Anybody still feel Golovkin vs. Pirog in 2012 would have been 50-50?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by IntentionalButt, Apr 24, 2016.


  1. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    402,360
    84,258
    Nov 30, 2006
    I can't see that. We never really saw Pirog hurt. Slightly once by a Maciel body shot (and yes Golovkin has devastating body punches) but a) Maciel is a monstrous body puncher himself (albeit best suited to 154) and b) Pirog was, as noted, in rough shape physically that night.

    If welterweight Brook can manage to never go down, and if walking heavy bags Lemieux and Stevens can each make it eight, I don't see Pirog (whose pure boxing skill is at least in the same neighborhood as Golovkin's if not right on par...light-years beyond those guys') getting stopped.
     
    MUFA$A likes this.
  2. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    402,360
    84,258
    Nov 30, 2006
    Very good point. He also may have seen in Pirog a kindred spirit and trailblazer in the sense that Pirog, while a very good and moderately successful amateur, never received the sort of mollycoddling attention that some get with the Russian national team playing favorites. Pirog didn't get the big international tourney opportunities that some do, just as Kovalev didn't, and yet was poised to break into the American market and become a global commodity in the pros before his back gave out.

    Pirog was largely self-taught (much like another - briefly - ultra-hyped European middleweight prospect that came up around the same time: Grzegorz Proksa. Remember him???) and was an outsider in terms of the politics of the country's AM boxing scene. He forged his own path via sheer will, just as Kovalev would later do.

    Both are notably free as well of some of the usual stylistic trappings (good habits and bad) of the Russian boxing program.
     
  3. KiwiMan

    KiwiMan Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,408
    14,604
    Feb 28, 2016
    I do think that the younger Golovkin was better than the current version though, Pirog has every chance against a 35 yr old Golovkin but would be a (live) underdog if the fight had happened in 2012. Such a shame about the back injury.
     
  4. tinman

    tinman Loyal Member Full Member

    36,958
    29,468
    Feb 25, 2015
    So why did Allen say that Hopkins wasn't the same fighter in the 3rd fight then?
     
  5. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    402,360
    84,258
    Nov 30, 2006
    Problem is 2012 GGG was still only a year removed from that forgettable Ouma performance.

    Yes he was sick but still. He went life and death with tiny half-shot Ouma.

    Pirog is empirically a class above Ouma in every department (except workrate, but Pirog's was very steady for a sharpshooter) and was 5" taller and not a natural welter.

    Pirog with like 6 vertebrae falling out looked better versus Maciel (a natural world class junior middle in his prime) than Golovkin did with a case of the sniffles versus Ouma (a natural world class welter past his prime)
     
    KiwiMan likes this.
  6. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    402,360
    84,258
    Nov 30, 2006
    One guy's opinion. Most scholars of the sport agree that Hopkins' best days were ahead of him at that point.
     
  7. MUFA$A

    MUFA$A FEAR * THE * TANK Full Member

    1,478
    954
    Aug 17, 2016
    I would say Pirog boxing skill is better compared to Golovkin's.
    IMO I felt the referee robbed Golovkin of a knockdown against Brook. I thought it was legit but it was ruled a slip. I mean anything is possible against Pirog , I wouldn't be too surprised if he doesn't go down at all in this fight. The guy was elusive in the ring. This fight is a toss up in my eyes. I can see an argument for either man to win . I just feel more confident picking Golovkin to get the victory and if anyone has the best chance of stopping Pirog at 160 pounds , Golovkin is the man for the job.
     
    IntentionalButt likes this.
  8. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    402,360
    84,258
    Nov 30, 2006
    Hey, nicely written post, eleven months ago me. :SimpHomer:
     
  9. Cafe

    Cafe Sitzpinkler Full Member

    38,449
    8,005
    Sep 2, 2011
    Problem is that whilst Pirog is elusive he's still primarily an offensive fighter and his defense is more stationary/suited for pressure fighting, I just don't see that going down well against GGG.
     
  10. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    402,360
    84,258
    Nov 30, 2006
    On the other hand when has Golovkin ever seen anything quite like that?

    Guys have come straight at him (Lemieux, Stevens, Ouma) and guys have brought slick top shelf defensive skill (Monroe, Jacobs) but when did he ever see a seamless hybridization of both? He could be conceivably flabbergasted.
     
  11. Cafe

    Cafe Sitzpinkler Full Member

    38,449
    8,005
    Sep 2, 2011
    True, if Pirog manages to push GGG back I can really see him f'ing GGG up.
     
  12. MUFA$A

    MUFA$A FEAR * THE * TANK Full Member

    1,478
    954
    Aug 17, 2016
    Fair enough . You do make a good point . Pirog would need to be cautious at all times pressuring someone like golovkin.
     
  13. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    402,360
    84,258
    Nov 30, 2006
    Kassim wasn't. :lol:
     
  14. MUFA$A

    MUFA$A FEAR * THE * TANK Full Member

    1,478
    954
    Aug 17, 2016
    LOL Kassim surely paid the consequences for that. He stood out of boxing nearly 2 years after that loss.
     
  15. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    402,360
    84,258
    Nov 30, 2006
    True and when he returned he got a "lifetime achievement" gift decision over C-level Rahman Yusubov.