Agreed. Especially Rolls. His defence had declined massively too. Rolls was landing far more than say, Lemieux.
Once again you have been angered that someone has viewed GG whilst not at his best, whilst at the exact same time, you’ve directed them to the Tiberi fight. Can you not see that?
BCS8, Nobody is saying that he was a monster. What we’re saying, is that he is more proven than GG with a better resume. He’s fought and beat better fighters, in more fights, across more divisions. You are the guy claiming that he was better than Toney and that he’d have beaten him, based on stats against B and C level fighters, whist looking at the worst versions of Toney.
First of all, he did win. Second, the concept of age? He was in his mid 30's, an age when some of the best middleweights have been retired. He's a pressure fighter so it isn't like he has a style like Mayweather where it isn't such a hindrance being older. Canelo was in his prime and he had to get gift decisions after he waited GGG out. It's not really a concept it's all pretty basic, or should be.
Please answer me this question: How can Mike NOT have been very good at 35, when we know that he beat Kalambay, Collins and Watson at that point? You are talking absolute nonsense. It’s not your opinion vs my opinion, it’s a fact that he beat world class fighters at that point. It’s factual. Look at what Toney did after he fought Mike. Look at who he beat. It’s just an outright lie to even try and claim that Mike wasn’t very good at 35. No, GG wouldn’t have done any better than Toney against a prime version of Roy. Another fantasy. GG hasn’t even fought at SMW.
I’m not sure why you keep mentioning Toney’s loss to Roy Jones. GG wouldn’t have had a chance at beating a prime version of Roy Jones at SMW. If you think otherwise, you’re kidding yourself. I’ve already addressed the rest of the post. Yes, it’s a shame that GG couldn’t have fought better fighters. Yes, Toney’s fight with Reggie Johnson was close. Who did GG fight who was like Reggie?
Stop playing the percentages and use both logic and evidence from his career. Roy went 50 fights, across 5 divisions, WITHOUT getting knocked out. He fought the following fighters WITHOUT getting knocked out: Castro, Hopkins, Tate, Malinga, Toney, Sosa, McCallum, Griffin, Hill, Reggie, Harding, Tarver and Ruiz etc. So who out of GG’s opponents would have found his chin and stopped him? Yes, Roy was knocked out by one punch. But against a 180 plus pound LHW in his mid 30’s, 3 divisions higher. Roy would have toyed with GG’s opposition.
K , the concept of age isn't related to age , its related to style. Is that what you're telling me? Its not really a basic concept when your explanation is riddled in contradictions , is it? You use Hagler as an example , but he retired after 67 fights with 100's of thousands of hard miles on his clock. Haglers time being up at 32 only applies Hagler. Everybody has a different career. 35 now isn't the same as 35 -40, 50 , 60 years ago. Hopkins was bang in his prime at 37. Martinez was better in his mid 30s than he was in his mid 20s. Bellew became a more smart and tactical boxer in his mid 30's... There's heaps of examples i can use to shatter your concept of age. In the next post , ill throw more examples at you. Furthermore , Golovkin did not win. Many people thought Hagler beat Leonard. Many people think Canelo beat Golovkin. . The official result is Canelo win. Don't present a false statement as fact to me. Also , Golovkin isn't a pressure fighter, certainly not against Canelo or Jacobs. . Perhaps the concept of what a pressure fighter is also lost on you.
Nobody is arguing that he wasn’t past his peak. But you are trying to paint a picture where he was stiff, slow and not even good at 35. If you only just watched his fights with Toney the other day, I’m going to bet that you haven’t seen his fights against Kalambay and Watson either.
The one thing I can thank this thread for, is that it got me to take another look at Toney/McCallum I & II. Both top quality bouts, fought at an elite level. The first, in particular was well received by all who watched it. I can't recall many, if any, Middleweight bouts since then that have been as good to watch. Hopkins/Trinidad, maybe? Or, Martinez/Williams, perhaps? Easy to forget what a standout fight Toney/McCallum (I) was. Failing to have been impressed by it is quite tragic for the observer.
I loved Pavlik vs Taylor, McClellan vs Jackson, Hopkins vs Mercado & Tate vs Jackson. Maybe not more than Toney-McCallum, but I enjoyed them a lot. This is a low skill, low level fight, but it's an insanely awesome war. This content is protected
QED. We're not talking about Toney at other weights. We're talking about 160, the relevant weight. I'm looking at what Golovkin did against the field that he was in. I do not share your opinion on Golovkin's opponents. I'm looking at the relevant versions of Toney at 160. I think that his two best wins at 160, Johnson and McCallum, have a good case for saying they beat him. That's apart from all the other fiascos like Sanderline etc. The "relevant" versions of Toney at 160 don't impress me that much. Toney was better at higher weights and its clear that he was barely a match for an old, good fighter in McCallum.
