Gennady Golovkin vs Dick Tiger

Wow, now that's pretty disingenuous. So you're pretending that physical dimensions are the prime determinant of pugilistic success?

As opposed to skill, style, speed and timing?

First off, we're talking about a mere 1 inch reach difference. So if GGG is a T-rex, I guess Tiger is a species of Allosaur.

Secondly, many of Golovkin's opponents had a reach advantage on him. Jacobs, 73'. Wade 74,5'. Monroe 74'. Murray 73'. Stevens 71,5'. Gardner 75'. It didn't stop him from landing his jab at will and beating the **** out of them. I suspect that GGG would be relieved at Tiger's comparitively short arms compared to the rest of his opponents.

Thirdly, if you really, truly think that size is the ultimate advantage then I'll point out that Golovkin has come in to fight weighing as much as 175lb whereas Tiger with his same day weigh in was less

 

Are you making up your own numbers? What source has Golovkin at 5'9" tall as you claimed?

Golovkin is a very good boxer, and proved it in the amateurs and pro.

You're having tough time explaining why Tiger has a low KO percentage, and for being a boxer of your description you'll have to explain why he lost many decisions to different opponents. If his defense and power were as good as you claim, surely he would not have lost on points as often.

I'm still amused that a guy who was never dropped and fought plenty of guys who can bang doesn't have a proven chin.

 

Punch placement, attrition ... are all as if not more important than brute power.

Why would you do that?

This content is protected

If you can't see how good Jacobs and Canelo are then I can't help you.

Sounds like a journeyman type the way you describe him.

Really?

Sigh.

OK, watch this clip of a fight Tiger won. One of his best wins, against Gene Fullmer.

This content is protected

Notice what Tiger's "defence" consists of. When Fullmer pours it on at the 1:00 mark, Tiger clams his head between his gloves and hopes to ride out the storm. Most of the time his gloves are pretty low. Where's the head movement? The lateral movement?

Fullmer catches him with jabs repeatedly. :35, :37, :50 for example, with precious little coming back from Tiger. At 1:46 they exchange jabs. Fullmer's lands, Tiger's is low. (So much for John Thomas' theory of decisive reach advantage I guess, Gene's reach is less than GGG's)

At the 2:00 mark Fullmer makes Tiger miss with a wild swing by the simple expedient of creating space. Golovkin does this ALL the time. At 2:30 Fullmer jabs his way in and when Tiger raises his gloves he feeds him a right hook around the glove.

Let me emphasise: Gene Fullmer was not a boxer.

He was a brawler first and foremost. That's why he goes on to lose the fight. At 2:45ish we see what Tiger was good at: sheer physicality and winging punches as hard and fast as he could. No arguments from me that he wasn't an exceptionally strong fighter. He was.

But:

Golovkin is on another level entirely as a boxer:

This content is protected

Footwork to negate an attack, slipping punches, picking punches off on gloves, lateral movement ... its all there.

I guess people just don't know what they have until the boxer retires.

 

Triple G comfortably outboxes Tiger for the win.

 

BCS8, post: 19357354, member: 94822"]Punch placement, attrition ... are all as if not more important than brute power.

Why would you do that?

This content is protected

If you can't see how good Jacobs and Canelo are then I can't help you.


Sounds like a journeyman type the way you describe him.


Really?

Sigh.

OK, watch this clip of a fight Tiger won. One of his best wins, against Gene Fullmer.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

At the 2:00 mark Fullmer makes Tiger miss with a wild swing by the simple expedient of creating space. Golovkin does this ALL the time. At 2:30 Fullmer jabs his way in and when Tiger raises his gloves he feeds him a right hook around the glove.

Let me emphasise: Gene Fullmer was not a boxer.

He was a brawler first and foremost. That's why he goes on to lose the fight. At 2:45ish we see what Tiger was good at: sheer physicality and winging punches as hard and fast as he could. No arguments from me that he wasn't an exceptionally strong fighter. He was.

But:

Golovkin is on another level entirely as a boxer:

This content is protected

Footwork to negate an attack, slipping punches, picking punches off on gloves, lateral movement ... its all there.

I guess people just don't know what they have until the boxer retires.[/QUOTE]

^^^ THIS. BCS8 nails it. Fullmer seems to push Tiger around. Tiger's footwork does not impress here.

 

Terrific post.

Indeed, I think Tiger would be the strongest and least intimidated opponent Golovkin had ever faced.

I remember watching the Fernandez bout, when Tiger just got up close and beat up the big-hitting Cuban, like it was his warm-up act. Next fight, Tiger shakes up Henry Hank, from the first round, and works him over, over 10 - Henry making no impression. Gene Fullmer would try and fail three times to best Tiger.

Tiger would have matched anyone in history for fearless persistence, having the kind of strength and resolution, that could turn fights around.

 

Now your really getting off track. Tiger lost 19 times and drew 3 times. 22 fights! Are you telling me the opponents, many of whom were ranked in the top ten that GGG defeated aren't better than the below fighters to Defeated Dick Tiger???

[url]Wilf Greaves[/url] 31 -14- 1 defeated Tiger

[url]Rory Calhoun[/url] 39 - 7 - 2 defeated Tiger

[url]Randy Sandy[/url] 21 - 12 - 2 - Defeated Tiger

[url]Willie Armstrong[/url] 29 -15 - 2 Defeated Tiger.

I could list a lot more, sorry GGG TKO's these types.

If Tiger hit that hard, he'd have a higher KO%. Or maybe he just wasn't good enough of a boxer to land enough to stop men. Take your pick.

Mayweather and Robinson both had good chins, neither should be in this thread.

 

Again, if you think guys like Jacobs, Canelo and to a lesser extent, Geale and Proksa, are not outstanding boxers, then we can't help you.

Lemieux, Stevens, Jacobs are all XL, hard hitting middleweights who have in some cases fought at higher weights.

Call me when GGG loses to Wilf Greaves

No, actually he wouldn't. It's Ishida's only KO loss and he's fought as high as heavyweight. To my knowledge he's never even been knocked down before or since. And yes, Ishida's fought murderous punchers like Pirog and Kirkland and Paul Williams.

This content is protected

Meanwhile in real life Tiger lost to
43-31-1 George Roe
[url]http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/13492[/url]
32-19-2 Willie Armstrong
[url]http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/13492[/url]
24-24-2 Randy Sandy
[url]http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/13492[/url]
45-15-2 Rory Calhoun
[url]http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/13501[/url]

and, oh, yeah, I got ripped earlier for selecting footage of Tiger against Benvenuti because Tiger had had about 80 fights and was apparently therefore totally shot, so it may be worth mentioning that Joey Giardello had over 120 fights when he whooped Tiger.

Truth is, if Dick Tiger had to re-tread Golovkin's career, I doubt he gets past 19-3 (at the time) Khamitski without a loss.

 

I see Mendoza beat me to the punch. Hat tip.

 

Did I miss something or didn't you agree that GGG wins here?

I keep asking you were are these KO's. Tiger had a lot of chances, okay some he won some, but he lost way too often to guys who also lost a lot.

Watch the film that BCS8 posted, his comments are spot on. Care to debate the video?

 

Really, it just boils down to what you see. There's just nothing special about the robotic Golovkin. Sorry. There just isn't. There's lots that's special about Tiger and his game.