True but he didnt do it under Steward only under That horrible coach from Milwakee,Stan Johnson. He was horrible.
I think that's the point you have to come back to with McClellan in any fantasy fight. While he had an abbreviated career tragically, so we don't have a mass body of evidence to work from, the recurring trend is that McClellan past the early rounds was a different and much more beatable fighter. Not only did he lose 3 of the 5 fights that got into the second half, he didn't score any knockouts in his 2 wins. That contrasts strongly with the rest of his record, which is a long list of early blowouts. So the main question has to come down to whether you fancy McClellan to blow the other guy out early, which is indeed a significant risk against even elite middleweights. With Golovkin, he was noted for durability, and although hittable was a good technical boxer as well. I'd fancy him not to get knocked out early, in which case you have to favour him against McClellan. It may be a bit too harsh and simplistic to break down McClellan's fights like that, but if we going off what happened in the ring then that is the reasonable conclusion to make.
Golovkin was very hittable. McCellan was too powerful to trade with as Julian Jackson found out. Even at 168 Nigil Benn found himself knocked out of the ring immediately. He survived with plenty of help from the referee. I'm afraid this might be a short nite. McCellan KO 2.
I don't think GGG has faced anyone with the combination of height, reach, firepower and aggression that G-Man brought. He'll most likely have to weather the early onslaught of G-Man's assault but his great chin and durability helps him through it. Once it gets passed 3 rounds then that's where he'll slowly start to put the pressure on him and start landing more accurate shots as the fight goes on which will slow the G-Man down. I see GGG's power and relentless pressure eventually catching up to G-Man to the point of a late round stoppage. It'll be an absolute brutal fight where GGG is the victor but also very damaged in the aftermath.
2 rounds for real ? Against one of the best Middleweights of all time with an iron chin ? I swear McClellan is one of the most overrated fighters on this forum. He beat a past it Jackson with eye problems the amount of mileage he gets out of that especially when two average fighters outpointed McClellan is crazy to me.
Not against a fighter with an iron chin who's never been stopped or come close to being dropped whilst fighting 20+ championship fights. So I would say the possibility of that happening against a fighter of Golovkin's quality is very slim.
The logic is valid but not necessarily sound. If McClellan kept losing when fights went on for a while, you might reasonably conclude that taking him into deep water was a fight-winning strategy. The problem is that the evidence behind your conditional premise (If you extended McClellan into the second half of the fight, he became very beatable) isn't all that strong. The fights you have used to establish it are few in number, even then quite diverse, and do not, in my opinion, firmly support the conclusion. One was a 6-rounder; three of them were 8-rounders (?). Two were decision losses that occurred within his first couple of years as a pro. Two were decision wins, later on down the line. And then there is the Benn fight — a 12-round title bout that ended with McClellan suffering catastrophic brain damage, while he was ahead on the cards. Treating that sample as proof of a consistent late-round weakness amounts to relying on very different situations as though they were the same thing. The numbers, at face value, look good, but underneath, they're a bit flimsy. I wouldn't rely on them any more than I'd rely on Golovkin's record in fights over the 12-round distance (2-2-1, and it could be said that the 2 in the 'W' column each have an '*' against them.) Suffices to say that I don't think it's just a case of Golovkin pushing the fight into its latter stages. This feels more like a pick'em bout for my money.
Those early losses could have an indication that McClellan does struggle when extended rounds. Its just he didn't face any real live bodies when he did reach his prime. The likes of Mugabi was completely done at world level. Jackson was a good win but he wasn't the most durable fighter and he was past his best with eye problems. And after that where are the notable wins for McClellan ? There's not alot to McClellan's resume that people should have that much faith in him. As for Golovkin's 12 round record that's not quite the samething. Golovkin showed numerous times he could stop fighters in the 2nd half of the fight. McClellan didn't show he can win fights in the 2nd half of a fight. For me it's not a pick em fight at all McClellan virtually had 1 win against a fighter still at world level which was Jackson and even then was past his best. The much more consistent proven fighter at world level who's very durable in Golovkin. Against a fighter in McClellan who only has 1 win against a world class opponent. Who is dangerous early on but hasn't shown he can win fights when taken deep. It's no a brainer for me Golovkin all day long.
They could indicate that, but if they do, they're certainly not a strong indication of such - which was my point. These were early-career, short-distance fights, not clear evidence of what a mature McClellan did or didn’t do when taken deep at world level. Added to this, I would ask, of what could his two subsequent 8-round decision wins be an indication? Criticizing the depth of McClellan's résumé is fair, but it’s a different argument. A thin résumé does not automatically prove he was vulnerable late; it just means there is less evidence, either way. Jackson may not have been at his peak, but he wasn't "past it". Moreover, he was a dangerous world-class puncher, who just happened to be the reigning WBC world champion at the time of their first encounter. It's not a fight to be dismissed so easily. I much prefer McClellan's win over Jackson to Golovkin's over Jacobs. Agreed, Mugabi was not prime. But I wouldn’t use Mugabi as major proof of McClellan’s prowess anyway. At any rate, it's just another note that speaks to McClellan’s weak résumé; more than it proves a specific late-round vulnerability. I don’t disagree that McClellan’s résumé leaves unanswered questions. But my point focused on the '2–3 in fights that went past five rounds' stat, which doesn’t answer those questions as cleanly as is being made out. A lack of evidence for McClellan is not the same as evidence against him. The point I was making is that both stats can be misleading if stripped of context. Golovkin’s distance record needs context, and so does McClellan’s 'past five rounds' record. Yes, and that is a legitimate point in Golovkin’s favor. Golovkin proved far more in longer fights than McClellan did. I just don’t think that this point automatically turns the match-up into a 'survive early, and McClellan folds' scenario. But that’s different from saying he was proven very beatable once extended. McClellan wasn't able to show us much, either way, due to his career being cut short, so there isn’t enough clean data in my view. Thus, the evidence is inconclusive, rather than definitive.
I think it shows McClellan can be outboxed and whilst obviously there would've been some improvements as he become a better professional. But i'd argue he still really never proved he could go deep into a tough fight and win. I think McClellan does get alot of praise and hype for really not having that much of a resume and being quite unproven to be quite honest. Ok i can agree with this somewhat that there's less evidence rather than there being real concrete proof of McClellan's weakness late on in fights. But i would say with his type of style being a highly aggressive looking for the KO from the opening bell. That he's bound to slow down considerably in the 2nd half of the fight with that approach. And whilst the decision losses were early in his career i do think they hold some weight though. Considering Milton would be considered one of McClellan's best opponents you could argue top 5 easily. It's well documented though that Jackson was having issues with his eye. An injury that he suffered way back against Graham when he suffered a detatched retina. I do think Jackson was past his prime although he was still obviously very dangerous and it's a good win for McClellan. But whilst Jackson is a dangerous puncher he's also not the most durable fighter. On the other hand Golovkin is considered to have an iron chin that's why i'm less confident of a McClellan victory. Because i don't see McClellan getting Golovkin out of there in the first 6 rounds. And given that we've been discussing McClellan's unproven track record going deep in fights, there's nothing to suggest that McClellan would be able to beat Golovkin down the stretch either. I understand what you're saying but i don't entirely agree. With McClellan's style and the fact 1 of the opponents who outpointed him would be considered one of the best opponents he fought. I do think there is some evidence that McClellan would slow down in the 2nd half of a fight and that he can be outboxed. Golovkin's 12 round record isn't an indication of Golovkin struggling down the stretch though, because he's proven he can stop opponents late on having 8 stoppages past the 6th round. And if we're adding context to McClellan's losses then we also should add some context to Golovkin's 12 round fights. 1 of the losses was when he was 40 year old fighting at a weightclass he'd never fought at before. But yet he still finished stronger than Canelo down the stretch despite being 40 years old. The other 2 fights against Canelo the 1st fight Golovkin threw 200 punches more than Canelo. In the rematch Golovkin also threw more than 200 punches than Canelo with a grand total of 879 punches thrown which is a high workrate. So whatever your feelings are in regards to the decisions it wasn't like Golovkin lost because Canelo outworked him down the stretch. When a fighter isn't used to going deep into fights then i would say it would be out of McClellan's comfort zone. So i would say logically once the fight goes past 6 rounds then Golovkin should be a considerable favourite.
McClellan basically beat no one but a washed up, undersized Julian Jackson. Gilbert Baptiste was probably the second best fighter he ever beat, right? And that was a washed up Baptiste. And Gerald was beaten twice himself. GGG is just the much more proven operator here and must be favored.
This content is protected Classic "Hmm, that Mad Magazine looking dude is a bit sus. He's clearly got some weakness we don't know about." This content is protected Classic " OMG that's amazing Gerald wins KO2! Guys that load their shots like a mine dump truck are the solution to GGG!"