Remember when people thought GGG could stop HWs?

No, as the post chain in this thread shows I haven't made any argument in favor of or against Proksa's credentials as an opponent. That's another matter entirely.

I challenged the Outstock claim you recycled that Lemieux was Golovkin's first opponent rated in the top 5. Which I proved was incorrect.

Who was everyone else? I doubt you could actually name anyone of substance.

You didn't know Proska's rating or Geale's for that matter. You were piggybacking on Outstock's incorrect claim about Lemieux, and demonstrated absolutely no first hand knowledge or research ability in this thread.


Page 6 post #88
-Your first retort was a strawman that ignored the listing of Proksa and Geale.

page 7 post #95
-In your next response you simply state you don't believe me and introduced your new "general consensus " goal post to cover yourself in case I was right. No mention of this #9 Rating.

And funny that, now that we know Proksa was 5 months removed from his #4 rating when he faced Golovkin, you have completely abandoned "general consensus" hypothesis and accepted the RING's verdict.

page 7 post #102
-It's actually Outstock and not you that first claims Proksa was #9.

page 8 post #107
-You jump on Outstock's post and claim you knew Proksa was #8 or 9 the whole time and you just wasn't going to say anything. Do you really think anyone following this thread, believes that?

And now..... here you are, after me and Outstock do all the research and fight it out, trying to claim victor and talk tough. Dude, you are poser and it's obvious you had no clue.

[url]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/87/77/6c/87776cbaa5c03919e456dfd8bdc605a8.gif[/url]

 

1. Your "proof" was an incorrect claim. So, you did not prove anything was incorrect. Your "proof" was incorrect.

2. I don't need to name them specifically. I said everyone. As in, every publication, fan, and industry man.

3. Mr. 2017 Join Date, I am the one who DID KNOW their ranking. You are the one who did not. You not knowing their ranking is the only thing that has been proven here. Thank you for that. Once you name dropped Geale, I agreed with you. That's all there is to it.

 

And, as I said in this thread or one of the others you stalked me into, Geale was fresh off his loss to Barker and many folks on here berated my high rating of Geales' credentials.

 

1. I proposed TWO Golovkin opponents that were rated in the top 5 before Lemieux, one of the two held up to the nitpicking. So the Outstock claim you piggy backed was incorrect.

2. You won't name anyone because you can't. Your "general consensus" standard was just made up bs like I said.

3. I'm not sure why you are fixated on my Join Date, that's not when i started watching boxing and it's not when I first became an active member of these forums. You can ask around, I've been a member since 2009 at least.

"I am the one who DID KNOW their ranking. "

see:

page 7 post #102
-It's actually Outstock and not you that first claims Proksa was #9.

page 8 post #107
-You jump on Outstock's post and claim you knew Proksa was #8 or 9 the whole time and you just wasn't going to say anything. Do you really think anyone following this thread, believes that?

 

Are you trying to argue Geale was not RING top 5, now?

Geale was #2 when he faced Barker in 2013.

Geale was #3 when he faced Golovkin in 2014.

Geale was #4 after Golovkin 2015.


I would say it's pretty concrete he was rated in the top 5 by RING when he faced Golovkin. So stop being stupid.

You piggy backed a claim that was WRONG. Your entire criticism you based it off of is now invalid, and your posing can't change that. I don't know you but if you rated Geale high in this period, your opinion was in line with RING magazine and Bleacher Report.

[url]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2227797-ranking-the-10-best-boxers-in-the-middleweight-division[/url]

 

And if you are really into "general consensus", I'm surprised you don't just quote Transnational Boxing Ratings, as they are as close as you are going to get to that:

The Transnational Boxing Rankings Board was formed in October 2012 as a volunteer initiative to provide boxing with authoritative top-ten rankings, identify the singular world champion of every division by strict reasoning and common sense, and to insist on the sport’s reform. Board membership includes fifty respected boxing journalists and record keepers from around the world who are uncompromised by so-called sanctioning bodies and promoters.

And here's their ratings for Golovkin's top opponents since their formation:

Alveraz#2, Jacobs #2, Brook#1 (WW), Lemieux #4, Murray #4, Geale#5, Macklin#5.

 

So...why would you care about a long-ago thread started by a guy who calls himself "Yeyo Monster"? (In other words, a self-professed Cocaine addict?) [url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/mike-tyson-vs-ggg.565664/[/url]

Seriously, why do you care about what Coke Heads think?