Why I think GGG is a top 15 all-time middleweight.

Fun thread, if nothing else

 

I'll just tell you how is was and in the end the truth will speak for itself.

As you know the IBF insists their champions fulfill mandatory obligations once a year. When the Canelo rematch fell through the IBF mandatory was one year overdue , meaning it was two years since Golovkin fought an IBF mando..

During the downtime between Canelo I and Canelo II , Golovkin tried to get a fight with Miguel Cotto. When he couldn't get that fight he decided not to fight anybody until the rematch.
He knew at the time that Sergiy had become the mandatory and had ample time and opportunity to fight him which would have cleared his path of mandatory obligations for another 1- 2 years.
He could have , but he didn't have to as the IBF were allowing him to postpone the fight until after the rematch.
If you ask me , he should have targeted the fight with Sergiy instead of perusing 154 pound Cotto who was on his last legs.

When the rematch was cancelled , Golovkin was freed up for the next 8 months so the only fight on his radar should have been his mandatory against Sergiy.
As you said yourself , he tried to fight Spike before eventually settling on a 154 pounder who everybody though had retired , all the while ignoring Sergiy and his manger Dibella who were trying to get him to fight them..

The IBF warned him not to take the fight and told him he would have to do a deal with Sergiy's people a week after the Vanes fight.
In short , GGG knew that fighting Vanes would lead to him getting stripped but he went through with the fight regardless.

This is a guy who used the purist of all the belts as an excuse to duck Andre Ward.

Our goal is all the belts they said. When he had to fight Sergiy D it became - we don't want that belt anymore.

GGG basically said - im good enough to fight this guy off the couch (Vanes) , but im not good enough to fight my mandatory challenger.
Duck don't come any more worse or shameful than that.

This case of duckng was worse than when Sturm ducked him to fight Zibik. At least Zibik was a big strong and active Middleweight.

And its a joke that you would actually boast about his performance in that fight against Vanes. It was a disgusting mismatch of a smaller inactive guy getting battered by a much larger guy. Its was mismatch on par with Gatti vs Gamanche. The IBF refused to sanction it for a reason.
Come back and boast about this guy when he finds the gonads to aggressively attack guys who can stand up to him , cos right now he only goes all out against woefully under-matched foes he knows are not good enough to offer up any resistance.

 

Ward is a natural 175lb guy boiling down to 168. Golovkin's team punted the idea of a 168 fight but Ward shot it down. End of story.

As for the rest of your post, lol, what a pile of ****. Golovkin never said he would not fight Derevyanchenko.

 

how can 3G be ducking someone from a different weight class?

 

this is important in this thread too, although it was specific to Jones, the logic will be understood by any 3G fan.

 

Putting aside, for now, the words “types” and “struggled”, what you are essentially driving at is that Golovkin, at some point in his career, often beat better fighters - who, at some point in their careers, were better than the fighters Monzon registered losses and draws against, early in his career. Thanks for clarifying.

However, I’m not sure what value you think this line of argument adds to your overall case and I’m a little surprised you’ve gone to the extent that you have, in order to demonstrate this, given that your logic, as you have applied it here, is almost universally applicable…


For example:

Monzon himself often beat better fighters, at some point in his career, than the fighters he registered losses and draws against, earlier in his career.

Hagler himself often beat better fighters, at some point in his career, than the fighters he registered losses and draws against, earlier in his career.

Hagler beat better fighters at some point in his career than Monzon lost to at some point in his career - and vice versa and so on and so forth.

It’s a fairly moot point; a non-statement, when on balance, Monzon has the superior record to Golovkin, by a significant margin.


I notice also your reliance on Monzon’s draws, which I think we can agree on, as being not so concerning as a raft of losses. However, as @mcvey has already alluded to, there seems to be a profusion of draws amongst Argentinian boxers, prior to around the mid-80s (and this patterns extends a little to other South American countries, e.g. Brazil). As such, it is more likely that these high numbers are due to the way in which Argentinian/South American boxing was being officiated.

Here are some more examples:

Andres Selpa [AR] 30 draws from 217 contests; awarded in Argentina x22 ; Uruguay x3; Paraguay; x3; Chile x1; Aruba x1

Nicolino Locche [AR] 14 draws from 135 contests; awarded in Argentina x13; Uruguay x1

Santos Laciar [AR] 11 draws from 100 contests; awarded in Argentina x10 and Chile x1

Gregorio Peralta [AR] 9 draws from 116 contests; awarded in Argentina x4; Uruguay x3; Brazil x1; Germany x1

Horacio Accavallo [AR] 6 draws from 83 contests; awarded in Argentina x3 Italy x3

Eder Jofre [BR] 4 draws from 78 contests; awarded in Brazil x3; Uruguay x1

Carlos Hernandez [VE] 4 draws from 76 contests; award in Venezuela x3; Cuba x1

Victor Galindez [AR] 4 draws from 68 contests; awarded in Argentina x4


The examples you gave of the same, either didn’t fit the time period or had other factors to take into consideration, e.g. Firpo has a comparatively low number of bouts, approximately half of which took place outside of South America and, to top that off, he has a 70% KO rate. Martinez comes later; well after the pattern seems to fade from Argentinian scoring, and he also fought a lot of his fights in the US and Europe. Bonavena is in the right timeframe but fought a lot in the US and Europe and has good KO ratio.

Perez is the only real exception, here, but guess where he earned his one draw?


Despite the above, let’s look at your comparison, anyway; just let’s be a bit fairer in doing so, this time…

You mention Monzon’s amateur record, in order to establish, in your opinion, that Monzon was not “green” when he fought his first 20 bouts. However, let’s just qualify that amateur record and, at the same time, compare this to Golovkin’s.

The numbers for Monzon’s amateur record vary but, as far as I can tell, the figure floats around the 80-90 bouts mark, accrued over, at most, a three year period. Golovkin has 350 amateur bouts, compiled over 6 years. That’s a big difference, right there.

There are other obvious disparities between Monzon’s and Golovkin’s amateur runs. Monzon’s so-called amateur fights probably consisted of informally arranged, junior club fights - it’s quite possible that Monzon was being paid small sums for these fights, which is borderline unlicensed boxing. But this would be no surprise, as he was dirt poor. I’d also like to discover, who was training Monzon at this time since, by all accounts, Brusa does not appear on the scene until Monzon turned Pro.

Golovkin’s amateur career consists of multiple major AIBA tournaments, no doubt involving AIBA certified trainers, and includes two World Championships and an Olympics.

Why is this contrast important? If you’re using Monzon’s ‘amateur record’ to establish a level of competency on commencement of his professional contests, it’s worth noting that Golovkin’s amateur career was over a much longer period, with considerably more bouts; many at international and world level.




more follows...

 

Great post!

 

...Cont'd




To my mind, this makes Monzon comparatively “green” and, adding to this was the physical condition of Monzon, as he started out. Bearing in mind Monzon turned professional at aged 20 (another difference with Golovkin, who was 24 and closer to his physical peak), this is what Amilcar Brusa had to say about Monzon, when he first took Monzon under his wing…


“

This content is protected

”

Sports Illustrated: October 30, 1972 Issue by Edwin Shrake

https://www.si.com/vault/1972/10/30/617567/pampas-bull-whos-sweet-as-sugar


I think the above and that in the preceding post more than establishes a substantial lack of parity between Golovkin and Monzon, at the starting point of their respective careers. If we want to maintain this comparison/contrast, in the spirit of fairness, we should examine Golvkin’s early pro career, in conjunction with Monzon’s.

Both fighters are entitled to have had a tentative start, whilst in single digits but, given we’ve already established that Monzon’s start was some way behind Golovkin’s, it is noteworthy how quickly Monzon progressed in his first three years as a professional; 34 bouts in contrast to Golovkin’s 16 contests. It’s also interesting that, in effectively his third year as a professional, Monzon managed to avenge his defeat to Cambeiro in 1965 and closed out that year by beating three undefeated fighters on the bounce - Lima, Aguilar (first loss avenged) and Salinas (a corrected draw).

Why is this contrast important? Even in his youth, based on a cobbled together amateur background; still developing both physically and mentally, he appears to outperform Golovkin and demonstrably improves in the first three years of his Pro career. During that period he had drawn and then beaten Selpa but picked up three more draws against Emilio Alé Alí and Manoel Serverino x2. He would subsequently correct these aberrations.



Looking at the three fighters you picked as being “better” than the opposition, who beat and drew with Monzon, I am not sure how one can be absolutely sure that Geale, Proksa and Murray actually were that far in front. How much film is there of Aguilar, Cambeiro, Massi and Lima to compare with? (I’ve seen a tiny amount of Aguilar). Add to this, if you were to take, say, Murray’s level when he was 16-0 and pit that version of him against Aguilar at 16-0, I’d be more than tempted to back Aguilar, who at that stage in Murray’s career, would have likely been a step up in class. Indeed, he’d probably have been a step up for Geale and Proska too, when they were 16-0. In any event, the results would be by no means certain.

Geale, Proksa and Murray may ultimately look better on paper but, in 60s/70s Argentina, there was a narrow path of boxing opportunity; only the Argentinian and South American titles were the stepping stones towards the World Championship. Aguilar, Cambeiro, Massi and Lima didn’t have a multitude of title options, across the now multiple governing bodies; layers of titles covering regional (international, intercontinental etc), commemorative, interim, super etc etc…


What they did have is their being a part of a rising group of fighters, across Argentina and Brazil, during the 1960s, vying for a shot at the Argentine and/or South American boxing honors. For example, Selpa, Cambeiro, Retondo, Aguilar, Severino, Massi, Mattos, Marino, Salinas, Chirino, Celedonio, Lima and Alé Alí. This bunch fighting each other repeatedly was bound to yield mixed results, which does not mean that they were necessarily poor fighters. In any event, Monzon came out on top, hammering home his domestic and local dominance over those opponents, who might have left a doubt, and then went on to demonstrate the same against the world’s best.


This is not too dissimilar to the Middleweight scene that Hagler found himself amongst, with Philips, Hayward, Watts, Monroe, Hart, Briscoe, Seales, Antuofermo, Colbert etc. Hagler would eventually rise above all of them.



more follows...

 

...Cont'd




All-in-all, to suggest Golovkin “often” beat “better” fighters than those that Monzon and Hagler “struggled” with, is a tad misleading. Especially when you’re not comparing like-for-like; using world title contests for Golovkin and relative novice bouts for Monzon. Even then, it is not a statement, which can be easily corroborated to any satisfactory degree. How do we know what happened in these bouts? That is to ask, in what way did Monzon struggle? This much is not clear, but we can reasonably guess at a likelihood that Monzon was not that far removed from a street kid, who was physically immature, suffering from malnutrition.

In any event, what we do know is that all three of Monzon’s registered losses occurred within 21 months of him turning professional. Declaring them bad losses? Only if you want to do your damnedest to discredit a fighter, who never lost another bout, from that point forward, avenging all of his losses and, in the cases of Aguilar and Massi, doing so multiple times to ensure there was no mistaking that those loses were a mistake.

Isolated numbers on a page, without context, are what seem to represent your evidence. Using broad terms like “types” (along with “often”) might be interpreted as you implying some sort of verifiable pattern. Of the little I have been able to read about Aguilar and Massi, for example, I doubt these two were of a type, style-wise. However, it would appear that Massi does like saying he beat Monzon, from the snippets I’ve seen.

In addition, there are factors, which might have influenced early results, not entirely down to Monzon himself. We know that Brusa was not in Monzon’s corner the night he lost to Aguilar, for example. The slew of draws to be found on the records of Argentinian boxers of the same period points toward some stand-offish supervision of boxing matches of the times. I have no doubt that there would be value, if it was at all possible, in assessing these early bouts for the veracity of the result given. They were not stoppages, after all.

As I suggest, at the beginning of this series of posts, your statement is a 'non-statement' and does not do, as I suspect you intended it to do. It follows the type of argument, which aims to elevate the more recent or active boxer at the expense of an established Great. This is a pattern, which is all too familiar. There is also a certain poetic irony to this case, in that you are criticizing the relatively embryonic stages of a career that grew and flourished on an 80-fight undefeated streak, saving the best until just before his retirement - then comparing this with a Boxer, who is now struggling with genuine world class competition.

 

I've done more than enough to establish a doubt, as to what the numbers you keep producing, actually represent. And, I didn't have to use extra large font to do so.

Keep listing your numbers. My response will remain the same and yours will just underline points I've already made.

You should be happy. I promoted your initial statement from being "patent nonsense" to a mere "non-statement". That's progress. And, if you've any ounce of reading comprehension, you'll realize that I very quickly established that case.