Who is greater P4P George Foreman or Gennady Golovkin?

GGG didn't beat Canelo tho

 

Is, is, is that a proposal?!?!?!?!?!??!!?

 

I haven't read through the thread but if nobody has said it so far, I'm ****ing astounded.

 

No.

You apply a different standard to suit your narrative.


You're not impressed with George's wins over Frazier, because you say that he only did that due to his physical advantages.

Yet at the same time, you think that Wlad is the 3rd best HW of all time.


It's laughable.

And I'll just use your reasoning, and say that Wlad only beat Byrd, Haye and Povetkin, just on the grounds that he was significantly bigger.


No, GGG was not operating on another level, just because he had more technical skill.

The man literally struggled with Canelo, Derev and Jacobs.


Floyd Mayweather was a better technical boxer than Manny. He possessed more technical skills. But he wasn't operating on another level.

 

What I was trying to say is at heavyweight it's normal to have a size advantage which Foreman obviously had in most of his fights.

But it was nothing abnormal is what I was trying to say.

 

White Bomber,


Like I keep saying, you're either a troll, or your boxing knowledge is at zero.

Not that big of a deal?

Yet you want us to marvel over GGG's wins, which weren't as impressive?

Who cares what YOU are impressed with?

Nobody.


It wasn't a lucky punch.

It was a big feat, winning back a title at 45, after coming back after a 10 lay off.

An age, that GGG isn't fighting at.

Cringeworthy.

A better career??


He fought lesser opponents.

His group of wins aren't better wins than George's.


So let's get this straight:


You aren't impressed with George having destroyed Norton and Frazier, and winning a title at 45.

Yet you ARE impressed by GGG having a title reign consisting of guys like: Brook, Jacobs, Derev, Rubio, Macklin, Lemieux and Wade etc??

Ha!

GTFO!


So what if he had that title reign??

Joe Calzaghe and Sven Ottke also had one at SMW.

And they were both garbage.


Because it doesn't matter what the numbers are.

It's who they've fought, and at what point.


And any other great MW could have replicated that reign, given the exact same opportunity.


Under traditional ranking criteria, GGG cannot rank higher.


So either take your act somewhere else, or go and educate yourself.

 

He did in my book

 

20 title defence is a falsity. Half those were defending the WBA regular trinket. Nobody counts Povetkins reign when he made 4 defences of the same belt.

Vanes and Brook - two non-rankers from lower divisions , were non sanctioned bouts. Deduct those fights from his title count as well.

Golovkin was also a bully boy fighter who refused point blank to move up in weights for better fights. He called out and fought guys from lower weight classes but refused to move up and fight Ward and Callum Smith.
A bully boy in the ring too.

Mexican style / drama show against no hopers. He was looping haymakers at C levellers to beat the band.

Against guys who were good enough to hit him back he became a no-risk taking , safety first type guy.

You have to up your game and take risks against the elite. He wasn't that guy. Canelo took all the risks in the rematch. Thats why he won.
Golokin never fought those fights with a refuse to lose mindset. Canelo did. Ward did. Froch did.
Refusing to be denied at all costs is a trait of an ATG. Its a quality Golovkin did not have.

 

That's not what actually happened tho. You can't be like "well it doesn't matter if you lost to the guys you faced" then name a guy GGG categorically lost the series to.

 

There is a arugement the judges decision should be respected unless it's like a Lewis Holyfield 1 decision. So yeah this technically goes against GGG.

 

He won the first fight by any reasonable standard and the second was close that he's reasonably 2-0 over Canelo. Losing clear fights isn't the same thing. Or are you one of those who think we should treat the judges word as gospel?

 

You’re arguing in absolutes now. Nobody said prime Foreman wasn’t more athletic. Of course he had better reflexes, faster feet, and more mobility that’s obvious pretty obvious. What I pushed back on is the idea that 90s Foreman didn’t refine anything technically. Saying he “only” improved stamina and nothing else, or that he wouldn’t win a single round against Young, is just exaggeration.

You can acknowledge that 70s Foreman was more explosive and dynamic while also admitting that the comeback version was more measured, more risk-aware, and structurally tighter. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive but instead you’re framing it like it has to be one extreme or the other, it doesn’t.

That’s really all this comes down to.

 

Canelo might simply have done more in the second fight if he thought he were losing. He was controlling that fight off the front foot.

 

Golovkin won the first Canelo won the 3rd by a slightly bigger margin and the 2nd could have gone either way so no complaints can be made is how I see it.