Pick em' then debate. Golovkin vs Hopkins at their best

Golovkin has more stamina, a higher work rate, much better power, better footwork and the complete arsenal of punches. So long, Hops

 

I think a lot of Golovkin's wins have to "mature" for lack of a better word. If guys like Lemmy, Jacobs, Brook, and likely Canelo, go on to do impressive stuff, the significance of beating them will increase. Murray to me for example is a very underrated win considering he likely beat Sturm in reality and took Martinez to the brink.

 

Great fight between 2 vastly different styles.

The fact that Hopkins had elite defense, was hard to catch flush even when he stood for lengthy periods in the pocket and the fact he had a great chin at MW would make this a tough out for Gennady.

Hopkins' M.O. in his prime was he neutralized his opposition effectively by taking their strengths away from them early on in the fight. The only thing is Hopkins never saw a fighter of GGG's level during his absolute prime as MW champion. It's a 60-40 contest for me in favor of Hopkins.

 

Yeah. And the opposite could also be true.

And he hasn't actually beaten Canelo yet. In fact, he hardly got past Jacobs. That matter needs a rematch to be settled.

So he could also lose to Canelo and Jacobs without them getting up to that much afterwards. We just don't know at this moment in time, which is why I'm going to wait at making an attempt at a firm guess.

And another way at looking at Murray's loss to Martinez is that Martinez was semi-shot at least and it was his last win before being well beaten by a former WW in his last fight.

 

Good post. The thing I feel most sure about is that predictions of Golovkin winning by stoppage just aren't to be taken seriously.

 

One more thing - anyone mentioning the first Mercado fight when the thread explicitly asks about best version of each is clear evidence of an agenda, since Hopkins tore through Mercado in the rematch. By pretty crystal clear logic Hopkins can't have been at his best in the first fight when he did so much better in the rematch.

If Golovkin dominates and stops Jacobs in a rematch it would be strange indeed to see the first fight as Golovkin at his best.

 

Do you see a lot of guys beating Lemmy, Jacobs etc?

I'd also like a DJ rematch ... but with the same weigh-in procedure.

Murray also gave Abraham hell who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins twice. I'd say that's fairly relevant in proving that Murray is a quality fighter.

 

Lemieux seems nothing special to me. Sure, he can pick up a string of victories against sub-par opposition, but if he continually fights top 5 guys I think he's going to pick up losses. Jacobs will be interesting, but quite a few fighters looking impressive good have quickly spiralled downwards.

But this is all pretty useless speculation. We can only judge them on what they've done so far.

"Same day weigh-in" you mean? Why? That wasn't stipulated as condition for this fantasy Hopkins-Golovkin fight. Such a condition would favor Hopkins who always was below 170 lbs in the ring at MW as far as I know.

Nah. Murray's loss to Abraham was at SMW, the same weight that Abraham beat Taylor at five years earlier. A loss which incidentally was Taylor's fourth loss in his five last fights.

Just because Taylor scored two razor close wins over a 40-year old Hopkins at MW five years before doesn't make him a great SMW when Abrams beat him - after Pavlik had done so twice and Froch once. In fact, it doesn't even make him a great MW.

 

Ah, no. Read again. I'm talking about GGG's rematch with Jacobs. Golovkin was limited in rehydration due to the IBF belt being defended. Jacobs didn't want to challenge for the IBF and was able to balloon as large as he could. If they rematch it should be on equal terms.

I think that the evidence points to Murray being a quality fighter. I guess we don't share that opinion.

 

I know you don't follow boxing , so i just wanted to inform you that Brook was just dominated two weeks ago by the best welter he shared the ring with.

Murray is not an 'underrated' win and never will be. 46 year old Hopkins would clown that guy easily. He is utterly useless. I know that description gets thrown around a lot , but in Murray case , at top level , its true. Id be very confidant in assuming you only ever saw him against Golovkin.

And the sad thing about this is that Murrary is one of GGGs top 5 wins. Maybe even top 3

 

YDKSA Bernard Hopkins.. But what difference would it make. You'll just pick whitey anyway.

 

Is this the conclusion you made when you looked up boxrec?

Is Murray losing to a shot to pieces Abraham SIX years after he beat Taylor somehow proof that he is a quality fighter ?

He didn't even have to beat Arthur. Losing to him is all it took to convince you that he's quality yeah? Does this garbage sound good in your head before you post it?