Michael Nunn vs. Gennady Golovkin.

Add me to the list:
Olu G. Rotimi 116-112 Canelo

 

My point is not that GGG has a good or better resume than Hagler and Leonard. It's that both Hagler and Leonard's resume/wins don't really justify the over the top hype (their skills may be, but not their resume).

Benitez is a good win, but he was still young + didn't have a great resume at that point (beating 15 top contenders? come on mate, there's more to a fighter than being a labelled a top contender).

Duran, a great name on the resume, however, Leonard still lost and sought to take the rematch when Duran was a fat mess.

Yep Hagler-Leonard was a cash cow fight that took place out of prime and just shouldn't be counted...at least for Hearns-Leonard 2, Leonard didn't have 3 years out of the ring. But still looked rusty. I made a note that Hearns (first fight) was winning on points prior to the knockout. Credit for SRL for knocking him out but your belief he would KO Hearns every time is pure speculation.

"There's no-way of painting three stoppage wins over bonafide all-time greats as bad" well actually there is and for previously mentioned reasons + context. Hearns was a great win, "beatign" an objectively aged and war torn Hagler isn't that impressive, neither is beating a fat mess who had to starve himself. You're reaching deep into an endless pocket with Leonard's wins against Ayub Kalule and Lalonde. Leonard's resume may be better than Golovkin's but his wins OVERALL are not significantly more impressive than GGGs (due to context, although Leonard's wins against Hearns and Benitez top GGGs best wins obviously). GGG deserved both the wins against a stocky ginger cheat as well as a note.

Against Hagler, Briscoe was 34/35 and had 16 losses hardly impressive. Minto, I forgot about him, he was good. Vito Antuofermo, "the second best MW " at the time?!?!? fantastic, a label, he still wasn't that impressive regardless of the belts he held.

 

With pride lol.

 

If I'm getting my information from boxrec, you may as well be getting your information from wikipedia, you think being labelled as contender = wow great fighter. Not quite, Briscoe was not that impressive at this stage of his career and him beating Chiaverini and Barr in addition to being 34/5 and having 16 losses is not going to convince anyone that Briscoe was a good win . Maybe you don't need to look into the resumes, but try actually watching the fights

 

Every time I think I've seen the most stupid people on the forum, something knew comes along and blows it out the water. Leonard and GGG's résumés being comparable

 

Yeah hilarious. I'm not saying GGGs resumes good.. At all.. But Leonards resume is hyped up by the like of yourself with nostalgic lenses or biased for the older fighters.. And you prancing around as if its great a resume is not standard stupidity but indicative of someone who is easily fooled

 

Remember that for George old is gold and are usually untouchable in his fantasy matchups. Although to be fair old school champs faced the next best guy more often.

 

I know I know...Georgie boy loves the oldies lol.. . I'm not saying Hagler/Leonard are shite... Not at all, they were amazing to watch and still are... It's just the hype they receive for their best wins is excessive

 

Canelo is getting better and better, he may go on to become one of the greatest fighters ever in his division.

 

No, Nunn was getting caught often in that bout and missing a lot of shots too.

 

GGG jabbed Brook`s head off after having to deal with his welter speed and head movement, Brook is bigger than Starling was yet Nunn struggled with Marlon.

 

WTF?

 

Is he ? I thought his opposition had got ridiculous. I all ready have him down as a great fighter but he needs a couple of legit fights at 175 now, not short notice ones with rehydration clauses

 

His defense and counter punching is sharp as hell now.