Young GGG Fans, from 1988 - 1991, Michael Nunn fought...

Please explain to me how Tate, Curry, Starling and Roldan were great opponents!
I left some questions and you didn't answer them.

Also, how do you know GGG wouldn't have done good in that era. You and I don't know for sure or do you have a time machine? You could speculate all you want buddy.

 

Yeah , thats what I meat to say

 

By watching them for one. Starling put a clinic on Honeyghan - a top quality operator.

GGGs best win is Martin Murrayatsch A guy who wouldn't have cracked the top 30 back then .

 

For the record, I don't think for a second Quillin himself was scared or was responsible for the ducking.
It was Don Al Haymon who was "giving him an advise he couldn't refuse" because he wants nothing to do with Roc Nation

 

This is not a fact but an opinion. Fact. :deal

 

Well said

 

Oh so you're going by the eye test, but you don't know for sure? Of course not.
I could easily find flaws in all of those guys style and resume like you guys try to do on GGG and his opponents.
You're going by the eye test, that's all I need to know. You can't even break these guys resume and accomplishments down.
"Oh you know, I know they were good because I watched them." That's a silly argument. If these guys were as good as you say, then their accomplishments and resumes should match their talent. Correct?

I'm going to use your logic. Martin Murray would have defeated all of those guys, because you know the eye test and I watched Murray. I know those guys would not stand a chance against Martin Murray and his high guard.
You and I don't know how a fighter would have done in another era. Unless, you know, you have a time machine or something.

Try again. Why are Tate, Curry, Starling and Roldan considered that much superior? What were their career accomplishments? To know how good they really were.
Tate's best success was winning Olympic Gold, which is awesome but did he follow up?

Wait are you one of those racist haters? I don't like to waste my time with people like that.

 

I'd be interested to see this, for Curry especially :yep

I assume you don't know much about these fighters?.

To answer your question though: Curry and Starling were the two best welter of 80's post-SRL/Hearns, both are superior fighters than Cotto (y'know, lineal MW champ). Roldan was a very dangerous contender, he gave Hagler a rough fight (imo marking the end of Hagler's prime) and gave Hearns a war. Tate was the undefeated IBF champion and in what should have been a competitive fight Nunn smashed him to pieces in the best performance of his career (aside from the Sumbu KO).

They aren't necessarily great wins though. Like Vyotsky pointed out, Curry was finished. Starling was smaller and still pushed Nunn close. Roldan was at his end and had a questionable heart. Tate may have had weight troubles.

Still though, todays MW division sucks. Those guys are better, the late 80's-early 90's was a golden age for MWs.

It is subjective, and there's nothing to stop you from calling Murray a MW ATG and a H2H beast, but just ....no, he's average in the grand scheme of things.

 

A little harsh imo. Barkley was more of a straight up boxer-puncher in his prime rather than the crude slugger he turned into by the time of the Toney fight. Heavily flawed fighter, but I think even in his close losses to Duran and Nunn he showed alot more than Maidana has in his career.

 

so why don't the rest of today's top MW's man up like guys Nunn beat and fight Golovkin? are you calling the current crop at 160 cowards?

 

Oh so what you're telling me is that all these fighters were perfect and they didn't have flaws? Every fighter has flaws, whether you want to believe it or not.
"Curry is the perfect fighter, I don't think anyone could find any flaws on that guy."

Also, you say they were superior than Cotto, but how do you know that? Is that a fact? Do you have a time machine so you could match Cotto with both of them? I thought so. Or are their accomplishments much greater than Cotto's?
Opinions are not facts. No eye test BS either.

The purpose of this thread, at least from what I understood, is to show how much superior those fighters were. "Look at the killers Nunn had to go through." So are we just supposed to believe the TS and not question why some of those guys were good or great?
All I say is list me their accomplishment and resumes as to why they are considered such big threats.
If you guys only go off the eye test, then we will never get anywhere. You know why, because we don't know how these guys would have matched up with each other. That's the truth.
So the only thing we can do is break down their accomplishments and resumes, because those are actual facts.

Now answer me this: What were Curry's and Starling's accomplishments as Middleweights? They surely had to do great things, to be considered great wins (especially at Middleweight).
You said it not me, Curry and Starling's best weight was Welterweight. People would destroy GGG for fighting Light Middleweight let alone Welterweights.

I'm not even arguing that GGG has a great resume, but you guys want people to believe those guys were much superior. So all I'm asking is why? What were their accomplishments? Especially at Middleweight, the weight they are being examined in.

Vysotskyy gave a great little break down, but it didn't make me say, "Oh these are are much better wins than anything the Middleweight division has to offer now a days".
You gave a break down, but nothing stood out. You said Curry and Starling were great Welterweights, which could be true, but like you and Vysotskyy said, they were at the end of their careers (also their Middleweight resumes/accomplishments are almost non-existent). Then you give an opinion about them being better than Cotto (how do you know that though?). Cool, they were well accomplished Welterweights, now what were their Middleweight credentials? Do you think GGG would get credit for beating Thurman, Porter or Brook, especially with an almost non-existent Middleweight resume?
Roldan was a dangerous contender, that's all? Why can't some Middleweights today be considered dangerous contenders?
Tate was an undefeated champion. Why does his undefeated record mean more than say, Peter Quillin's? What did he do that made him stand out? Who did he beat to make that 0 look amazing?
The Kalambay and Barkley wins look good, but the others don't convince me at all.

I apologize if some of my sentences don't make sense, I was trying to finish this quickly.

 

So well said that the OP ran off like a B.

No dumping on the guys he listed as being 1 time good fighters but clearly looking through rose tinted nostalgic glasses.

 

/end thread

 

Golovkin makes them so mad!