Golovkin Against The Bodysnatcher..?

McCallum has the superior skills, GGG tons more power. I think it's the sort of fight where GGG would have to be aggressive and heap the pressure on. Good matchup.

 

who wins ?

 

I think either could. Over three fights i highly doubt one wins the lot. If GGG goes hard he can win some if he doesn't he's behind the 8 ball.

 

I don't know why BCS just trolls anytime we discuss Golovkin in fantasy match ups.

I find him a perfect reasonable poster in any other topic but regarding Golovkin when you're saying stuff like "Kalambay, Toney, are mediocre" and then rave about Jacobs, Derevyanchenko, who are nothing spectacular is just trolling.

Not to mention they were both razor thin decisions in which alot of people thought Golovkin lost to Derevyanchenko so that's not really forming a good case for Golovkin.

Heres another point did Golovkin ever have a stand out performance against an upper echelon opponent ? He seemed to be good at crushing B and C level types of opponents but didn't seem to impress that much when he stepped up another level.

I wasn't that impressed with Golovkin vs Canelo, Jacobs, or Derevyanchenko, to be quite frank.

McCallum has stand out performances vs the likes of Watson, Toney 1, Jackson, Curry.

 

BCS8,

So you keep saying. But he struggled with lesser fighters, and it's obvious that you don't possess any substantial knowledge of Sumbu Kalambay.

It of course deserves respect. However, you personally obviously concentrate more on the number and the official accolade, instead of focusing on the specific quality of the opponents who he fought.

Yes, the MW division is prestigious. And it's unusual for a MW to make as many defences. So there's not many fighters in history who have accomplished that. But at the same time, other fighters either haven't had those same opportunities, or they've passed through the division.

Name me your best ever MW's, and then tell me if you think that they couldn't also have defeated GGG's opponents.

Because although what GGG did deserves respect, those title defences don't make him better than every MW who didn't accomplish those title defences.

At the end of the day, those defences were made against mostly B-C level opponents.

So, no, IMHO, GGG has done nothing special.

Bernard Hopkins also had a weak reign at MW.

At SMW, both Joe Calzaghe and Sven Ottke made 21 title defences. But go and look at their opponents. Whilst it deserves some respect, it wasn't some amazing feat. Most of Joe's defences were against low level opponents.

I didn't say that they were robbed. I said that they didn't have the same opportunities. Either through fighting better opposition, or through moving up to higher weight classes etc.

Surely you must be aware that any great MW throughout history, would also have been able to have replicated GGG's timeline, where they could have fought and beaten all of GGG's title fight opponents. Again, most of them were B to C level guys.

Mike McCallum would have been favoured to have followed that same timeline, where he could have replicated those same results and same number of defences.

The reason why Mike couldn't replicate GGG's same number of title defences in his own era, is simply because he fought better fighters. And that should be both obvious and clear to you.

This is exactly my point. Hopkins is a great MW, and what he did also deserves respect. But what he did also wasn't some amazing feat. His title reign was quite weak.

Mike fought and beat better fighters than what Hopkins did at MW.

It doesn't need much technical analysis. And it's already been broken down on previous pages. These two guys were both great technicians. GGG had more power, but Mike was more fluid and a bit faster. He also had a bigger reach. Both of them had great chins. So it would have been a technical fight. But GGG hasn't done anything in his career for you to believe that he'd have beaten Mike convincingly.

Trying to use his number of title defences as evidence is extremely poor.

That's why Dynamicpuncher used your logic and THEN gave you the analogy of Roy Jones and Sven Ottke.

If we follow your logic, then it would be like you saying:

"The best version of Ottke beats him convincingly. If Jones was that good, he'd have the most defences in SMW history and instead it's Ottke that does"

That is your reasoning.

Yeah, obviously that was James at his absolute best, fully fit and motivated.

SMH.

As above, this is very poor from you. I made a request for you to have an actual debate. Yet this is the type of nonsense that you've come back with. A quick look on BoxRec to see who Kalambay lost to.

Do you really want to go down this avenue?

We can go there.

GGG's best opponents were Jacobs, Derev and Canelo.

He struggled with them.

And Jacobs was taken out by Pirog.

Derev was beaten by Jacobs.

Canelo couldn't take a round off of a 36 year old Floyd, and he could barely beat Trout and Lara, not that long before he fought GGG.

So if you want to be ignorant and play that game, then there you go.

I always apply context. Always. You should do the same.

Of course you do.

However, your sole reasoning is because GGG made more MW title defences.

So that opinion carries as much weight as a bucket of water with a gaping hole in it.

 

I don't think that he's trolling at all.

He also has issues with Toney too.

He doesn't give him an ounce of credit for beating Nunn.

He says that Nunn was schooling him before he simply ran out of gas.

 

McCallum is a class above Golovkin.

McCallum W UD 12 (with a comfortable margin in the scorecards)

 

Top-3

 

That's because, oh yeah, you're watching an old fighter.

 

Kalambay did indeed struggle with lesser fighters, one of whom I've already pointed out.

Our opinions on the quality of his opponents diverge.

Another way of saying that those fighters couldn't keep beating the best until they got a mandatory and forced a title fight. Golovkin is a prime example of "not getting those opportunities" as all the best fighters around were talking bit about how they would beat him and then when he called them out for a date they vanished like smoke in the wind.

Clearly opinion.

Tell me YDKSAB without telling me YDKSAB

This board has Hopkins as a top 10 MW of all time.

This content is protected

I'm gonna go ahead and call horse****.

The comedy angle. Nice.

Here's one of the so called "better fighters" showcasing his sublime skills:

This content is protected

Do you even watch the fights or do you run them through the ol "memory projector".

Golovkin would have controlled him with jab and footwork. McCallum's body attack is superceded by Golovkin's own precision punching body attack. GGG is a master at sneaking the left under the elbow and into the liver. He has one-shotted guys and broken their ribs with his body attack. Nothing in MM's stance leads me to believe that he has an effective defence for the way Golovkin mixes it up. Conversely, Golovkin protects his own body to a system, dropping his elbows and stopping incoming shots like that. Furthermore he wraps one of his arms around his body like he did especially against Canelo to muffle the body attack like that. Facts are that Mike doesn't have the firepower to crack that chin and that means that GGG would eventually walk him into a corner or the ropes and time him like he did to all the cuties. McCallum ends up staring at the pretty lights wondering where he is and what he's doing there. There's nothing MM does that makes me think that he has the footwork to move around the ring indefinitely against GGG.

Golovkin fought everybody he could, and I rate his opposition as good as or better than McCallums.

On the other hand you have no problem in picking out performances where (OLD) Golovkin was either dehydrated compared to his opponent (Jacobs) or recently suffering from influenza (Derevyanchenko) as indicators of his vulnerability. Yeah, you're a real paragon of even handedness here

Canelo would have put a hole through McCallum.

Are you taking into account that Canelo was a step away from being a mummy from dehydration against Floyd? No, of course you aren't.

 

Or maybe it's because oh yeah it's the best opponents he fought.

 

This is my dream match-up at MW.

Like, with the benefit of a time machine or magic wand, obviously some iteration of Ruby Rob, Marvelous Marv, B-Hop and Monzón would be more important to settle things historically - but this is the one I'd be sitting front row with a big tub of popcorn feeling like a little kid on Christmas.

 

"Hey look, James Toney got ****ed up by Dave Tiberi"

Oooh, aaah, he' wuzzn't ready!

Tiberi took him by surprise!

Toney wasn't allowed to eat all the hotdogs he wanted, he was all drained!

Uhh, Toney's pet lizard died and he was sad and unmotivated!

Tiberi's trunks were the wrong colour and Toney got depressed!

Any more bull**** excuses that I need to hear while actual documented facts are being ignored when it comes to GGG?

 

Dynamicpuncher thinks that you’re trolling.

I have honestly never thought that before.

However, these recent posts of yours are so ridiculous, it’s now making me doubt myself.

What you’ve just written is absolutely bizarre.

I will do you the courtesy of replying though, seeing as though you made the effort to reply to me.

 

Because Toney beat better fighters than Golovkin did hence he proved he could perform at a very high level. So you can overlook his off nights because he had so many quality wins.

Did Golovkin stop anyone at the same level as Michael Nunn ? No.

Did Golovkin beat anyone as skillful as Mike McCallum ? No.

Simple answer.

When Toney stepped up he had standout performances Golovkin did not.