't.

Let's look at some of the names from the P4P top 10 and their age shall we:



Lomachenko - 32
Crawford - 32
Usyk - 33
Golovkin - 38
Artur Beterbiev - 35
Manny Pacquiao - 41

We have 6 out of 10 fighters in the P4P Top 10 that are over 30. 3 of which are 35 or older. So if anyone beats Golovkin, Beterbiev or Pacquiao at this point would be considered a joke?

Based off your logic, no one can beat Beterbiev right now or the win will be null and void because Artur is 35. And in 2-3 years, no one can beat Loma, Crawford or Usyk or else it won't count.

The fcuk is wrong with you man?

What, did you want me to mention the great amir khan over mosley? Or the legendary beefy Smith... Rocky fielding... Angulo... Kirkland... Baldomir... Cintron??? Foh.

No you dumbass idiot, I laid out who you need to be concerned with you illiterate troll:

- Trout #3
- Lara #2
- Cotto - #1
- Golovkin - #1
- Smith - #9
- Jacobs - #2
- Kovalev - #1

For the 5th time... Did I defend GGG's resume at any point? I've already told you his resume was ass. But... Canelo still ducked him and deserved to lose to the past prime ggg when they eventually fought.

Once again, Golovkin asked for a catchweight against Rosado and Ward, but refused one against Canelo? Why?

And if Canelo deserved to lose than G deserved to lose to Jacobs and Derv.

One can make the argument that SRL deserved to lose to Hearns in the 2nd fight. Or Mayweather deserved to lose to Castillo in the first fight. Or Ali should've lost to Norton. On and on.

As far as resumes in boxing... Yeah, he has a top resume

Actually he doesn't, Manny Pacquiao does, but Canelo isn't far behind in 2nd.

... In comparison to trash because this generation is garbage compared to past generations when it comes to making the best fights available vs other prime opponents. Before, guys wanted to face each other at their best... From the eras of Leonard, Hagler, hearns, duran, to the era of Oscar, Trinidad, mosley, vargas. But this group whether it's golden boy, or pbc or top rank, politics plays a bigger factor than it ever has. There's no reason why Crawford vs spence shouldn't have happened, or Charlo, andrade and Canelo fighting each other and so on. But these guys are ****** to their promotors and don't demand these fights. So as far as canelos resume..

Fair enough

Yeah, he's the best of the worst. But he's more accountable than the others because he's the star. If he wanted to face any of these prime guys, he could demand it and golden boy would bend at his will. But instead, since the Lara fight 7 yrs ago he's chosen to focus on minimizing risk by always facing guys that are either 35 and older (Cotto, ggg, Kovalev) , the obvious weakest champ in a division (Smith, fielding) , or guys coming off poor performances.. With hardly any exceptions.

Wrong again.

Minimizing risk?

- Bouts in which he was the underdog – 3 (Mayweather, Golovkin 1 and 2)
- Bouts in which he was a 5 to 1 favorite or less – 9
- Bouts in which he was the 20 to 1 favorite or more - 3

That's a 3-9-3 ratio. The only one with a greater ratio is Manny Pacquiao at 6-19-0... What the hell are you talking about man? No one in boxing, right now, has taken on more risk than legendary Manny Pacquiao or Canelo Alverez

Now stop ducking this post you slimey piece of schit

[Chollo Vista]

No one can beat Artur Beterbiev right now or it won't count according to Jab jab boom

what an idiot

[Jab jab boom]

Lol but here you are back despite saying you'd be a man of your word and "show me"

Why stop at just underdog stats? Finish the other 2 categories and stop cherry picking.

Also, what's Trouts record as an elite fighter? For the odds concept to apply, you actually have to win fights and be considered top of your class. You might as well post stats from Emmanuel Burton, you idiot. Stop exposing your casual boxing knowledge of the sport.

Then go back and address my post that you ducked you skinny neck coward

you wanna pretend to be a tough guy and send me private messages like a creepy stalker and act like you know s***t about boxing??... I know more about boxing both inside and outside of the ring than you ever will. So I decided to once again show you how ****** and inferior you are.

Your own argument blew up in your face so you're trying to move the goal post. Trout has been an underdog more than Canelo. Gabe Rosado has been an underdog more than Canelo. Julio cesar Chavez Jr, Danny Garcia and Shawn porter have all been underdogs at least as many times as Canelo. So your ret@rd logic blew up right in your face. Your point was Canelo challenges himself more than anyone else other than pac. False!! Now you want to change it and talk about wins vs losses. That's skewed because most believe Canelo deserved to lose all 3 of those fights where he was the underdog. Best case scenario is he could be 1-2. The scorecards have him 1-1-1. So what's the big fkn deal? Danny Garcia is 2-1 in the 3 fights he was an underdog in and he's known as the ultimate cherry picker. So does that prove anything to you in how his career compares to Canelo?? Lmaoo
So provide a valid argument, cut it out with your bulls*** copy and paste stats like a fkn dweeb and make a valid point. You little f@g.

[Chollo Vista]

you wanna pretend to be a tough guy and send me private messages like a creepy stalker and act like you know s***t about boxing??... I know more about boxing both inside and outside of the ring than you ever will. So I decided to once again show you how ****** and inferior you are.

Your own argument blew up in your face so you're trying to move the goal post. Trout has been an underdog more than Canelo. Gabe Rosado has been an underdog more than Canelo. Julio cesar Chavez Jr, Danny Garcia and Shawn porter have all been underdogs at least as many times as Canelo. So your ret@rd logic blew up right in your face. Your point was Canelo challenges himself more than anyone else other than pac. False!! Now you want to change it and talk about wins vs losses. That's skewed because most believe Canelo deserved to lose all 3 of those fights where he was the underdog. Best case scenario is he could be 1-2. The scorecards have him 1-1-1. So what's the big fkn deal? Danny Garcia is 2-1 in the 3 fights he was an underdog in and he's known as the ultimate cherry picker. So does that prove anything to you in how his career compares to Canelo?? Lmaoo
So provide a valid argument, cut it out with your bulls*** copy and paste stats like a fkn dweeb and make a valid point. You little f@g.

You really are Breadman, huh? I had no idea you were such a fcuking idiot in real life.

Why don't you tell me how Darnelle Boone took more "risks"... We're talking context, you idiot, context!

Boone faced Stevenson, Ward, Kovalev, Lara, Pascal, Stevens, etc. Of course we're not talking about guys like Boone you idiot. Try to keep up Bread.

Secondly, I hope you're not a coward in real life like you are on here when you can't even address a simple post:

you simple fool... That was my point... The biggest names On his resume are primarily 35 and over. So I mentioned the biggest names he's faced and you can see clear as day, how many were 35 and over and who wasn't.

Let's look at some of the names from the P4P top 10 and their age shall we:



Lomachenko - 32
Crawford - 32
Usyk - 33
Golovkin - 38
Artur Beterbiev - 35
Manny Pacquiao - 41

We have 6 out of 10 fighters in the P4P Top 10 that are over 30. 3 of which are 35 or older. So if anyone beats Golovkin, Beterbiev or Pacquiao at this point would be considered a joke?

Based off your logic, no one can beat Beterbiev right now or the win will be null and void because Artur is 35. And in 2-3 years, no one can beat Loma, Crawford or Usyk or else it won't count.

The fcuk is wrong with you man?

What, did you want me to mention the great amir khan over mosley? Or the legendary beefy Smith... Rocky fielding... Angulo... Kirkland... Baldomir... Cintron??? Foh.

No you dumbass idiot, I laid out who you need to be concerned with you illiterate troll:

- Trout #3
- Lara #2
- Cotto - #1
- Golovkin - #1
- Smith - #9
- Jacobs - #2
- Kovalev - #1

For the 5th time... Did I defend GGG's resume at any point? I've already told you his resume was ass. But... Canelo still ducked him and deserved to lose to the past prime ggg when they eventually fought.

Once again, Golovkin asked for a catchweight against Rosado and Ward, but refused one against Canelo? Why?

And if Canelo deserved to lose than G deserved to lose to Jacobs and Derv.

One can make the argument that SRL deserved to lose to Hearns in the 2nd fight. Or Mayweather deserved to lose to Castillo in the first fight. Or Ali should've lost to Norton. On and on.

As far as resumes in boxing... Yeah, he has a top resume

Actually he doesn't, Manny Pacquiao does, but Canelo isn't far behind in 2nd.

... In comparison to trash because this generation is garbage compared to past generations when it comes to making the best fights available vs other prime opponents. Before, guys wanted to face each other at their best... From the eras of Leonard, Hagler, hearns, duran, to the era of Oscar, Trinidad, mosley, vargas. But this group whether it's golden boy, or pbc or top rank, politics plays a bigger factor than it ever has. There's no reason why Crawford vs spence shouldn't have happened, or Charlo, andrade and Canelo fighting each other and so on. But these guys are ****** to their promotors and don't demand these fights. So as far as canelos resume..

Fair enough

Yeah, he's the best of the worst. But he's more accountable than the others because he's the star. If he wanted to face any of these prime guys, he could demand it and golden boy would bend at his will. But instead, since the Lara fight 7 yrs ago he's chosen to focus on minimizing risk by always facing guys that are either 35 and older (Cotto, ggg, Kovalev) , the obvious weakest champ in a division (Smith, fielding) , or guys coming off poor performances.. With hardly any exceptions.

Wrong again.

Minimizing risk?

- Bouts in which he was the underdog – 3 (Mayweather, Golovkin 1 and 2)
- Bouts in which he was a 5 to 1 favorite or less – 9
- Bouts in which he was the 20 to 1 favorite or more - 3

That's a 3-9-3 ratio. The only one with a greater ratio is Manny Pacquiao at 6-19-0... What the hell are you talking about man? No one in boxing, right now, has taken on more risk than legendary Manny Pacquiao or Canelo Alverez

Now stop ducking this post you slimey, slimey, piece of schit

[Jab jab boom]

You really are Breadman, huh? I had no idea you were such a fcuking idiot in real life.

Why don't you tell me how Darnelle Boone took more "risks"... We're talking context, you idiot, context!

Boone faces Stevenson, Ward, Kovalev, Lara, etc. Of course we're not talking about guys like Boone you idiot. Try to keep up Bread.

Secondly, I hope you're not a coward in real life like you are on here when you can't even address a simple post:



Let's look at some of the names from the P4P top 10 and their age shall we:



Lomachenko - 32
Crawford - 32
Usyk - 33
Golovkin - 38
Artur Beterbiev - 35
Manny Pacquiao - 41

We have 6 out of 10 fighters in the P4P Top 10 that are over 30. 3 of which are 35 or older. So if anyone beats Golovkin, Beterbiev or Pacquiao at this point would be considered a joke?

Based off your logic, no one can beat Beterbiev right now or the win will be null and void because Artur is 35. And in 2-3 years, no one can beat Loma, Crawford or Usyk or else it won't count.

The fcuk is wrong with you man?



No you dumbass idiot, I laid out who you need to be concerned with you illiterate troll:

- Trout #3
- Lara #2
- Cotto - #1
- Golovkin - #1
- Smith - #9
- Jacobs - #2
- Kovalev - #1



Once again, Golovkin asked for a catchweight against Rosado and Ward, but refused one against Canelo? Why?

And if Canelo deserved to lose than G deserved to lose to Jacobs and Derv.

One can make the argument that SRL deserved to lose to Hearns in the 2nd fight. Or Mayweather deserved to lose to Castillo in the first fight. Or Ali should've lost to Norton. On and on.



Actually he doesn't, Manny Pacquiao does, but Canelo isn't far behind in 2nd.



Fair enough



Wrong again.

Minimizing risk?

- Bouts in which he was the underdog – 3 (Mayweather, Golovkin 1 and 2)
- Bouts in which he was a 5 to 1 favorite or less – 9
- Bouts in which he was the 20 to 1 favorite or more - 3

That's a 3-9-3 ratio. The only one with a greater ratio is Manny Pacquiao at 6-19-0... What the hell are you talking about man? No one in boxing, right now, has taken on more risk than legendary Manny Pacquiao or Canelo Alverez

Now stop ducking this post you slimey, slimey, piece of schit

copy and paste, copy and paste. The ultimate sign that you've been defeated. I've dissected that argument with ease. Do I need to show you your owm statement where you said you were were focusing on the number of risks? Canelo was the fighter who's taken the most risk behind pac you said. Nobody cares about fights where he was a 5-1 favorite. Focus on the fights where he was an underdog period. That shows true risk. I showed you trout took more risks and came out with the same number of wins in those fights where he was an underdog. 1. Danny Garcia had 2 wins as an underdog. Shawn porter has 1 win as an underdog. Gabe Rosado has a win as an underdog. Your argument is fkn ****** and doesn't work. So you can take those stats that you thought would work and shove them up your ass like Oscar does with kitchen utensils because they're pointless.

[Chollo Vista]

copy and paste, copy and paste.

Copy and paste until you answer the fcuking questions you cowardly b1tch

Try again

[Chollo Vista]

I had no idea Breadman was this big of an idiot in real life

I'm shocked!

[Jab jab boom]

Copy and paste until you answer the fcuking questions you cowardly b1tch

Try again

that's right, delete the rest of my response in your reply because you know your argument is s*** and has been exposed. Change your name on here all you want. I know who you are and you can't fk with me you little b***h.

[Chollo Vista]

that's right, delete the rest of my response .

Just because you type a block of text while refusing to address any of my points like by line like I did yours doesn't mean my points still aren't there.

So until your coward ass grows some balls and addresses my points, I'm going to continue to expose you for the coward you are, Breadman

[Jab jab boom]

Lol but here you are back despite saying you'd be a man of your word and "show me"

Why stop at just underdog stats? Finish the other 2 categories and stop cherry picking.

Also, what's Trouts record as an elite fighter? For the odds concept to apply, you actually have to win fights and be considered top of your class. You might as well post stats from Emmanuel Burton, you idiot. Stop exposing your casual boxing knowledge of the sport.

Then go back and address my post that you ducked you skinny neck coward

you asked for the smoke and now you can't handle it. Thats how I know you're a b***h in real life too. Nobody cares about 5-1 odds. You're still a significant favorite. Challenging yourself the most is when you're the underdog. I took a s*** on your entire post that you've been saving in a folder on your phone for years..you update it regularly and you were creaming on yourself just waiting for the opportunity to use it and thought you'd establish a winning argument. I just turned your life's work into pure trash with 1 post and you're crushed right now. You really thought that lame ass argument was going to hold water?? Lmaooo.