• Work
  • View From Nowhere Blog
  • Writings
    • Metamodern Times
    • Time for Toronto to decide whether it wants to keep its artists
    • A Search For Meaning & A Hat Tip To Metamodernism
  • Shop Giclee Prints
  • Biography
  • Contact
  • Menu

Andrew V Kennedy

  • Work
  • View From Nowhere Blog
  • Writings
    • Metamodern Times
    • Time for Toronto to decide whether it wants to keep its artists
    • A Search For Meaning & A Hat Tip To Metamodernism
  • Shop Giclee Prints
  • Biography
  • Contact


 

©2026 AVK

Canelo-Golovkin 3: Wartime

September 05, 2022 in Boxing

There are moments in boxing when the trajectory of time, history, and personality converge to create a moment of combustion. Whether it’s age or styles, personal motivation or bad blood, there are times when two fighters meet at the proverbial ‘crossroads’ in the ring. Both men have decided the result of their encounter will end violently for one of them. There will be no strategic boxing to a decision victory, or trying to ‘outthink’ their opponent. Eventually they know that the question of the day will have to be settled by one method only; war. In light of world events I mean ‘war’ in the boxing sense of course. A pitched, violent battle of wills where one man’s physical body will give out while his soul yearns to carry on. I could be wrong, but this is where I believe the third bout between current undisputed super middleweight champion Canelo Alvarez and current middleweight champion Gennadiy ‘GGG’ Golovkin is headed.

The sport of boxing has seen the flow of events coalesce into a combustible force before. Two older fights that come to mind are the 1975 heavyweight championship bout between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier (The Thrilla in Manilla), or the singular middleweight explosion in 1985 between Marvin Hagler and Tommy Hearns (The War). Each fight had bad blood stewing, and fighters who were willing and determined to leave everything in the ring. Fate had brought each man to the point where they knew they weren’t just entering a standard boxing match, but were instead moving towards an inflection point or paradigm shift.

In more recent times we’ve seen bouts like the fourth and final meeting between Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez in 2012. Or the third and seemingly final heavyweight championship fight between Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder in 2021. Both fights had a measure of historical bad blood. But it was a combination of age, styles, and individual wills that led each fight to evolve towards a certain brutal drama.

Pacquiao and Marquez meshed perfectly stylistically. With Pacquiao's default mode being high powered offense, and Marquez's default mode being that of a deadly precise counter puncher. But it was their inner decision to bring finality to their rivalry that fueled their memorable clash. Their individual will's ruled the day. The same could be said for Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder. Fury had decided that the only way to truly beat Wilder's nuclear punching power was to bully him into submission. And like Pacquiao and Marquez, the individual will's of Fury and Wilder had determined that their rivalry would come to an end, one way or another.

On September 17th, Canelo Alvarez and Gennadiy Golovkin will carry on the lineage of boxing's fated clashes. Stylistically, neither fighter is at the age, or has shown a recent fighting temperament that would suggest they will move, or 'dance' around the ring. Golovkin has always moved forward with measured aggression against his opponents. While Canelo, as he has marched up the weight classes, has evolved into a bully type power puncher. This leads me to believe that eventually this fight will end up in the proverbial 'phone booth'. Where the two men stand face to face and deliver pain until the body or mind of one is forced to break.

As for individual will and bad blood; the staredown between the two fighters during a June press conference served as a visual metaphor for their personal distaste. The fighters started about two feet apart from one another, yet Canelo almost immediately moved his face to within six inches of Golovkin’s face. The fighters would be locked in an icy staredown for over a minute, with Canelo trying to keep his gaze on Golovkin even as they parted ways for the obligatory photo op. From observing the encounter, it seemed that Canelo held an inner anger and determination. While Golovkin looked ready to meet Canelo’s rage with a detached, yet resolute response. In other words, the individual wills of the two men seemed aligned and in agreement that this third encounter between them would have a measure of finality.

The promoter of the bout, Matchroom Boxing’s Eddie Hearn, asked Canelo during the speaking portion of the press conference if this fight was ‘personal’ for him. Canelo responded by saying, ‘It’s personal for me, because he talks a lot of things, and you guys know, that’s why (it’s) personal, and I just can’t wait to be in the ring’. Canelo would go on to add that he saw Golovkin as basically two faced, someone who will only say certain things when they are not in the same room. Canelo would say of Golovkin, ‘he pretends to be a nice guy, but he’s an asshole; just be a man and say what you say’. In terms of his outlook for the fight, Canelo would say not only did he want to end the career of Golovkin, he saw the only way to finish the fight was by knocking Golovkin out. I think it is safe to say Canelo’s opinion and approach to Golovkin qualifies as bad blood.

Golovkin for his part, is naturally more reserved and detached emotionally when it comes to fighting. When asked if he took this third encounter with Canelo personally, he said, ‘I do not take this as personal, I think this is sport. I am who I am, I do not try to be like two different guys, like it’s been said, I go out to box. If he has something personal against me, I believe it is his problem, not mine’. Yet in a later interview with Yahoo Sports, Golovkin would say he ‘stood by’ his past words criticizing Canelo for failing a 2018 drug test that Canelo insisted was due to tainted meat in Mexico. Golovkin also conveyed veiled resentment for what he sees as the special treatment Canelo has received during the promotion for the fight, and the favorable judging he received in the first two fights between them.

If one were to compare Canelo and Golovkin to fictional characters, Sonny and Michael Corelone from ‘The Godfather’ would be a good juxtaposition. Sonny, like Canelo, wore his emotions on his sleeve. His temper rose frequently towards those that he felt wronged him, and he was quick to take slights as personal insults. Michael on the other hand was cool and detached like Golovkin. Yet beneath the calm exterior was a plotting, ruthless killer who felt revenge was better delivered in a cold calculating manner than with loud bravado. Both Sonny and Michael were eager for vengeance, they just sought to destroy their enemies by different means. On September 17th, Canelo Alvarez and Gennadiy Golovkin will bring their different demeanors into the ring. Yet coming along with them will be all the historical and personal ingredients that can combine for a memorable night of boxing. So when the bell rings to signify the opening of the first round, it might not just be time for a fight - it might be time for war.

Tags: Canelo Alvarez, Gennadiy Golovkin, GGG, Boxing

The Looming DeSantis

September 03, 2022 in democracy, politics

If it’s not clear to you by now that former president Donald Trump is a threat to the healthy functioning of American democracy, then I’m not really sure what more can be done to convince you. Maybe it would take Trump coming out and declaring his intention to crown himself president for life if he were to occupy the oval office again. But make no mistake, even if you don’t believe it, Trump has shown all of us exactly who he is. The only question that remains is how those that come after him in the Republican Party will deal with the political climate he’s left behind.

When historians look back at Trump’s time at the center of American politics, they might see something even more significant than his spurring of violence on January 6th 2021, or his friendly dealings with foreign dictators like Vladimir Putin. Trump’s constant assault on the press, his trashing of democratic norms, and his disdain for the institutions of democratic government have created a kind of ‘meta-political’ paradigm shift. This basically means that Trump’s autocratic behavior, even though it didn’t succeed, has created a new political landscape. One where elections can be constantly challenged, laws can be ignored, and violence is seen as a justified means to political ends. When it is all said and done, Trump’s greatest impact on American democracy might not be attempting its destruction, but paving the way for its unraveling.

In the 2020 book, ‘Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell Into Tyranny’, historian Edward J. Watts shows how Rome’s republic crumbled bit by bit, leader by leader over decades. Political and cultural norms faded, stabilizing customs were discarded, and political violence slowly became normalized. This kind of ‘birds eye’ view of historical drift is only really possible with centuries of hindsight. Yet this is precisely the kind of notion I believe historians will see when they look back on the current situation in the United States. Like a historical character out of Watt’s book, Donald Trump has opened the door for a truly malign actor to capitalize on the democratic vacuum he will eventually leave in the Republican Party.

As of now, it seems a fait accompli that Florida governor Ron DeSantis is the heir apparent to Trump’s hold on the Republican Party. Assuming DeSantis wins his upcoming reelection contest, he will be the favorite to become the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2024, or 2028. Recently profiled by Dexter Filkins in the New Yorker, DeSantis has a sterling resume: educated at Yale and Harvard despite a working class background, an accomplished athlete through college, and a military veteran who served in Iraq. Unlike Donald Trump, DeSantis can retain information, focus on important matters, and make strategic plans. Yet unfortunately, just like Trump, DeSantis seems motivated by resentment and intoxicated with wielding concentrated power. In other words, the great fear now is that DeSantis could turn out to be a smart, capable version of his orange faced predecessor.

DeSantis has seemingly embraced the ‘Trumpian’ way of governance. He relishes battling the press in the manner Trump did so effectively. That is to say effective in such a way as creating an ‘enemy’ to battle, conquer, and rally his followers in opposition. Authoritarians need a great ideological enemy to focus mass rage. Think Emmanuel Goldstein in George Orwell’s novel, ‘1984’. The list of mainstream media failings is long, yet it doesn’t preclude the fact that DeSantis and others are now using ‘the media’ as a propaganda strawman. As the ‘Inner Party’ knew in Orwell’s tale, DeSantis knows the power that anger and fear can have over a citizenry.

He has taken up arms in the culture wars of the day. Passing vague legislation to regulate gender discussion in schools, battling a ‘woke’ Disney corporation, and making a show of dismissing a Florida State Attorney that didn’t ideologically tow the party line. All of this could be seen as cynical positioning for a future presidential run. After all, if the Republican Party has become a cult of personality around Donald Trump; then the best way to take control of the party would be to mimic the personality of Donald Trump. This begs the question, is DeSantis a true MAGA believer? Or is he just playing a role to get ahead.

What would DeSantis do if he were to win the Republican nomination, and the presidency, running in the mold of Donald Trump. Would he remain within the norms of democratic government despite its weakened state? Or would he give in to his worst impulses and take advantage of the guardrails Trump left in shambles. Would he speak the truth to his millions of loyal followers about the sanctity of American elections, even if he lost? Or would he continue to feed Trump’s ‘big lie’ that the system is rigged if your chosen Republican candidate faces defeat.

I think if this were thirty years ago, Ron DeSantis would be a typical Bush-like Republican. Lots of shitty policies, but a certain fidelity to the Constitution, the rule of law, etc. But in 2022 DeSantis has the levers of authoritarianism at his disposal. Will he be able to resist them? As Edward Watts showed us, when individuals arrive on the historical scene amid the winds of authoritarian creep, very often their impulses get the best of them. I fear DeSantis will be no different.

Tags: DeSantis, Trump
Prev / Next
  • May 2026
    • May 28, 2026 The Pitfalls of Illusion: The Ngogo Chimps, War, and Humanity May 28, 2026
  • April 2026
    • Apr 1, 2026 From Iraq to Iran: The Rise of American Autocratic War Apr 1, 2026
  • January 2026
    • Jan 20, 2026 Into The Abyss Jan 20, 2026
  • October 2025
    • Oct 26, 2025 The Metamodern Man of Steel Oct 26, 2025
  • August 2025
    • Aug 2, 2025 Zohran Mamdani's Success Shows it's Time for a New Economic Paradigm Aug 2, 2025
  • July 2025
    • Jul 2, 2025 The Last of Us and The Will to Meaning Jul 2, 2025
  • May 2025
    • May 26, 2025 Art and Freedom: Barbara Kruger Manifests Solidarity May 26, 2025
  • April 2025
    • Apr 7, 2025 Art and Freedom in the Age of Autocracy Apr 7, 2025
  • March 2025
    • Mar 17, 2025 Ramblings on Autocracy, The Good, and True Freedom Mar 17, 2025
  • January 2025
    • Jan 30, 2025 Seeing Reality in Order to Find a Universal Morality Jan 30, 2025
  • December 2024
    • Dec 7, 2024 Autocratic America Dec 7, 2024
  • October 2024
    • Oct 1, 2024 Abolish the Death Penalty. It's Unjust and Outdated Oct 1, 2024
  • September 2024
    • Sep 9, 2024 Daemon Targaryen Sees the Truth Sep 9, 2024
  • August 2024
    • Aug 18, 2024 Nostalgia Examined: Was it Really Better Back Then? Aug 18, 2024
  • July 2024
    • Jul 19, 2024 The New Right Has Arrived - Where is the New Left? Jul 19, 2024
  • June 2024
    • Jun 22, 2024 The Last D-Day Jun 22, 2024
    • Jun 3, 2024 The Problem With Capitalism Jun 3, 2024
  • April 2024
    • Apr 27, 2024 Eisenhower's Prophecy Apr 27, 2024
    • Apr 4, 2024 Dark Age Now Apr 4, 2024
  • March 2024
    • Mar 7, 2024 Art and the Human Mind: An Examination Mar 7, 2024
  • January 2024
    • Jan 6, 2024 Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis; A Hegelian Path to Metamodernism Jan 6, 2024
  • December 2023
    • Dec 4, 2023 Pondering the Implications of Non-Human Intelligence (NHI) Dec 4, 2023
  • November 2023
    • Nov 11, 2023 An Assessment of Our Situation Nov 11, 2023
  • October 2023
    • Oct 7, 2023 The Metaphysical Map of Pro Wrestling Oct 7, 2023
  • August 2023
    • Aug 26, 2023 Pondering the Nature of Power Aug 26, 2023
  • July 2023
    • Jul 15, 2023 On Canadian National Identity (Or Lack Thereof) Jul 15, 2023
  • June 2023
    • Jun 17, 2023 On Truth and Belief Jun 17, 2023
  • May 2023
    • May 24, 2023 The Metamodern Guardians May 24, 2023
  • April 2023
    • Apr 30, 2023 On Mass Shootings Apr 30, 2023
    • Apr 4, 2023 AI Is About to Decimate Millions of Jobs. It's Time for Universal Basic Income Apr 4, 2023
    • Apr 1, 2023 On Free Will Apr 1, 2023
  • February 2023
    • Feb 28, 2023 A Case For Art and 'The Good' Feb 28, 2023
  • January 2023
    • Jan 16, 2023 The Problem With AI 'Art' Generators Jan 16, 2023
  • December 2022
    • Dec 29, 2022 On Hoffman's Theory of Conscious Agents and Morality Dec 29, 2022
    • Dec 10, 2022 The Metamodern MCU Dec 10, 2022
  • November 2022
    • Nov 13, 2022 Downstream From the Oligarchy Nov 13, 2022
  • October 2022
    • Oct 23, 2022 'The Wire' as a Bridge to the Metamodern Oct 23, 2022
    • Oct 10, 2022 Art 'Of its Time'; A Causal Examination Oct 10, 2022
  • September 2022
    • Sep 24, 2022 Consciousness as the Moral Axiom Sep 24, 2022
    • Sep 8, 2022 The Individual and the Metamodern Hypergraph Sep 8, 2022
    • Sep 5, 2022 Canelo-Golovkin 3: Wartime Sep 5, 2022
    • Sep 3, 2022 The Looming DeSantis Sep 3, 2022