Golovkin Against The Bodysnatcher..?

Yeah, I thought you were going to get to the excuses. You're going all the way on this one then... Good luck to you, sir. Bye.

 

So disappointing.

You’re very capable of having a great debate. But when it comes to GGG, you just lose the plot.


Hyping guys like Jacobs and Derev, whilst dismissing guys like Toney etc.


Look at your thoughts on the Toney-Nunn fight:

“He was schooling him, until he ran out of gas”


How lucky for James, that Nunn ran out of gas then.

SMH.

Has it not occurred to you, that Toney’s great body work started to slow him down?

It wasn’t some lucky punch either.

It also makes zero difference that James was down on the cards at the time.

That was a great win.

A win that GGG simply doesn’t have on his resume.

 

Joe Louis beat 38 opponents who were ranked and also has a few scalps over Heavyweights who are considered ATG's. I would say Louis's resume is significantly better than Golovkin's by quite some distance.

Or more like the other way around you overrate Golovkin's opposition to fit your narrative, and dismiss any of Toney's or McCallum's opposition to also fit your narrative.

Suggesting opponents like Geale, Brook, Lemieux, are better opponents than the likes of McCallum, Jackson, Kalmabay, is absolute madness.

I'm not saying Golovkin fought all trash cans he has some solid wins not doubt about it, and his dominance over them has to be given alot of credit. My main issue is Golovkin hasn't really got a stand out win and when your best win is Daniel Jacobs that does say it all really.

Brook had one fight at Middleweight and moved up two weight classes to fight Golovkin in which he was seriously out of his depth. That's not comparable to McCallum Brook did nothing at Middleweight never even won a single fight at that weightclass.

If you want to use Jacobs as an example as moving up like McCallum you could use that, except obviously McCallum is a superior fighter to Jacobs that's plainly obvious.

Toney fought RJJ at Super Middleweight not Middleweight.

As for opponents who Toney fought at Middleweight Reggie Johnson, Mike McCallum, Michael Nunn, are 3 opponents who are clearly better than anyone Golovkin beat and would be serious threats to Golovkin.

Yes but the issue is Golovkin hasn't got a deep resume in regards to stand out names, so when we judge Golovkin against the best opposition he fought he doesn't look spectacular in that regard.

Not at all you're just rambling on about something that i never even said or discussed, i was purely on about Golovkin and Toney in regards to their best opponents and how they looked and performed in those fights.

I'm not wrong i never suggested he didn't beat Jacobs i said it was a very close decision which it was. I had Golovkin barely beating Jacobs based on the knockdown. But it wasn't an impressive performance and when you consider Jacobs is Golovkin's best win his resume doesn't look that great.

The Canelo fights i thought Golovkin edged their 1st encounter 7-5, but i thought Canelo edged their 2nd fight based on being the aggressor. Again i wasn't overly impressed with Golovkin in either of the fights because he's supposed to be the Middleweight king, and Canelo was the fighter at that time moving up in weight. I felt like Golovkin should've asserted his dominance more in which he didn't.

Again don't get me wrong i'm not a fan of Canelo and he's had some very fortunate things go his way in his career, but for me Golovkin didn't really do enough to really separate himself from Canelo. Which is why for me he falls just short of being an ATG IMO.

I don't need to refresh my memory i scored the fight last year here was my scorecard.

James Toney vs Michael Nunn

1 Toney
2 Nunn
3 Nunn
4 Nunn
5 Nunn
6 Toney
7 Nunn
8 Toney
9 Toney
10 Toney
11 Toney wins by TKO

95-95 even

Nunn built up a big lead early but Toney came on strong after 7th round and won pretty much every round from then on.

I don't think it's even debatable Nunn would be far and away Golovkin's best win, Nunn is clearly better than Jacobs i don't think that's even a hard choice to be quite frank.

Well that's your opinion not a fact both fights were close, Golovkin probably did deserve to edge their first encounter i myself had it 7-5 Golovkin as i said. Although i see nothing wrong with Canelo winning their 2nd fight which i thought Canelo edged.

Clearly you're not very knowledgeable on Williams he arguably beat Barkley, Benn, in two very razor thin close decisions that could've gone his way. How many of Golovkin's opponents could go to the wire with a prime Iran Barkley ? Nigel Benn ?

I'm not saying he was a great fighter but he was a very tricky defensive fighter with a very solid chin, who often gave many notable names a very tough nights work.

You don't think what ? so you don't think Reggie Johnson who won world titles in two weight classes and is very skillful southpaw, Mike McCallum considered a great fighter who won titles in 3 weightclasses. And Sumbu Kalambay who is considered one of the best Middleweights of the last 40 years, aren't a level above the likes of Jacobs ? Derveyanchenko ? well i'm speechless to be quite frank.

Disagree with what ? Toney beat the likes of McCallum, Nunn, Jirov, in great fights in which he performed at a very high level. That's considerably better than what Golovkin looked vs his best opposition in Canelo, Derveyanchenko, Jacobs.

 

FWIW, Jones and Toney fought at super middleweight, not middleweight

 

yeah ok, clearly we are going around in circles because NO CONTEXT is being applied here whatsoever despite me posting it three times already. Will posting OLD Kalambay, OLD Golovkin SMALL Jackson for a fourth time make any difference? I suspect not.

 

This thread was never going to disappoint.

GGG's biggest problem (beside this not being in the General forum) was a lack of bigger name opposition. He was to his credit making minced meat of challengers for a very long time, treating them as people would expect and demand.

Another problem is how people perceive his efforts against Jacobs and co later career. Pro GGG = shouts of old age and anti GGG = the competition finally got better and exposed him. Common sense would say it may be somewhere in the middle. At any rate he won both fights. 12 rounders also give the opportunity of closer fights that 15 rounds may well have sorted out.

I thought GGG and Canelo both impressed in their first two fights. There were good skills on display and the durability was insane for both given how hard each hits and they both wore some massive blows at times.

GGG perhaps calls for a bit of a leap of faith but we've seen people stepping up the the challenge countless times and succeed just like we've also seen them lose.

I'd sure pay money to see this cross era battle.

 

GGG went from "would be just lopsided decision Hagler or straight knock him out, that's the only question" three or four years back to "Nah, old creaky McCallum would move up in weight and paintbrush him clean".

The pendulum swing is as wide of a revision as I have seen in my almost 15 years here. Fascinating.

 

In every aspect of the game GGG is a very good fighter but overall Mike McCallum is a great one. I think “The Bodysnatcher” could shut down every avenue of success for GGG he’s too refined and slippery he'd have have worn him down and taken a good decision.

 

You can’t be serious.

It’s YOU who didn’t apply any context from your opening post.

You think that GGG would have beaten Mike convincingly.

Why?

Because he had more title defences.

Ridiculous.

You killed the debate straight from the off.

You’re very much like No Neck.

You’re a stat man.

You think that what GGG did was amazing.

Because you like the stats.

The shiny belt and the official title defences.

The official accolades.

Twenty odd MW title defences impresses you greatly.

Whereas to the rest of us, it simply depends who those defences were against.

Now Mike McCallum never made as many defences.

However, he beat better guys, he fought better guys and he has a better resume.

And that is the very definition of applying context.

Now if you don’t agree with that, and you believe that the better fighter has to be the one with the most defences, then again, you’re essentially saying that Sven Ottke was better than Roy Jones, Andre Ward and James Toney etc.

So it’s you who needs to apply the relevant context.

 

That he would beat Hagler you must have gotten from General. That has never been a widespread opinion here. Maybe one or two GGG die hards, but that would be it.

 

These old fogeys add 10% to a fighter's abilities for every decade that passes. Even when confronted with the actual footage their blurry eyes seem to see what they want to see. It's pointless

 

Golovkin would have cleaned McCallum up and its obvious from the footage.

Mike beat smaller guys, he beat older guys and he got beaten by guys who are themselves wildly overrated at the weight.

I hear ridiculous and stupid excuses like "McCallum never got a chance" which is laughable. He got his "chances" and struggled mightily. Golovkin "never got a chance". It's a fact. He spent much of his early prime trying to catch a break because of his awful promoters and because those who knew what was up avoided him like the plague.

I've repeatedly pointed this out.

It's like dealing with the National Geriatrics Convention where they are all meeting each other for the first time despite it being the 12th reunion.

 

Personally I don't like to make these predictions, but what I can say is that Hagler was the greater and more proven fighter.

On the other hand, GGG would have been a SMW in Hagler's time.

 

Probably saw it a dozen times and laughed to myself everytime someone hyped GGG up. Maybe it was General, but it seemed like a plague of locust-like ignorance sweeping the site for a few months.

McCallum was a fine fighter, no doubt, but my lasting memory of him from his prime is a mind numbing 15 round "win" over clubfghter Sean Mannion in what should have been his pivotal moment in the sun that seemed to last 1000 rounds. Boring, sleep inducing rounds.