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

Middleweight Ratings

1. Harry Greb (609)
2. Ray Robinson (575)
3. Carlos Monzon (527)
4. Marvin Hagler (493)
5. Mickey Walker (448)
6. Stanley Ketchel (446)
7. Bob Fitzsimmons (377)
8. Bernard Hopkins (256)
9. Charley Burley (251)
10. Marcel Cerdan (248)
11. Jake LaMotta (223)
12. Tony Zale (206)
13. Tiger Flowers (202)
14. Sam Langford (195)
15. Roy Jones Jr. (170)
16. Dick Tiger (168)
17. Ezzard Charles (148)
18. Mike Gibbons (137)
19. Freddie Steele (131)
20. Tommy Ryan (108)

Top Vote Getters (50 or more points): Emile Griffith (86), Ray Leonard (81), Gene Fullmer (65), Kid McCoy (64), James Toney (50).

Where's GGG on this list from the IBRO?

The funniest part is this is actually GGGs division, as opposed to your list which isn't Changs division.

I think GGG is greater out of the two, I also think you sound like a dickhead.


All your talk about the IBHOF... You know James Toney isn't in there?
Winky Wright is...
Is Winky greater than Toney?


The basis of your arguments are such contrived bs.

Btw I am definitely not a Chang fanboy, (if they even exist.) seeing as I only found out who he is this week.

I've been mad busy but I took the time out of my day to call you on your ****... Probably quite dumb of me really.

 

He's obviously trolling. He's done this in several threads that discussed Chang - even if Chang was merely a tangential topic in those threads. The problem is not only that he's often factually inaccurate in his ignorant blabberings. In addition, he is not willing to be consistent when he takes positions. For instance, he claims that IBHoF voters are perfectly objective and apparently omniscient; yet he doesn't respond when I point out that it took Harada (whom he apparently concedes was great) over 25 years to make the IBHoF. So there is literally no argument to refute, since he never maintains any consistent position.

As such, it is useful to refute him on a given thread once to set the record straight for innocent bystanders. But to persist in refuting him is to fall into his trolling trap and waste time.

 

>>> A little help for you. Don't realize the IBRO doesn't like to vote for fighters until they are retired? Probably not. GGG once he retires will make the cut. For now he's an active fighter. For example neither Mayweather or Klitschko when they were active made the cut. Now they they have retired ( hopefully ) both did. See how it works? Suddenly the point you were trying to make isn't worth much.

Toney did make the top 25. Chang is no where to be found.

Besides as we know Middle Weight is a deeper division. Can you agree with me there or will you duck this question because I have yet another point? I'd put Toney in the top 20.

 

Are you dumb or do you not watch boxing?

MW as a rule of thumb is a deeper division than LFW.
I honestly don't think anyone has disagreed on that.

 

Not a troll, just answering the title in the thread.

Harda is #10 at bantam on the IBRO. I might go a tad higher than that. Okay, Chang has been retired to use your benchmark for 25 years. You're benchmark not mine. He didn't make the cut. What say you now?

Harda > Chang.

Regarding the objective card, Chang has many fans here, they can't refute or make intelligent point toward his greatness besides admiring him. So they try to make this personal, which to me is a joke. What someone says matters zero to me here, however, watching people use double standards, make bad analogies, and duck my questions because they are true, is rather interesting.

To clarify I think Chang was the best at 108 pounds, a brand new division for a few years; however, he never won a fight at flyweight. It's speculation as to how he would have done there. I don't think he'd match up as well vs. guys who can hit, and I already made a point that none of his opponents ended up with a carer KO% over 60%, even with the flotsam and jetsam little guys often fight which as I pointed out includes title bouts.

 

Catch on quick, it was just another point I made that is correct. I wanted to see if any of the 108 pound fan boys disagree. In this case we agree. GGG, who will be in the hall of fame much sooner than Chang ( I say 1st year of eligibility by Hall of fame Voters ) and was also rated higher in a pound for pound sense is a better fighter than Chang. If you want to judge it by title defenses or ring magazine ranked opponents fought or beat, guess what? GGG again. Wanna judge it by win loss record? Same thing. Rounds won to round loss ratio? You get the picture.

I'll continue to use 3rd party data and show you why you are mistaken. These are my points. No one can say otherwise.

GGG > Chang.

If they fought KO 1 or 2, Chang can pick the ring size, and judges, and be on PED's...

Of corse such a massacre would never be allowed and GGG would never do it. I boxed, sparing with flyweight is something I'd never do. It would be like sparring with a woman, except some of the women a few weight classes up hit harder.

 

Chang is already in the HOF He was inducted 10 years ago.

You obviously don't even have cursory knowledge of his career. You look foolish here, and have been debunked and exposed at every turn. Just back down and admit you were wrong. Your posts are becoming more and more laughable.

This content is protected

 

Yes he is. Dude how long did it take Chang to get there? T hat is my point. It won't take GGG 20 years to get in the hall of fame once he retires.. How can I say that more clearly. Therefore the voters think more highly of GGG.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money on that one. Now can you admit I'm correct?

 

Light flyweight today is deeper than middleweight today. And Chang's light fly era was deeper than Golovkin's middleweight era too.

 

" I already made a point that none of his opponents ended up with a carer KO% over 60%"

Ursua: 34 wins 25 KOs
Torres: 63 wins 47 KOs
Chitalada: 26 wins 16 KOs (that we know of)
Ohashi: 19 wins 12 KOs
Perez: 57 wins 41 KOs
Shin: 37 wins 22 KOs (just under 60% threshold)
Velasco: 19 wins 16 KOs

Got told about this post, hence why I saw it. Still have no desire to interact with this loser, thought I'd just show you guys yet again that he makes up stuff as he goes along. Put him on ignore, he's not worth your time.

 

See, I named a few of them and "KO% is of ALL fights, not just wins".

Very pandering, don't you think? Combined with the benchmark conveniently set 2% above the highest by that standard, and you have a hand-crafted narrative.

 

GGG clearly won the 1s fight vs Canelo. It was a robbery. He also won the fight with Jacobs, he had the knockdown and Jacobs did not win 7 of 12 rounds to get a draw, no way. Besides these fights happened when GGG was past his prime. Winning them at age 35-36 with his style shows his quality.

Can you show me media cards that indicate Chang won by this type of margin over Zapata or Chitalada? No you can not but you may try.

Score Cards GGG vs Canelo 1.

Brian Campbell (CBS sports): 116-112 Golovkin
Dan Rafael (ESPN): 114-114 draw
Salvador Rodríguez (ESPN Mexico): 114-114 draw
Gareth A Davies (The Telegraph): 116-112 Golovkin
Josh Peter (USA Today): 115-113 Golovkin
Sports Illustrated: 114-114 draw
Dylan Hernandez (LA Times): 115-113 Golovkin
Lance Pugmire (La Times): 114-114 draw
*******: 114-114 draw
Chris Mannix (Yahoo! Sports): 115-113 Golovkin
Kevin Iole (Yahoo! Sports): 114-114 draw
The Guardian: 116-112 Golovkin
Joe DePaolo (Washington Post): 115-113 Golovkin
The Associated Press: 114-114 draw
Bill Simmons (HBO and The Ringer): 114-114 draw
Steven Muehlhausen (Sporting News): 116-112 Golovkin
Michael Montero (MonteroOnBoxing): 115-113 Golovkin
George Willis (New York Post): 114-114 draw
Jeff Powell (Daily Mail): 116-113 Golovkin
Mike Coppinger (Ring Magazine): 114-114 draw
Sherdog . com: 116-112 Golovkin
Jai Bednall (news . com . au): 115-113 Golovkin
Brian Mazique (Forbes): 114-114 draw
Adam Abramowitz (Ring Magazine and SN Boxing): 115-113 Golovkin
Tom Craze (Bad Left Hook): 116-112 Golovkin
Fraser Coffeen (Bloody Elbow): 115-113 Golovkin
Matt Christie (Boxing News): 115-114 Golovkin
Below The Belt Podcast: 115-113 Golovkin
World Boxing News: 115-113 Golovkin


Media cards,

Harold Lederman (HBO Sports): 116-112 Golovkin

Brian Campbell (CBS sports): 116-112 Golovkin

Dan Rafael (ESPN): 114-114 draw

Salvador Rodríguez (ESPN Mexico): 114-114 draw

Gareth A Davies (The Telegraph): 116-112 Golovkin

Josh Peter (USA Today): 115-113 Golovkin

Dylan Hernandez (LA Times): 115-113 Golovkin

Lance Pugmire (La Times): 114-114 draw

Box Scene: 114-114 draw

Chris Mannix (Yahoo! Sports): 115-113 Golovkin

Kevin Iole (Yahoo! Sports): 114-114 draw

The Guardian: 116-112 Golovkin

Joe DePaolo (Washington Post): 115-113 Golovkin

Mike Coppinger (Ring Magazine): 114-114 draw

Sherdog: 116-112 Golovkin

Jai Bednall (news.com.au): 115-113 Golovkin

Brian Mazique (Forbes): 114-114 draw

Adam Abramowitz (Ring Magazine and SN Boxing): 115-113 Golovkin


Tom Craze (Bad Left Hook): 116-112 Golovkin

Fraser Coffeen (Bloody Elbow): 115-113 Golovkin

The Associated Press: 114-114 draw

Bill Simmons (HBO and The Ringer): 114-114 draw

Steven Muehlhausen (Sporting News): 116-112 Golovkin

Michael Montero (MonteroOnBoxing): 115-113 Golovkin

Matt Christie (Boxing News): 115-114 Golovkin

George Willis (New York Post): 114-114 draw

Below The Belt Podcast: 115-113 Golovkin

World Boxing News: 115-113 Golovkin

Jeff Powell (Daily Mail): 116-113 Golovkin

 

Changing the rules? A KO% if the amount of KO's divided by total fights.

 

A bit of an error here. Nice to know you think Canelo won and drew. Now way. You see the GGG hate is starting to come out with comments like that, Either that or people don't know how to score a fight ( See the media cards on GGG vs Canelo 1 ), or even define a KO%. You Chang boys can keep high giving yourself, its rather funny.

I have not seen much on why Chang is better. He never won a flyweight fight! He wasn't ranked as high in a pound of pound sense, he will be proven to make the hall of fame 15+ years later to make the hall of fame. ( GGG get in on the first try or 2nd at latest ) , he didn't beat as many ring magazine rated opponents, he lost a lot more, he retired young preventing more losses, etc....You see stuff that shows who was better. Facts, using key 3rd party data that most respect. That's what I have.

 

I already made a point that none of his opponents ended up with a carer KO% over 60%"

Ursua: 34 wins 25 KOs
Torres: 63 wins 47 KOs
Chitalada: 26 wins 16 KOs (that we know of)
Ohashi: 19 wins 12 KOs
Perez:

In one of his latest posts, he asks us to give us media cards of Chang v. Zapata I. The problem is that possibly the only Western media source that covered this fight in the early 80s is the Ring magazine. (And I am not sure if the Ring magazine can be considered so impartial, given that Zapata fought out of Japan, I believe, at this time; and Joe Koizumi was basically the only Asia correspondent for them.) Either Mendoza is too ignorant to know that the media coverage 40 years ago isn't what it is now - no Internet - or he knows it and that is precisely why he is using this argument. Again, he's either mentally deficient or arguing in bad faith.

I've had my say and have no desire to interact with him. The only argument I will address is his ad hominem argument: e.g. I rate Chang high because I like him (or he's my "hero" in his words). Nothing further could be the truth. As I've said elsewhere - multiple times - my favorite fighters growing up were big punchers, both Korean or Western. My favorite Korean fighters were Chong-pal Park, Choong-jae Hwang, Chung-il Choi, et al. - none of whom I rate very highly. In fact, I've been actually told I am "biased" against Park elsewhere. Likewise, my favorite Western fighters were Hearns and Duran; and yet I rate Leonard (whom I disliked more than any Western fighter) far higher than Hearns. I helped the Koreans in getting Chang inducted for a very simple reason: He was worthy. In contrast, I didn't want to have anything to do with the project when the Koreans initially proposed to back someone else's candidacy.