Is GGG in decline?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by HellSpawn86, Oct 18, 2017.


What explains GGG's recent performances

  1. GGG is shot

    8 vote(s)
    7.1%
  2. GGG is in decline

    77 vote(s)
    68.8%
  3. GGG has stepped up in competition

    27 vote(s)
    24.1%
  1. HerolGee

    HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

    41,974
    4,028
    Sep 22, 2010
    let me know what you tihnk wlads prime is, and then comment.
     
  2. mandatory

    mandatory Nuthugger Crusher Full Member

    1,416
    637
    Nov 29, 2007
    Well.. All boxers decline with time as they step up in competition and get older.. Very few defy father time. I dont think hes in decline.. Hes defintely not getting any younger but not in decline.. Hes beaten everyone thats been put in front of him.. And fights will only get harder but I can see him fighting strong for at least two or three more years.
     
  3. BCS8

    BCS8 VIP Member

    60,181
    80,240
    Aug 21, 2012
    This has nothing to do with the thread
     
  4. Braindamage

    Braindamage Baby Face Beast Full Member

    10,940
    9,959
    Oct 1, 2011
    A real way to guage his decline, is if he were to rematch Lemieux. If Lemi does a lot better, we have the answer!
     
    KiwiMan likes this.
  5. tinman

    tinman Loyal Member Full Member

    36,098
    28,719
    Feb 25, 2015
    In pure strength sports like powerlifting yes you can be. Many put up the biggest weights of their career at 35, 36. It's actually normal to peak at 35 there. They have masters categories, but then you look and the 45 year old guys are doing almost the same weight (not far off at all) as a 33 year old in the open class. I've seen it before in real life where you have these 42 year old dudes who are smokers, can't run a lick, can't jump at all, can't play basketball worth ****. But then they get ahold of you or shake your hand and every bone feels like it's going to shatter. They call it old man strength and it's real.

    But something that requires anything, but pure strength yes it's impossible to be at your best at 35.
     
    OvidsExile likes this.
  6. tinman

    tinman Loyal Member Full Member

    36,098
    28,719
    Feb 25, 2015
    Pacquiao won a controversial decision. To suggest that it was a robbery when the media was basically 50/50 split on the decision is not telling the whole picture. Pac wasn't in decline in 2008 when he rematched Marquez. But he wasn't in his best weight class. His best class like Marquez was the 126 pound division. If anything I think Marquez was beginning to lose a half step in the rematch and not Pac. Remember that it was Pac who was only 29 there. Marquez seemed to me was still 95% or so of himself, but to my eyes he wasn't quite as crisp, sharp or on point as he was in the first match 4 years earlier. Which makes sense since a 30 year old counter puncher is usually a better version than his own 34 year old self.
     
  7. tinman

    tinman Loyal Member Full Member

    36,098
    28,719
    Feb 25, 2015
    Too many people want a quick, easy, agenda driven answer. They don't look at the whole context. They want an absolute, but that's just not how most things work. I agree, it's a combination of the last two. Are Jacobs and Canelo better fighters than Murray and Lemiuex? I think so, we don't really know though for sure to be honest. Since who exactly have they beaten to justify that? Lara is a 154 pounder and was disputed, Cotto was old and small. And while Jacobs did fight a super legit and well schooled 160 pounder once before GGG. That fight also ended with him flat on his back looking up at the arena ceiling with his eyes glazed and brain trying to process WTF was actually going on. So these guys are not bums, but let's hold off on saying they are levels above the likes of Lemiuex and what Martin Murray once was. How about they beat say David Lemiuex himself convincingly before we elevate Jacobs and Canelo with confidence.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
    The Kentucky Cobra likes this.
  8. tinman

    tinman Loyal Member Full Member

    36,098
    28,719
    Feb 25, 2015
    If you can go 2-1-1 against a fighter with a size and style advantage. And that add to the fact that particular fighter was really, really, really ****ing great then yea you may be doing something really special. You might stop and think well **** that guy was the man back in the day.
     
  9. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

    79,438
    2,646
    Feb 1, 2007
    On what basis do you consider Pirog was a super legit and well schooled 160 pounder? His best win was Jacobs, which you're saying might not even be better than Murray and Lemieux, and Jacobs was only 23 years old.

    Just to be clear I'm not saying Pirog wasn't legit, just trying to understand your post a bit more clearly.
     
  10. tinman

    tinman Loyal Member Full Member

    36,098
    28,719
    Feb 25, 2015
    He was a well schooled fighter who had never been beaten in the pro ranks. Well over 200 amateur fights.
     
  11. critix

    critix Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,619
    493
    Jul 9, 2012
    past his prime
     
  12. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,344
    Jun 29, 2007
    Yes in decline. Remember by age 34 both Hagler and Mozon had retired.

    GGG is in decline, and in the last fight had 2 judges against him.

    However he's still very good. Canelo showed defensive and countering abilities. Not ever fighter has that.
     
    BCS8 and Birmingham like this.
  13. Howitzer1888

    Howitzer1888 Active Member Full Member

    981
    795
    Jun 7, 2017
    I think he's past his best. Not by much but perhaps by a couple of years.

    He's definitely not shot, otherwise he would be so far past his best he would be almost unrecognisable as a fighter from his former self. He's just a bit slower, and his stamina seems to be worse. Also he seems to have become more of a head-hunter in his last few fights or so.

    Whilst he has stepped up in competition I don't think that's the reason for his recent close fights. His decline is something that can be visibly seen when watching him fight.
     
    BCS8 likes this.
  14. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    70,899
    27,346
    Jul 26, 2004
    Yes.

    The notion that anyone would argue against that a 35 year old fighter, with as many total fights (amature and pro) and miles on him as G has, is as physically primed out as when he was 26, 27, and 28... is the proof that theres people that will believe literally anything.

    The guy is 35. Its a physiological fact that hes in decline. Add to that how many other fighters n coaches see his decline, how his own coach has altered his training camps, ect... and to think he is in his prime right now is doing so because you have an agenda (canelo fanatic, G hater, ect)


    G is not in his prime. Hes not quite as physically on point as his prime. Thus... hes in decline.


    Being in decline does not equal being shot nor close to. Just means that a decline has slowly begun.
     
  15. Scar

    Scar VIP Member Full Member

    76,117
    2,754
    Jul 20, 2004
    No he's not in decline. He just finally met someone that is actually legitimate and proven.

    If you guys properly watch the Brook fight, Brook was also on the way to doing the same if it wasn't for the natural weight advantage that Golovkin had which quickly overwhelmed and broke Brook down.