Think GGG could eat that right-hand that Froch sparked Groves with?

[X]

No. GGG could not have eaten the right that Froch ruined Groves with.

Not many people could have, it was the best punch of Froch's career.

I'm going to go against the flow here ...... but I think Golovkin could well have beaten Froch had they fought. Here's why .....

I like Froch the fighter, he was teak tough, great chin, good stamina and a real fighters heart.

However, I always thought he could be outboxed. Ward proved this, and other fighters had great success against him for periods of their fights. Groves was doing a number on Carl in both fights until he gassed out and got caught. Carl's best fights and wins were when he turned their bouts into wars.

Now, and people forget this, Golovkin is actually an excellent technical boxer. He showed that against Lemieux and you don't have the amateur career that GGG had without being a top drawer skilled boxer.

If we assume GGG moved up to SM for this imaginary fight, I think he would be more cautious than h is at middleweight. He has shown a good chin so far and can walk through middleweights, but I think he would be more circumspect against someone like Froch.

Equally, GGG certainly has the power to keep Froch honest and dissuade him from charging recklessly forward.

If both guys respect the others power, it becomes more of a chess match. I think Golovkin has the superior boxing skills, a good enough chin and heavy enough hands that he wins a points decision by surprising everyone and turning into a boxer instead of a knockout machine..

[IamInuit]

Nothing you have said changes that Hagler, Monzon and Hopkins division talent was weak which is the case for a lot of long term champs. The fact of the matter is that GGG division is a joke compared to those ones name a person GGG beat that worth a shit or not journey man who could not win against anyone that was talented. GGG crushing ok fighters and cans in division that make the hw seem like its the golden years again its a total joke. I understand why he stays there because it easier road it is the reason why Canelo has stayed were he is at it is the easy road. Just do not compare a fighter who has beaten fuck all to a guy who beat legit hall of famers they have not faced the same class not that can all change and GGG could move up or beat some great guy but until then he is a can crusher.

Huh? I never said they were not weak, I said they were as weak or weaker then Golovkins. Nothing you have said changes that fact or the fact that Golovkin has dominated an equal division in a much more decisive manner.

Ok so you changed up in the second sentence. Look man those three had a shit show division and one could easily make the case that minus the welterweights Golovkins middleweight run is better then theirs. You don’t need to be Nat Fleischer to figure that out. FFs Monzon fought three guys in a row that were, 5/13/3-5/3/2 and 5/14/3 and those were his 55th 56th and 57th. In his 68th fight he fought a guy making his freakin debut. His first 50 fights were pathetic. You want to talk “cans” well Monzon took over the soup factory. He finally fought Briscoe after he cleaned up the tomato aisle and that’s the best middleweight he ever fought his entire freakin career and managed a draw against the 19 and 4 fighter. Then managed to beat him 8 years later. Like I said earlier which you ignored, all three of them made their notoriety on the backs of x-welters . Those are FACTS that anyone can check.

If you have the time go ahead and compare the actual middleweights they fought and put up the records of those he beat and who they beat. It’s a dog and pony show. Who are these great MIDDLEWEIGHTS Monzon beat? Name them and back it up. Simply saying their notches are better does not make it so anymore then the legend affixed to their names regarding the middleweight division. Monzon was elevated to plastic/fake Alvarez God status by beating up old dogs like Naples and Griffith. They were not middleweights and long past their prime. Oh sorry I forgot the shot Valdez and good ole Nino. Yeah that’s quite the resume.
Now Hopkins. Who did he beat? Any ATG’s? Any Hall of Famers? Keith Holmes? Allen x3 and actually drew with Mercado. Was Echols the man? No it was Tito, an x-welter and Oscars laughable duke that made him and then he lost twice to Turrets Taylor. I don’t care what he did after. This is about middleweight and the ridiculous double standards applied no matter how many times they are proven unjustifiable.

And Hagler? Vito Antuofermo in his 50th fight and lost to the power houses of Watts and Monroe? What ATG middleweights did he beat? Minter, Hamsho? Hagler made his mark against x-welters and one x-lightweight in Duran. People continuously rip the Kazaks resume a new asshole and then go on to worship the three mentioned. Well there is not a standard for them and one for Golovkin. If you want to scrutinize then scrutinize but be objective about it. The point is not to run down these guys but to show the incredible double standards. Makes sense though when you consider a total fake champion who never even fought a middleweight and vacated rather than fight this man is still the money man.


And again, like I said, it’s a shame that the massive welterweight “stars” of today or those at 54 won’t move up and allow Golvkin to bask in the same celebrity. And again point here is while people run down and use Golovkins comp level they have to realize the FACT that these other guys fought middleweights at the same level.

None of them can be blamed for the cards they are dealt or be expected to do something different. None of these men had crystal balls. They were middleweights who fought who was there at the time and Monzon has perhaps the worst resume middleweight wise in boxing history and for some reason makes the top 3 to 5 on atg lists. You know why that is? It’s because of the eye tests some would say. They will say that he was special while he beat up the local shrubbery. It’s pretty easy to look special slapping around that lot. People will say the same about Hagler and Hopkins but justifiably so and I’d be one of them and the same reasoning applies to Golovkin and there is more than ample evidence to back that up. If I didn’t feel that way you would see me accusing them of fighting cans and making a name for themselves off midgets.

Too bad all of them could not have fought at the same time but that kind of magic does not happen in this division. And if it happened today they wouldn’t fight anyway. That’s it for me in response to this. The middle weight division with few exceptions has always been mediocre and dominated one guy and then the rest. The class of the field through many eras that would compete against these dominant fighters has always been average and could all be called journeymen. If there is a degree of separation, it’s pretty slight.

[Mr140]

Nothing you have said changes that Hagler, Monzon and Hopkins division talent was weak which is the case for a lot of long term champs. The fact of the matter is that GGG division is a joke compared to those ones name a person GGG beat that worth a shit or not journey man who could not win against anyone that was talented. GGG crushing ok fighters and cans in division that make the hw seem like its the golden years again its a total joke. I understand why he stays there because it easier road it is the reason why Canelo has stayed were he is at it is the easy road. Just do not compare a fighter who has beaten fuck all to a guy who beat legit hall of famers they have not faced the same class not that can all change and GGG could move up or beat some great guy but until then he is a can crusher.

Huh? I never said they were not weak, I said they were as weak or weaker then Golovkins. Nothing you have said changes that fact or the fact that Golovkin has dominated an equal division in a much more decisive manner.

Ok so you changed up in the second sentence. Look man those three had a shit show division and one could easily make the case that minus the welterweights Golovkins middleweight run is better then theirs. You don’t need to be Nat Fleischer to figure that out. FFs Monzon fought three guys in a row that were, 5/13/3-5/3/2 and 5/14/3 and those were his 55th 56th and 57th. In his 68th fight he fought a guy making his freakin debut. His first 50 fights were pathetic. You want to talk “cans” well Monzon took over the soup factory. He finally fought Briscoe after he cleaned up the tomato aisle and that’s the best middleweight he ever fought his entire freakin career and managed a draw against the 19 and 4 fighter. Then managed to beat him 8 years later. Like I said earlier which you ignored, all three of them made their notoriety on the backs of x-welters . Those are FACTS that anyone can check.

If you have the time go ahead and compare the actual middleweights they fought and put up the records of those he beat and who they beat. It’s a dog and pony show. Who are these great MIDDLEWEIGHTS Monzon beat? Name them and back it up. Simply saying their notches are better does not make it so anymore then the legend affixed to their names regarding the middleweight division. Monzon was elevated to plastic/fake Alvarez God status by beating up old dogs like Naples and Griffith. They were not middleweights and long past their prime. Oh sorry I forgot the shot Valdez and good ole Nino. Yeah that’s quite the resume.
Now Hopkins. Who did he beat? Any ATG’s? Any Hall of Famers? Keith Holmes? Allen x3 and actually drew with Mercado. Was Echols the man? No it was Tito, an x-welter and Oscars laughable duke that made him and then he lost twice to Turrets Taylor. I don’t care what he did after. This is about middleweight and the ridiculous double standards applied no matter how many times they are proven unjustifiable.

And Hagler? Vito Antuofermo in his 50th fight and lost to the power houses of Watts and Monroe? What ATG middleweights did he beat? Minter, Hamsho? Hagler made his mark against x-welters and one x-lightweight in Duran. People continuously rip the Kazaks resume a new asshole and then go on to worship the three mentioned. Well there is not a standard for them and one for Golovkin. If you want to scrutinize then scrutinize but be objective about it. The point is not to run down these guys but to show the incredible double standards. Makes sense though when you consider a total fake champion who never even fought a middleweight and vacated rather than fight this man is still the money man.


And again, like I said, it’s a shame that the massive welterweight “stars” of today or those at 54 won’t move up and allow Golvkin to bask in the same celebrity. And again point here is while people run down and use Golovkins comp level they have to realize the FACT that these other guys fought middleweights at the same level.

None of them can be blamed for the cards they are dealt or be expected to do something different. None of these men had crystal balls. They were middleweights who fought who was there at the time and Monzon has perhaps the worst resume middleweight wise in boxing history and for some reason makes the top 3 to 5 on atg lists. You know why that is? It’s because of the eye tests some would say. They will say that he was special while he beat up the local shrubbery. It’s pretty easy to look special slapping around that lot. People will say the same about Hagler and Hopkins but justifiably so and I’d be one of them and the same reasoning applies to Golovkin and there is more than ample evidence to back that up. If I didn’t feel that way you would see me accusing them of fighting cans and making a name for themselves off midgets.

Too bad all of them could not have fought at the same time but that kind of magic does not happen in this division. And if it happened today they wouldn’t fight anyway. That’s it for me in response to this. The middle weight division with few exceptions has always been mediocre and dominated one guy and then the rest. The class of the field through many eras that would compete against these dominant fighters has always been average and could all be called journeymen. If there is a degree of separation, it’s pretty slight.

I do not get what i am disagreeing with you with Monzon division was weak and Hagler was only tad better then ggg in my eyes because Hearns was a success up till lhw. Hopkins divison i said was weak as shit but he moved up so i am leaving him alone. So that leaves GGG who fought cans and journeyman and comparing to Froch who has beaten hofs and been against every big names he could fight. I was saying i really do not know what GGG could do against someone worth a shit because i have not seen in with a elite fighter before so who knows what will happen in that fight. That was were i am coming from if you see it differently thats cool i am not sure what i am arguing with you about. Because for most part it seems you agree with me but feel i am being tad to harsh on GGG which may be true i guess.

[Mr140]

Two of my favourite posters going at it like Hagler v Hearns - nice.

Really glad your still around master i really miss cut and saddo and hunter never see any of them anymore which sucks. Tell does it seem i am being to harsh on GGG or do you think the division is the worst it has ever been at am i the only one that thinks he a can crusher mostly. Do not get me wrong GGG is talented but i can not see a name on his resume that even worth remembering and a guy like Froch who i was never a fan of even i admit wins over Kessler, Pascal, AA and Taylor are proof he could beat elites. To me this is kinda like Moore vs Jones one guy was simple crushing no bodies but seemed invincible and the other guy was beating top guys in his division just like you know that guy can beat the best the other guy its kinda iffy if he can or not because there nothing to go off of. Also about the being able to take the punch has GGG faced a hard hitter that is in the league of a froch before i know i never seen him hurt so GGG must have a chin there just so much unanswered question about guy which sucks because the talent outside of Canelo is kinda at 175 and that pretty big step up in weight class to go at it.

[Master]

Two of my favourite posters going at it like Hagler v Hearns - nice.

Really glad your still around master i really miss cut and saddo and hunter never see any of them anymore which sucks. Tell does it seem i am being to harsh on GGG or do you think the division is the worst it has ever been at am i the only one that thinks he a can crusher mostly. Do not get me wrong GGG is talented but i can not see a name on his resume that even worth remembering and a guy like Froch who i was never a fan of even i admit wins over Kessler, Pascal, AA and Taylor are proof he could beat elites. To me this is kinda like Moore vs Jones one guy was simple crushing no bodies but seem invincible and the other guy was beating top guys in his division just like you know that guy can beat the best the other guy its kinda iffy if he can or not because there nothing to go off of.

I agree with you I think Froch would win because of the size but GGG is a quality fighter in an OK division.

[sanatogen]

Watching the Froch-Grove II ending, it looked as if Groves still had his legs about him judging by the way he got up when referee was waving the fight off.

[Master]

Watching the Froch-Grove II ending, it looked as if Groves still had his legs about him judging by the way he got up when referee was waving the fight off.

Hence why they had the rematch and Froch won with a devastating KO.