They’ve started their rivalry, now they need to settle it once and for all. Middleweights Canelo Alvarez and Gennady Golovkin, along with heavyweights Deontay Wilder and Tyson Fury – they simply have to fight each other at least once more. GGG and Canelo are officially 1-0-1, yet most fans have them all-even, the draw handed in after the first fight looking more like a win for Golovkin. While the two big men are all-even at 0-0-1 courtesy of another drawn verdict.
Wilder and Fury might have to get it on twice more in order to prove who the better fighter is and hopefully this will happen. Right now, though, fans are hoping they fight their rematch, and at the moment it ain’t looking too good. Thankfully, as far as the intense middleweight rivalry goes, Canelo said at yesterday’s closing presser to hype his upcoming May 4 unification showdown with Danny Jacobs that he is very much open to fighting GGG a third time.
And with Golovkin heading to DAZN (according to some reports, nothing as yet official) the rubber-match should indeed be doable. But what if Canelo loses to Jacobs? Like Wilder and Fury, who are also fighting someone else ahead of their (still hoped for) rematch and run the risk of losing, Canelo is putting his deciding fight with Triple-G in potential danger by taking on Jacobs. Of course we fans are happy with the Canelo/Jacobs fight, as solid and intriguing a fight as it really is, but given the choice, we’d have preferred to be seeing GGG colliding with Canelo on May 4.
As with the two rival, unbeaten heavyweight stars, Canelo and Golovkin have, in each other, found their career defining fight, or fights. That said, they must engage in these fights. It would be a real shame if, years from now, fans were forced to always wonder who the better fighter was: Wilder or Fury, and Canelo or Golovkin.
Both rivalries need settling, the fighters and their fans need closure. For whoever else they may fight, if it’s not Canelo next for Golovkin and if it’s not Wilder for Fury, there will be a big something missing.