UPDATE: Check out this piece, which has Golden Boy executive Bernard Hopkins offering an opinion on something Gennady Golovkin would need to do, in his opinion, to beat GBP boxer Canelo Alvarez.
Hmmm…is Hopkins maybe engaging in a psychological operation? Encouraging GGG to do something that in fact might intensify Canelo's chances of winning a rematch?
Time has marched on from the Canelo Alvarez versus Gennady Golovkin scrap, and there was debate right after as to who saw what, and the debate re-ignited after Saturday’s re-air on HBO.
The high stakes chess match of pugilism continues to stir chatter, and discussion.
Will there be a rematch? When?
And also, on the subject of tactics. Wannabee Dundees have asked why the fighting pride of Kazahkstan didn’t do more body work against the Mexican who showed one and all that he truly is a sweet scientist.
I put it to GGG trainer Abel Sanchez…what about that body work…why wasn’t there more? Was it because going to the body would allow easier transit routes to his own head, from counter-punching sniper Canelo?
“How I must answer that, is with some thoughts…Is or would Floyd Mayweather still be the pound for pound best in boxing, if he was still active? Yes,” Sanchez said. “Was he number one on 9/14/2013, when he fought and beat Saul Alvarez? Yes. Has Alvarez improved dramatically in all areas of his boxing skills, since he fought Floyd? Yes. Is the consensus amongst most that Triple G defeated Alvarez by at least two points? Yes.”
Points taken and consumed and accepted…
“No, Triple G didn’t throw a lot of body punches or do some of the things he had done in past fights. No, Triple G didn’t knock out or drop Alvarez, nor did Mayweather. So, did Triple G fight and beat a stronger, bigger and vastly improved Alvarez? Yes.
“Then, why are we criticizing/dissecting a great fight? Triple G fought the fight necessary to defeat Alvarez, as did Floyd,” Sanchez noted. “Triple G should be at the P4P top, if this criteria is considered for placement, but most will not, in fear of being labeled nut-hugger, biased, or racist. I say this because we are questioning a great fight fought by both guys. I will use a Vegas analogy, “You deal with hand that is dealt you”……not every fight will be fought the same, but still if you go by the majority of the critics, GGG won the fight by a minimum of two if not four points, so let’s enjoy the great fight.”
My take: Amen, I say. Social media is a wondrous thing, but has many downsides. One is that it allows the uninformed or less- informed-than-they-think critics to shout with a big ole bull-horn. I’ve seen critiques from writers in stories on Sanchez that I thought were quite disrespectful. REALLY disrespectful. It is a too-natural inclination, to search for the negatives, instead of focusing on the positives, in so many spheres, not just boxing commentary. I think this is another case of that, and by the way, I fall prey to that tendency too, at times. Thanks, Abel, for helping me reset. Thoughts, readers?