Who's Greater? Gennady Golovkin or Jung Koo Chang?

I can't quite work out if you genuinely believe the utter shite that you talk or how you perceive what's just occurred over the course of an argument (or reality in general). I mean that. Not as a dig either. As an expression of genuine engagement/amusement. I mean, pal, you've just been thoroughly and comically crushed again in a Chang debate, savvy? You haven't made strong points, and yes, they have been debunked in several cases -easily so- and in others had serious context attached to them that disarm the feck knuckle agenda that you're peddling and the arbitrary nature of the numbers you've shat out of your clacker. This is an empirical fact, the thread and others like it bear it out.

And you've still somehow convinced yourself that you're the clever insightful one, that the facts and insight put your way are excuses and that what just happened is the opposite of what just, you know, happened. Your a gem, lad, honesty.

People have come forward with facts, historical occurrences, insights into the film of Chang and his opponents, context etc. Same as in every debate about him before by numerous other posters in other threads. And you did exactly what I knew you were going to do the instant I saw the thread and laughed my bollocks off. It only git funnier, the further in I read and the more reasoned support Chang got as opposed to bestestest ever twiple gee. And you have the gall to call other people fanboys when you'd give lovebites to Golovkin's turds. Get yourself felt.

Chitalada looks more or less as good against Chang as he ever looked. Which is excellent, and most would agree better than Chiquita. It was pointed out to you that being a seasoned world class Muay Thai fighter largely accounted for him being more or less the real deal a handful of fights after turning pro. And that the telecast of the fight stated that he had had significantly more fights than are recorded on boxrec. This by a native Korean speaker who is an expert on Asian boxing and has balanced views centred around facts. Blahblahblah only four fights worse than Gonzalez lost to the best ihatechang was basically your response.

Chang being finished by his mid twenties? It was pointed out to you that he had started entering his prime as a teenage prodigy and that he relied on speed, high energy, reflexes and aggression. Similar to Benitez and Harada. Blahblahblah excusesexcuses. **** off. That he was notoriously lacking in dedication with a turbulent personal life and that this both contributed to his early decline and forced him out of retirement when he'd already been slipping in his first career? Or that the lower weights tend to age more quickly anyway? Nope, counts for **** all does that, he should just have been better for longer and defied physics, biology and the natural effects of not looking after yourself because Mendoza says so.

Zapata had questionable durability at the world level and could be hurt and stopped. OK. That goes for plenty of the soppy bollocks excuses for fighters that Golovkin fought, and Chang didn't have Golovkin's power, nor were any of his opponents in the same postcode as Zapata for skill or all round ability. Even after Chang had crushed him in the rematch and been hard done by in the first fight when fighting with one foot, Zapata was still able to jump to flyweight, win a title and nearly outbox the outstanding Laciar. Zapata himself was a troubled figure with problems outside the ring who lacked drive and dedication and let himself down, so there's merit in objectively assessing his standing, yeah. But you aren't objective are you?

You keep whining about Chang fighting in an obscure division and facing poor opposition. Even if you were right (you aren't) and the likes of Chitalada, Zapata, Torres, Ohashi, Perez, Lopez were crap, operating on the logic that Golovkins ledger is better purely because he fought at in a classic, historically deep division is so unspeakably stupid that it lowers the IQ of everyone in a ten mile radius. Middleweight is historically deeper than light fly, yeah. But not the middleweight that Golovkin fought in. That middleweight scene is quite possibly the absolute arsehole of the division's history, at least since 1920, and possibly the worst era for any division I've seen in my lifetime. I've criticised Hopkins's middleweight ledger before and the decline since the mid nineties, but Golovkins opposition other than Alvarez mostly makes Hopkins's lot look like the murderers row. And Golovkin has still managed to emerge with serious question marks. Trust me, when comparing Golovkin to another fighter, picking on the other guy's CV is arsegravy.

There are other points I could address, but haggling with you is just about the most depressing **** possible on an internet forum. You're a pain in the arse and you ruin threads and waste people's time with this deluded, arrogant bollocks and childish hatred/exaltation of fighters you either love or hate. Even more ridiculous is that you actually feigned at wanting to start a constructive discussion and asked for input when you'd already made up your mind and never intended to consider changing it. It was like reading one of those leaflets that Jehovah's Witnesses drop off at your house where they briefly pretend to consider that evolution and the origin of the universe might not be altogether a bad idea, and then AAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!****ing bat**** wappydoo with the magic man did it. Sorry if that winds up anyone else of a religious disposition.

Anyway, that's my last word on the subject. I probably could've have worded it better but I think the thread and your history with Lewis, Louis, Johnson, the Klits, Kovalev the weak ribbed *******, Loma, GGG etc show such effort to be monumental dim****ery and a waste of oxygen. So jog and don't bother replying. Or reply if you like, I just won't read it.

PS mcvey is inevitable, like Thanos (click).

 

This ATG post was made oh so much better by the fact I read in Dara O'Brien's voice.

 

Well, I'm going a bit thin on top mate and like Guinness. No physics degree though and an unfunny **** to boot. Swings and roundabouts.

 

Well that rant had me pissing myself. Although it did have me questioning why I read things in Dara's voice.

Might be a weird place to ask this question, but do you know any unheralded great wars? I'm doing a big top 100, and I want to see as much great **** as I can get my mitts on.

 

I suppose it depends what you've seen and how obscure. I was rewatching Saad vs Kates the other day. Maybe not very obscure but gets a bit ignored compared to Matt's other barnburners.

Ohba vs Chionoi?
Torres vs Chionoi I?
McGowan vs Rudkin II. More a very high quality all round fight, but plenty of action.
Sugar Ramos vs Moore. Terrible outcome of course but the fight itself is beaut.

Sugar Ramos vs Mando Ramos?

 

Well, unfortunately I've seen all of those so nothing new. I mean something which doesn't have a rep for being a great fight, but is a good ol' straightener.

Something like González vs Letterlough or Norkus vs Nardico.

 

Let me have a think George. I'll try to drop you a message at some point. If you're heavily into drinking in new stuff you might have outstripped me. Did you watch the link to Park-Oguma II that I thought went up on the coveted fights thread? I thought Amos-san put it on.....

 

@Tin Ribs. Settle down jr, you not as smart as you think you are. I could rip post #91 apart easily, but when it comes to people who can't learn, what's the point? I did make point's relevant to the thread which you and others can not counter, so stop acting like a few fanboys own the facts. You don't. I'm not going to waste time with the likes of you, but if the truth I bought forward irked you, I must have unintentionally accomplished something very small that suits a jr flyweight.

Maybe your 5'3" tall and 108 pounds who prime went at age 26? If I wanted to be cruel I'd used these excuses for Chang's opponents, and laugh almost as hard as some of his title opponent choices. Sure, sure you're the expert and those who elect who goes into the hall of fame are't. Watch how much faster GGG makes it, then go ahead and tell us why the voters just don't seem to know as much as you do. Sure, a new weight divison at 108 pound which few cares about is where Chang won and lost his share is a key to greatness. He won nada at flyweight. In fact he's 0-2 at fly and probably would not have been as good at flyweight if there was no 108 pound divison to dehydrate for.

No worries, I have little intention of reading your drivel or assaulting your favorite fighters just for the heck of it. I say what I think, and back it up with facts. One day for fun, I just might use a sample of observations from you and post it on another forum, only to watch them laugh at me. But you're safe here in this thread, I suggest you stay here.

 

Yeman, thanks.

I did see it, in fact I did a post in the scorecard thread. I think I had it 11-4 with the KD; not a fan of the decision. Rough gave a decent reason as to why it wasn't a robbery though. Very entertaining fight, as you'd expect with Park.

 

I think I'll do what Flea said and pop you on ignore, flower.

 

On Chitalada's record when he fought Chang the first time:

Here's the evidence, lest I be accused of making stuff up. On 1:16 of the Youtube feed, it says, Chitalada has had 18 fights. This is NOT in Korean. Of course, the live telecast could be wrong. But a reasonable man would assume that it is Boxrec that is in error in cases like this.

This content is protected

Still have my cousin visiting, but I want to put this out to drive home the lesson that those who rely entirely on Boxrec for their boxing knowledge really should be more cautious.

 

Best boxing rant. Ever.

 

Thanks Fighter for taking the time when I'm sure you have far better things to do than enlighten......yes, well.

 

Why you replied back????

Why not add some relevant information? The IBRO, a group of historians ( Some of whom post here ) updated their all time rankings. This list is not from one of five men ,but over 20. Where does Mr. Chang rank at flyweight? Some here think he was a great flyweight! Do take note that straw weights make the cut at fly. So where is Chang rate? Well no spoilers. Find out for yourself, and maybe once again I bring forth relevant information to the table that puts a double zipper over your grill


IBRO ALL-TIME RATINGS
March 31, 2019
Flyweight Ratings

1. Jimmy Wilde (636)
2. Pascual Perez (589)
3. Pancho Villa (536)
4. Fidel LaBarba (460)
5. Benny Lynch (459)
6. Miguel Canto (453)
7. Frankie Genaro (441)
8. Midget Wolgast (352)
9. Ricardo Lopez (306)
10. Peter Kane (275)
11. Pone Kingpetch (217)
12. Jimmy Barry (192)
13. Fighting Harada (165)
14. Masao Ohba (124)
15. Roman Gonzalez (123)
16. Horacio Accavallo (119)
17. Humberto Gonzalez (107)
18. Johnny Buff (97)
19. Michael Carbajal (91)
20. Pongsaklek Wonjongkam (90)

Others receiving votes (50 or more points)

Chartchai Choinoi (88), Betulio Gonzalez (78), Johnny Coulon (75), Sot Chitalda (67), Yuri Archabakov (65), Mark Johnson (54), Newboy Brown (51), Yoshio Shirai (50).

***Spoliers *** Oh snap, he didn't even make the cut, but one who beat him did and another who also beat Chang made honorable mention, so not all was lost.

Now tell us why you are better than the IBRO. Laughs are alway welcome!

PS: I don't follow flea man, he says people are on his ignore but he posts back at them, so....

 

Saw an AP report recently that said he was like....12-0. So either way, many more fights than boxrec has and he had fought the legendary Samart multiple times in Muay Thai as well, so he knew what he was up to.