how is 3GGG that much better than Kelly Pavlik?

And lost to the vast majority higher level competition. Hardly something to crow about, so you may want to try a different argument. Simply saying "GGG sucks" is probably a better one.

Pavlik had his first (and arguably only) big win after over 7 years as a pro. It's been 7 years, 10 months for Golovkin as a pro, and if you have followed his career, you'd know that he's had far more bumps in the road than Pavlik. Why not wait and see how GGG does against the higher level competition this year and next, huh? Then we will know who the morons are in this thread. Get your excuses ready.

 

Pavlik's resume even before the Taylor fight is better than Triple Duck's.

 

Higher competition that GGG has never as Kelly faced both in his win and loses.
Pavlik has won against better competition and lost against better.
GGG has yet to step up so he is undefeated.
My argument is sound.
It is yours excuses on why this reality exists that sucks.

I guess GGG and his management are pulling a Calzaghe and waiting for Hopkins to turn 55 and Ward to slow down until they really attempt to step up. In the meantime, they do what Bute did and say every one is ducking them.

 

We were talking about high-level competition. Read. Try to keep up. I never said GGG's resume was better. Go back to school and take a reading comprehension course.

P.S. I see you ducked my S.O.D. comment. The ducks, if you can call them that (I don't), quack both ways.

 

Your argument above that GGG's resume is worse than Pavlik's is an irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi). I was never arguing GGG's resume was better than Pavlik's. The only point I was disagreeing with is that some how losing badly to Hopkin and then to Martinez is somehow a boost to Pavlik's resume. He was exposed. To make matters worse, Martinez beat Pavlik in similar fashion as Hopkins, showing that Pavlik learned absolutely zero from the Hopkins fight. You don't mark those things down as feathers in Pavlik's cap. They hurt his career and credibility, not boosted it. That's was all I was saying. I never claimed GGG's resume was better.

Finally, if you think GGG's team has been slow playing him, then you are ignorant of his career and its difficulties (promoter issues, opponents turning down fights, etc). There are 50+ thread about it on these boards and articles online. Go read about it. Ignorance is a terrible thing.

 

You don't understand that a fighter improves by facing the best and strongest competitors, win or lose.
Sure Pavlik lost to better competition, but hadn't he put himself in the position to try, how could he possibly hope to win?
Even loses can make a fighter better.

Look at Author Abrahams and you can see a big improvement in his boxing technique post Super6.
In the Super6 He lost to better boxers, went back to the gym and made improvements based on this experience. Now he is once again the Super Middleweight champ.

If GGG doesn't face better competition, how can he hope to win, or learn valuable lessons in defeat.
That he still has not faced any worthy opponent says all there is to know about him. He is too old to be a prospect, but yet has a prospect's resume.
You can blame it on, "You don't understand the difficulties", that fighters are ducking him, that it's his promoters fault or the networks. In the end, the fault really lies with nobody but GGG's himself and his career choices.

I know you don't know **** about boxing, but I hope that even a child-like mind can comprehend it in these simple terms.

 

Again you introduce red herrings. Stay focused. Maybe take your ADHA medicine. Abraham has nothing to do with Pavlik. The discussion here is: did Hopkins and Martinez add to Pavlik's greatness? I argue no, that they actually exposed his LACK of greatness. Those names being on Pavlik's resume hurt him, not helped him.

If Pavlik should have improved, as you say, by fighting Hopkin, then why did Martinez beat him using similar tactics? Because he was exposed. Higher level competition didn't improve him, it ruined him. He left the sport. So don't act like these things improved him or his career. That's simply not the case. I agree boxers need to fight stronger competition to improve, but when they get smoked by that competition and show no improvement from it, we shouldn't point to it and say that butt kicking improved their legacy.

P.S. I analyze boxers as part of my living (the other part is computer programming), so my boss for the last 6 years must think I KSAB.

 

Once Pavlik lost to Hopkins he became more palateable to the Afrosupremacists. His career basically stopped any upward momentum after that so he is now suddenly more socially acceptable and is used as a trump card to discredit other melanin challenged fighters that truly threaten the Afrosupremacist world view.

It is so transparent.

 

We don't know enough about Golovkin to truly rate him. An impressive stoppage of a solid fighter in Macklin is about as good as it gets for him. Let's see how he goes against some better opposition before making an educated call on his level.

At this stage, based on what we know, Pavlik was/is the better fighter.

 

Although he has not got a lot of wins against elite opponents surely the manner in which he has dispatched every man he faced should allow you to make reasonable assumptions about his ability.

His movement, skills, power, timing, control of space, efficiency etc all should tell the experienced viewer that he is looking at someone special.

In contrast Pavlik did not look nearly as good IMO.

 

GGG is a prospect in my eyes

 

GGG isn't a prospect, in the traditoinalist sense he's the #1 contender. The Champion has been inactive and unwilling to meet him.

It's really baffling you have people calling him the ducker. It would be like in 1947, people saying the active #1 cotender Charles was ducking the far less active Champion Gus Lesnevich. And that Charles is also ducking HW Champion Louis in the next division up, and he should just move up and fight him. Which he eventually had to. Such a puzzling spin on things. I guess Willis was ducking Dempsey as well.

 

So Blacks can't like White fighters? Go back to Castefootball you racist POS.

 

anyone who says this wouldn't be an awesome fight is a blind hater on one side or the other…and this is coming from a notorious ghost rider. i think ggg is the real deal and the best mw today but anyone who thinks he'd walk right through pavlik is nuts and should rewatch the miranda fight. edison knocked cans through the ropes too and didn't budge kelly after hitting him with everything but the ring post.

 

I remember when Lucien Bute KO'ed or defeated boxers like Andrade, Miranda, Brinkley and Magee. Based on his performance wih these B level opponents everyone said, no doubt. Look how he walked through those opponents. Definitely, he is the real deal.
Then Bute stepped up slightly and faced an old and shop worn Glen Johnson, managing to win by UD.
The usual suspects said, See that proves that he is real. He could whip everyone in the Super6, but they are all ducking him. That it wasn't his fault that he has fought nobody. It was because every top tier fighter was ducking him.

Well, Curtis Stevens was GGG's Glen Johnson equivalent.
what comes next? We'll see.