How does he stack up against these guys. I don't see him beating any of them. He is young and there is no reason why you cannot gain 8 pounds or even as many as 12. If he stays at 160 who will watch anymore of his fights?
Printable View
How does he stack up against these guys. I don't see him beating any of them. He is young and there is no reason why you cannot gain 8 pounds or even as many as 12. If he stays at 160 who will watch anymore of his fights?
He'd have a legit shot at Hearns, Mugabe, and McClellan. I don't think he'd handle Hagler's workrate or RJJ's speed and power.
Ummm a lot of people.....what, you don't like boring dull decisions but you also don't like knockouts? The fuck is wrong with you?Quote:
If he stays at 160 who will watch anymore of his fights?
He beats all of them by KO
Benn would have smashed him though (depending on who got in the first illegal floor punch)
Hagler - good scrap while it lasts, Hagler wins.
Hearns - at MW , I think Golovkin catches up with him in the end.
Mugabe - GGG wins by KO sooner or later.
McLellan - bit unfair this because if he never got the injury (and we're not sure how far into the fight that happened) against Benn, who knows what would've happened. If we go with the "pre-Benn" McLellan, I'd go with McLellan in a "Hagler-Hearns" style fight.
RJJ - in his prime , RJJ not only beats GGG, but all the others on this list, and probably any MW that ever lived!
Hagler: Likely sins a tough decision due to being slightly faster. Takes some punishment and is pushed throughout though.
Hearns: out boxes GGG before wilting late and being stopped. Great fight though.
Mugabe: GGG destroys the beast and looks spectacular in the process.
G-Man: Great fight and a toss up. Think GGG could outlast him and score the k.o. when Gerald gases, but also think Gersld was a big enough puncher, fast enough, and aggressive enough to stop anyone at 160.
RJJ: Roy wins the wide decision as he is too fast and doesn't stand still long enough for GGG to land the big shots.
Alot of hype around ggg but who's he beat really a bunch of low level fighters might end up being great but he has to fight better oppositionQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
He's 33. He's not old. But I wouldn't call him young eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
he will be blown away soon. his time is over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseHe's 33. He's not old. But I wouldn't call him young eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
160 was his vacuum land.
Thank GodQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
What's "ill"? Besides YOU of course ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongThank GodQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
@Gandalf my grammar schedule is rather full right now. Can you take this remedial student for a few hours of tutoring per week?. I hear he owns a business so can probably afford $30 an hour.
;D Ok I'll play.
The facts have to be taken into account along with his statistics which are already just as impressive as many hof middleweights. He's defended the title 14 times since winning it with all of them ending in stoppages. That ties Monzon who barely fought a real live Middleweight his entire career and ends up on top 5 atg lists. He'd done that in just over 3 years. Not one other champion has sacked up in 4 years until David. Many of the other hof middles never had to deal with 2 belts let alone 4 majors and 10 minors. All of these other belt holders would have never gotten away with not fighting him in other eras if they were actually seriously wanting to be the best.
Monzon defended his titles (2) a total of 14 times and it took 7 years against meager opposition. He then retired. He's in the Hall.
Hagler defended his titles 12 times and it took him 7 years before he cough lost to Leonard and retired. He's in the hallowed place.
Hopkins defended his title 20 times and it took him 10 years and had he retired he would have gotten in.
How did Hagler get in based on the stats and competition against middleweights?
Which all time great middleweights did he fight?
Which grade A middles did he fight? Vito? Hamsho? Minter?
And Monzon, who did he beat at middleweight that were actually middleweights?
Which atg middleweight did he beat other than a too many times to the dance Briscoe?
Which grade A middleweights did he beat? Nino?
Have you looked at his first 60 or 70 fights? Pathetic is not an adequate metaphor.
Does he get in because of numbers?
Finally what if Hopkins retired after he got the big 3 or after he beat Oscar?
Would he have been deserving and if so based on what?
Which atg middleweight did he beat?
Which grade A middleweights did he beat?
Those three routinely make peoples top 10, a couple of them top 3 all time middleweights and yet for the most part and other then beating x-famous welters, they have not done anything more significant than he has and he has done it much quicker. Shame the old welters with name rec won’t fight him.
Roy Jones is my favourite modern fighter all time but what did he do at middleweight besides beat an early contender in Hopkins? It’s all well and good to imagine how he would have done at middleweight had he not outgrown it in a blink but the fact is he didn’t do anything really. We are talking prime here which Roy never entered until he was well into 168 so that version of Roy at 160 would likely would get ko'd. Had Roy made 160 in his prime he would have looked like Oscar against Manny. A wax figure.
Tommy was long past his prime when he went to middleweight and I honestly think that the fight would look a lot like the Hagler fight but neither him or Hagler can carry Tommy's jock on an all time list and I doubt very much that the Kazak would have agreed to drop to 154 to fight Tommy like he had previously said he'd do for Floyd.
Mugabi was fun to watch but has no business being mentioned. He'd get separated from his faculties.
The body snatcher was a little worn when he went to 160 but that would have been a tricky fight.
Hagler and him imo based on what I’ve seen would be a pickum fight. The Kazak seems to take a little time off at times and that could cost him but it could also be a matter of how the fight is going and not anything to do with gas.
I think he beats Monzon to death but would not get him to leave Argentina. The Kazak would be murdered by a mob after the fight.
I think him and Hopkins would have been a special fight. A Rembrandt.
It’s a shame that many of these guys could not have been around at the same time. The middleweight division has always been one that was dominated by a couple of gems or when there were several jewels, they were forced to wait like Moore early on before lh or never got the shot like Burley. Nobody wanted to fight them. An interesting parallel can be drawn today. Now the real champion can’t get the fights.
Nice detail points especially about Carlos Monzon. Good observation how triple G takes periods of time off I do think it is because of gas. I cannot picture triple G being pressured from pillar to post for 3 minutes around and trying to dodge 100 punches every 3 minutes he would wither under the storm. You can't see that he is a little bit easy to hit sometimes and if he was hit with 50 punches out of a hundred for two or three rounds straight he would definitely whether he can take the single shot pretty good but could he take five to six punch combinations from a Hagler over the course of four rounds he would be ripped apart like a jaded broken down sand sculpture on the beach. He simply has not been tested. I get the feeling that he is in a nice cozy little corner at 160 with mediocre competition and that is where he will stay
After you fight GGG I shall visit you in Hospital, do you like grapes, bananas or NUTS.;DQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Point is the doubters of Golovkin always say he needs to step up and judge him or how good he is based on the fact that there are no stars on his docket at the weight. The eye test is somehow not sufficient and yet it was for Monzon even though he also had nobody at middle to challenge and fought a lower competition then the Kazak. I just dont get the double standard. Sure Monzon looked spectacular beating up no hopers and showing great footwork and ring generalship. Look who he was fighting. And the same goes for Hagler and Hopkins. Somehow their dominance of mediocrity is better then his. Would any of them been as dominant if they had each other to face? he showed another completely different side last week. A defense that I never really noticed working behind what can only be described as a perfect jab. Elements overlooked or missed because of his brutal destructive power. Now I dont buy into punch stats and consider them flawed but....
Total Puches Thrown: Golovkin = 549
Lemieux = 335
Total Punches Connected: Golovkin= 280
Lemieux = 89
Percentage: Golovkin = 51%
Lemieux = 27%
Jabs Thrown: Golovkin = 359
Lemieux = 191
Jabs connected: Golovkin = 170
Lemieux = 35
Percentage: Golovkin = 47%
Lemieux = 18%
Power punches thrown: Golovkin = 190
Lemieux = 144
Power punches connected: Golovkin = 110
Lemieux = 54
Percentage: Golovkin = 58%
Lemieux = 38%
Guys like Pep, Whitaker and Floyd put up those kinds of defense numbers. You add his offense numbers from that fight and what you have is a special fighter should the same eye test the works with Hagler, Hagler and Monzon become blindness when he is concerned.
Not going against GGG here, as I've been a fan of his myself. But do we really have to bring down the record of someone like Hagler to make a point? "Dominance of mediocrity"? Not really interested in a game of "X's opponents were better than Y's opponents".... but IMHO Hagler fought a very acceptable group of opponents at his peak.
Apparently. I'm simply pointing out the different measuring stick being used and its unfair. And if the Kazak were American, we would not even be having this conversation. And please dont take things out of context. It should be more then clear by now what I am attempting and the fact of the matter is, Haglers actual middleweight competition was no less or more mediocre the Golovkins. Thats simply a fact. They dont take sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitApparently. I'm simply pointing out the different measuring stick being used and its unfair. And if the Kazak were American, we would not even be having this conversation. And please dont take things out of context. It should be more then clear by now what I am attempting and the fact of the matter is, Haglers actual middleweight competition was no less or more mediocre the Golovkins. Thats simply a fact. They dont take sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
GGG's list of opponents is inferior to Hagler's, and one should be able to point that out without getting hit with the "hater" label. I don't look at nationalities for the sake of this particular argument, so they could both hail from Mars and I'd have the same opinion. However, I'll also add two things: One... GGG has fought whoever has been available. Ducking accusations are baseless and somewhat ignorant at this point. Second... GGG hasn't finished his career. He might be 33... but he's a "not very much worn" 33, which means he's still got several good years left in him. So reaching for Hagler for the sake of comparison might be unfair at this point, but give him time and a few more opponents, and we might be having a totally different conversation.
It is kind of funny the GGG haters say why doesn't he go to SMW , instead of fighting the smaller Cotto / Alvarez etc . then lord Marvin for fighting the LW Duran , WW Hearns , WW Leonard lol. double standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
Exactly. Not sure why they can never answer the question but instead change the subject. It really does come down to the simple eye test. I have never shot down Hagler except call him silly for coming out right handed in the first couple of rounds against Leonard. I just want to know "middleweight" wise what the three I singled out did to be top 5 ATG middles that the Kazak hasn't done. And you and I both have already answered that. They just don't acknowledge it. When you see a special fighter operate, he's a special fighter period. Its not any of their fault that the middle weight could not supply other middleweight gems to have a go. Lucky for all three of them that they fought in an era where the star welters moved up to challenge themselves. Sad for the other guy that the other name middles wont fight him, there are no Tommy's around, Leonard, Griffith or Napoles that dare. The 3 of them literally ran out of middles cause it was so sparse where in this case there are some posing the part and they wont fight him. I think Hagler would have been great regardless based on what I saw and what I see now in Golovkin suggests the same. Fact still remains that pretty much every headline fight those three ever fought was against x welters most of which were nowhere near their prime. Even if they were in their prime they were still career welters. I'm not shitting on them. They were in the same boat as the Kazak so I measure them in the same way.
I'm a GGG fan, enjoy watching his fights, and am certain he'll have the signature fights down the line that will put him up there with the likes of Hagler. Like I said, his career is not over, so I hesitate to draw comparisons at this point.
Roy Jones, McCallum and Hopkins could outbox GGG
GGG would stop Hearns
Hearn s will spark jejeje the way he sparked Roberto Duran. Tommy could probably still do it but it would take him four rounds now 5 topsQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Duran was out of his weight class and league. GGG is smarter and better at the weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustHearn s will spark jejeje the way he sparked Roberto Duran. Tommy could probably still do it but it would take him four rounds now 5 topsQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
GGG would beat them all apart from maybe RJJ
What about B Hop, James Toney, Bodysnatcher?Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44