Who wins Lemieux or Quillin?

david knocks him out

 

its a close fight for me but quillin has a better defense and is the better boxer so i pick him
dont think just because jacob KO quillin in half a round mean david can do the same

 

It doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that Quillin hasn't lost to journeymen and gatekeepers.

Their wins are relatively similar, but are you now saying it isn't a better accomplishment to beat a guy when he was younger and fresher? Because you KNOW you'd be using that ammo if it worked for your end of the debate.

If Jacobs goes and beats Lemiuex, or Monroe, is it going to be equal to GGG's win?

 

jakobs would not beat murray/Lemieux the best he could hope for against those guys are s****ping past them GGGs disposes of guys that others have competitive fights with

david never got sparked out in the first round by a c class fighter like jakobs

 

GGG was able to do what he did because lemieux came out to box and fight.. he might have lost but it would have been a better match
also lemieux himself has a leaky defense
quillin doesn't have to be a master boxer to exploit davids weaknesses,he is the BETTER boxer of the two and has legitimate power he might not KO him but i can see a decision for quillin

 

I don't disagree. The idea that a guy suddenly loses all effectiveness or mojo after a loss is exaggerated. Some guys lose it altogether, other get it back later, some never do.

My points still stand. Quillin has nothing on his record as bad as Lemieux's losses, and on several occasions, so it isn't a fluke or coincidence.

Quillin was definitely overrated for a long time, but he was once considered the "other guy" there for a while. Lemiuex was never that. So, the idea that he is suddenly getting to overly devalued due to his demolition at the hands of Jacobs smacks of fanboyism. Some guys are measuring the value every fighter by how they think they'd do against GGG, and that isn't how it works.

I'm a guy who thinks GGG is really THAT good. I think he is at worst p4p #2. I've been following his career for a long time. The best mw since Hopkins.. But alot of his fans have lost all objectivity. It's bordering on Flomer, Pactoid territory.

 

The reason why Quillin was considered by some to be the "other guy" is his careful cherry picking. I don't think serious people were still considering him #2 MW after he almost got beaten by Rosado, dropped his belt to duck Korobov and drew with Lee.

 

There are so many different scenarios to say it´s one way or the other. For example those fighters who rely on style that demands great confidence on your ability have a crises if they come short. Proksa is a good example of that. He was very good, aggressive fighter who relied his power, movement and speed but when GGG destroyed him, he lost his edge and is now a totally different fighter. Lemieux lost but not because his abilities were not enough. He returned to a drawing board and made adjustments (style wise and stamina wise) and came a better fighter. Cotto lost his edge when he lost to Margacheato and at least it took him quite some time to get that confidence back.

 

This.

 

.....and you're telling me you wouldn't be shouting from the rooftops how great a win it would have been, how much it proved Golovkin's dominance, if he had TKO1'd Quillin??

 

That's ALL beside the point. Lemieux got KO'ed by Rubio and dropped a decision to a NOBODY named Jochim Alcine. Quillin has never lost to that calibre of fighter. Besides that, Lemieux' BEST win is a Quillin LEFTOVER...

Quillin > Lemieux.

 

:deal

This right here should end the debate on who's better...