My god, you're one dishonest fanboy! I gave you interviews from several Golovkin opponents, including Jacobs, Murray, Brook, Stevens, and Macklin, all of whom insisted that Golovkin's power was overrated. There are also plenty of other people who speak more complimentary about Golovkin's power but do so in more plausible, sensible terms. I've also seen Abe Sanchez interviews mentioning a 15-yo middleweight who held his own with Golovkin in sparring. I made it clear that I was only sharing these interviews as antidotes to the convenient cherry-picked quotes you like to trot out from time to time. I have not taken a position about the veracity or accuracy of all of these fighters and the perceptions they've drawn based on their first-hand experiences being hit by Golovkin in 10-oz gloves. I like Golovkin a lot and he obviously hits very hard for a middleweight (we've seen others who hit harder or at least just as hard though).
No he wasn't Liston was still taking guys out of there ,he had stopped his last 6 opponents. Louis was winning decisions with his jab .Patterson floored Quarry in their first fight and lost a razor thin decision in their second, he still retained his power and most of his reflexes he had stopped his last 3 opponents, he was also 5 years younger than Louis and had never had any significant time out of the ring.
Wlad did fight an excellent fight with Joshua, I agree. Just as Walcott and Charles were excellent against Marciano. I have absolutely no qualms about admitting to that. Nor do I have qualms about admitting that I bet on Wlad knocking out Joshua in rounds 7-8-9 (and I was counting my money after Wlad decked Joshua in round 6!) but the thing is, Walcott and Charles were much more active before facing Marciano. It won't change that, nor will it change the fact that Wlad was much older than both of them, no matter how good he was on the night. So, far from using my old posts as some kind of proof that I am contradicting myself here, I believe that those posts are still correct and in no way contradict what I am saying about Wlads performance against A.J. Wlad was good but he was still old and inactive. Whilst Walcott and Charles were also old and good, they were not quite so old or anyway near as inactive.
This as usual makes no sense either...Wlad was still fighting and training for a fight ..what would that have to do with the less athletic Holmes coming out of retirement? Marciano style wise would always cause problems for louis win or lose,that has nothing to do with what Joshua would do to Marciano. Only a nostalgic nut cant see what a huge mismatch it is really no matter who joshua fights in THIS era. And really beyond size its limited skills of Marciano even if he were bigger he still gets knocked out ,hes not remotely skillful like joshua.
I struggle to see what a 5'10", 185 lb crude slugger is going to do to a 6'6", 250 lb former Olympian with modern professional training and skill. This isn't a Sylvester Stallone movie.. Its the real world we live in.... I suppose a lucky punch is always a possibilty, but with that much height and reach difference I'm not so sure Rocky could land flush to the chin as he'd need to. That and he wasn't always able to finish some of the fighters he DID connect on with only one punch. And needless to say Joshua took the very best Wladimir Klitschko had to offer and still won. Lastly, he's been regularly knocking out super heavys of comparable size. I'm not one to ever use the term "impossible" but this appears to be a pretty unwinnable scenario for Rocky Marciano.
I don't think Marciano beats Carnera. I suppose he might but I'd probably bet on Primo if they were to actually fight. Never saw Marciano in with anyone that big and it would be awful difficult for Marciano to avoid being leaned on, wrestled and cuffed around by Carnera. Look how big old Louis looked against Marciano, and look how big Carnera looked against Louis. Marciano was one of the best fighters ever of his size but I seriously doubt his ability to tackle men so much bigger than himself. I don't think he'd close the gap well at all. He doesn't have the feet or the style.
It just seems unusual that the same guys who have downplayed every old man who ever fought good now want to boost an old man who fought good. Just seems like a double standard to me. I have long supported the spirited of efforts of former champions fighting great fights in losing efforts whilst others have always pooh-poohed them and written them off as being past their best. My saying Wlad was old and inactive is not wrong. 41 is not young and 1.5 years out of the ring is some serious inactivity for a title shot. Regardless of how good he looked, And whilst I'm on about looking good in a fight in truth any fighter will only look as good as the opponent allows him to look, this was a changing of the guard night.
Wladimir Klitschko was 41 years of age, off for 17 months and had lost his last fight. He was clearly past his prime and I don't think anyone disputes that. But looking at him in that ring he clearly had more left than Louis did against Rocky or Jeffries did against Johnson or Holmes did against Tyson or Ali did against Holmes. You could visibly see the conditioning and difference in the energy levels. furthermore he had the right style and set of physical tools to be competitive with the less experienced ( and probably over confident ) Joshua.