Geale is +700 vs unproven GGG; put your house on him !

WTF are you talking about?
Get the f*ck out of here with your melodramatic strawman ****.
Golovkin doesn't have the "names" on his resume. We get it! It's been said.
You bring it up in every thread about Golovkin. We heard you. Great job!
Resumes don't get in the ring. Fighters get in the ring.
Sergio Martinez will get knocked out if he ever steps in the ring with Golovkin. It would happen this weekend, it would've happened in September of 2012 when GGG made his HBO debut.
Martinez has the resume but he will not beat Golovkin. That is my opinion. It will be a fact if Martinez ever wants to prove that he's the best in the division.

 

Schools him for 10 rds before sitting down on his shots and KHTFO

Khan KO 11:deal

You heard it here first.

 

I think GGG takes Khan out, maybe even early. If not early, he will bust him up good before he takes him out later.

 

A jab from GGG would have Khan on ***** Street. A right hand would literally kill him.

 

People are trolling I'm sure no sane person believes khan actually stands a chance against naturally bigger, more powerfull, higher ring iq , better chin ko artist like GGG.

 

How the F did this thread transform into a Golovkin vs Khan debate?! Even bringing up the idea of a "fight" like that is completely insane atsch

 

Well I agree on most of the points. I myself never highly rated some of the guys he beat, I was just pointing out that it is unfortunately common to see people rate a guy prior to the fight, and completely dismiss him after he eventually gets beaten. The logic says that it's obviously not an objective approach, but a characteristic of highly subjective people who will almost always be on the other side of discussion while taking about certain boxer or boxers.

I had Golovkin as a strong favorite prior to all these fights I think. I also view him as a strong favorite against Geale, but it doesn't mean that he's going the wrong thing by fighting him. As far as the competition is concerned, many people like to play the "who did he beat?" card and like you say, it works both ways. But to say that he is unproved based on that concept of thinking, I believe that it's not right. We all know that "resumes" are subjective and the bottom line is that resumes don't win fights.
Just like Rigondeaux and some other boxers, he has a background, and people who were talking about him for a certain period of time now, they know what were they talking about. Of course, there are some other people (who are now majority I guess) who just "bought the hype" a couple of fights ago when his US exposure started and they are now supporting him and talking big of him for their own reasons.
Also, comparing him to the likes of Alvarez and Chavez Jr in terms of "hype" isn't right either. While they might or might not be better than Golovkin (which isn't much relevant to the actual point), those are completely different cases. Junior is marketed as "son of a legend", Alvarez is also highly popular among the certain population, but neither of those guys have an actual background where people who are really into boxing can see their talent and progress they have made in a better detail.
Golovkin has his Olympic and amateur achievements, and while some fans are quick to say that "pro boxing is a different game" (which is correct, but not to an extent that some are taking it out to be) I assure you that many people (including boxers themselves, trainers etc) are able to see and value the quality he displayed back then, and then based on a showing displayed in the pros, come to the conclusion that certain boxer is good or not good enough.
Of course, the majority of boxing fans are let's say just fans, who aren't really into the sport that much despite perhaps following almost every match, and have kind of a shallow view when it comes to valuing an actual qualities of boxers, and won't recognize the boxer until he defeats a "big name" or someone who is highly recognized in the community.
Once again, it works both ways, many times it's hard to see what's the reason someone is talking in a certain way about the boxers or if there is something behind it or not, but yes, these are just my 2 cents.

 

haven't you heard? the Twitter warrior beats everyone from Rigo to Wlad Klitschko, he has a Twitter record of 100-0 with 100 KO's :think

 

Along with his undefeated record, PBF is smart enough to know the effects of polarization. Broner tried to emulate him but you have to be undefeated (or darn near) to maintain the hype. PBF's undefeated status, though, is somewhat contrived. I think Castillo beat him, but that is another discussion.

 

shut the **** up! Stop trolling.

 

You know how these threads morph....

 

Khan would never even go to 160. Whoever the idiot was who said Khan would win DOES NOT KNOW **** ABOUT BOXING.