Taking a look at Monzon's six best wins

I did and was unaware of it at the time!

 

I'm very satisfied with this thread and the way it has gone, looking forward to your next attempt!

 

wtf is this question for?
you've given me a quote of machine guy from an entirely different thread! what has that got to do with who introduced GGG into this thread here?

you've not shown where machine man in this thread introduced 3G. SO it is now a proven fact, that IT IS YOU ALONE who introduced 3G to this thread, not machine man...though you tried to claim the reverse!

Until, that is, you can quote where Machineman introduced 3G to this thread. I suggest you start searching now.

 

Mendoza - You are the purveyor of purest manure.

The matter you refer to was settled in the ‘Why I think GGG is a top 15 all-time middleweight’ thread. I did not ask for the data. I already had that data. Anybody with an end user device and access to the internet can have that data. What I sought from you was clarification on what it was you meant exactly, when you stated that Golovkin was "...often beating better fighters that the types Monzon and Hagler struggled with."

And, sure enough, all you did was turn boxrec warrior and list Monzon’s early losses and one of the nine draws and compared these with three of Golovkin’s Title fights; at the same time, setting your own bogus baselines and definitions around what constituted Monzon being “green” and what you meant by the word “struggle”, to bolster the half-baked explanation you were about to offer (which didn't really cover the questions I asked but, nonetheless, illustrated what you were playing at, quite starkly).

I was actually a little surprised you went for it with such fervor, because I was sure you would pick up on the inanity of the exercise. You seemed to somehow completely miss how meaningless your statement was about Golovkin having beaten better fighters than the types Monzon and Hagler struggled with.



Remember this?

Despite my spelling it out for you, during which I am sure I could have used the records of numerous Greats, the fact that yours was an exercise in pointlessness just didn’t seem to compute for you. Or, did it?

Seems a tad coincidental that, soon after realizing you were running aground in the Golovkin thread, with your attack on Monzon's early losses, you launched another thread, this one, now aiming at Monzon’s undefeated run against his title challengers; using every ounce of petty negativity to downplay Monzon’s Championship.

This is yet another example of you and your inability to distinguish between 'data' and 'information'. I do not anticipate any change in this pattern, soon.

 

Then I'll invent my own!

 

Mendoza: “Not so fast” = ‘I don’t really want to face the fact that Monzon beat a considerably better level of opposition than Golovkin.’

Benvenuti / Griffith / Napoles / Briscoe / Valdes > [by a long, long way] anything Golovkin has faced .

I’d give Mundine, Tonna, Licata, Boutier and Bogs a good chance against both Jacobs and Alvarez - some more than others. In my opinion, they could all beat Lemieux and Geale.

Golovkin is not and, up to this point, never been the recognised Undisputed Middleweight Champion. He’s a unified titlist, who defends titles; not an undisputed championship.

Monzon was the Undisputed Middleweight Champion of the World - twice - during a span of six and a half years.

Golovkin has surpassed nothing, in real terms. He’s had less than half the Pro bouts of Monzon. Let’s see if he can go another 41 fights without defeat, shall we?

You might not choose to be "blindfolded", but you dive head-first into blinkeredness and you make yourself look foolish by posing daft questions like: "what a win over shorter, and older jr welters, and welters means for a natural middle weight?"

You talk about differences in size and age, as though these were a special circumstance, applicable only to Monzon, but entirely ignore the application of the same logic in other cases. Take your logic and then apply it to Hearns, for example.


Hearns/Cuevas
(Whilst they were roughly the same age, Cuevas' professional record has him starting out a lightweight; he gave up 4-inches in height and 8-inches in wingspan to Hearns. Nevertheless, Hearns destruction of Cuevas is generally considered a key win, adding to Hearns' ATG status)

Hearns/Duran
(Duran fought as light as Super Bantamweight; Duran was in his early-thirties when he met Hearns. Hearns was in his mid-twenties; there was a 6-inch height advantage and 12-inch wingspan advantage for Hearns; Duran is considered a great scalp for Hearns at 154, with it contributing greatly to his legacy)


There are other examples (such as, Tiger/Foster), which would demonstrate how warped your perspective is on this issue, but if you can't get the point, with the obvious examples given above, then nothing will get you there.


I've covered off your crass attempts at trying to reignite a pointless debate, in another post. This thread deals with your entirely biased treatment of Monzon's Championship.

So, really - just what is the point of your select data? Why don’t you try to declare actual, balanced conclusions, considering all angles, including any sensible counterpoints made (which you currently seem happy to ignore)?

[The above questions are rhetorical, by the way]

 

jeez whats mendozas next trick going to be.

"you mentioned terry marsh, not me!"

"no i didnt"

"yes you did! twenty years ago!"

 

OWNED!

 

A memorable and in this instance, a very apt phrase but ,though all my kids have them, I am tattoo -less