Gennady Golovkin vs Dick Tiger

If GGG fought a guy with 120 fights people would **** in their pants at his picking on a past-it opponent.

If GGG fought a guy like Benvenuti people would hysterically cry about him "dragging up" a welterweight. They nearly melted the fora down when he fought Brook.

Glovkin gets flak for fighting Ouma and Rosado, because they had too many losses. Can you imagine if he fought Henry Hank? Que drama!

On the other hand, that may also be a factor of the majority of modern boxing fans being as dumb as rocks. I'll admit that. You think that I'm ornery and quarrelsome? Let me send over some of the guys in General who swore that if GGG Ko'd Canelo in the rematch he'd be the GOAT MW

 

You're not being rational about this, I gave you a list of top names you have nothing to refute those names with so made a silly statement about how fighting them would bring criticism on Golovkin.
Hank beat.
Rodriguez
Ellis
Calderwood
Mims
Benton
Bowdry
Giardello

Who has Golovkin beat?
Jacobs .his best win
Martirosoyan or whatever the **** his name is!
Murray
Macklin
Wade
Monroe
Lemiuex
Brook
Geale

You think beating them makes him top 15, but he would be criticized for fighting Tiger,Giardello,Fullmer,Torres Carter etc? GTF!

 

Actually I did.

OK, cool, let's play your game. Starting at the bottom:

Siarhei Khamitski - contender
Mehdi Bouadla - contender
Kassim Ouma - champion
Lujuan Simon - contender
Rosado - contender
Macklin - contender
Stevens - contender
Adama - contender
Geale - champion
Rubio - champion / contender (depending on whether you value a WBF title)
Murray - contender
Monroe - contender
Lemieux - champion
Brook - champion
Jacobs - champion
Martirosiyan - contender
Alvarez - champion

I've left out "silver" and "international" titles and obviously the titles where they were in contention with GGG himself for.

That's 11 guys that were contenders for world titles and 6 champions.

You're still living in the 60's and 70's.

 

Anyone on your list a top twenty all time middleweight ?YES or NO
You're full of it! And I don't mean objectivity!

 

One only need look at the quality of opposition. The record means nothing, you and Mendoza are far too hung up on numbers. The importance of numbers like losses and title defenses cant be applied like that. If it were an even playing field across time you could, but everything is relative. Put Golovkin in that era and he scuffles. His glossy record is relative only to today, not 50-60 years ago.

 

Indeed - So deep that, to even have a chance at cracking the Top-50, one would need to have distinguished themselves against a similar class of Middleweight, at least once, at some point in their career. And this is where Golovkin's case fails.

There's more study that could be done here, for sure. However, I think a study of Golovkin's pro fights could quite possibly show a case of him having regressed, in terms of demonstrable skills. This can happen to boxers, who fall in love with their power or, who are influenced by the expectations of others - until the power doesn't seem to be doing the trick any more.

I think this is the crux of Golovkin's problems, in terms of the perception of his rating. We've seen a rise in the quality of opponent and a reduction in his effectiveness - and this is not a vague correlation - it is a stark, visually verifiable shift. This can't all be blamed on Golovkin's age, when he goes and blasts out another average light middleweight opponent, whilst awaiting his rematch with Canelo.

Agreed, in theory. However, this clearly doesn't come into the minds of people already claiming Golovkin to be Top-15. Whilst I'm not predicting it will happen, Golovkin could lose to Alvarez, next month. What impact will that have?

Jacobs is 31 years old and beyond the halfway point of his Middleweight career. Whilst I have a lot of time for the guy, who has overcome a great deal in his life already, he has not been able to demonstrate and achieve, on the strength of his boxing career alone, an elite level or a stellar record. A reliance on what Jacobs manages to achieve, over his next X number of bouts, seems a big ask.

I'm beginning to find the weight/size and rehydration lines of argument a little clichéd. Taking this position in a debate involving Richard Tiger, only highlights the sheer lack of significance these factors carry, at the level we're discussing. And, this is without taking the utter speculative nature of such factors, in terms of potential impact, whether positive or negative.

The guy was a Light Heavyweight Champion and gave up half a stone in weight while achieving this - do you think he's really that bothered if Golovkin enjoys some weight gain between the weigh-in and the fight?

 

Ask me in 10 years.

 

His career isn't over and it han't had time to achieve context.

I might agree. He used to be faster and more fluid. Sanchez changed up his amateur style to be more of a KO guy. While he seems stronger to me, he doesn't have the same creativity he used to.

It's well known that Jacobs skipped on the IBF title so as to have additional time to rehydrate. He was well into the 180's on fight night. And Canelo was pumped full of clenbuterol so that it was running out his ears. You want to talk about a stark, visually verifiable shift? Check out the Canelo pics before the first fight and the pics now. Looks like somebody let all his air out.

That's besides the fact that I rate both these guys very highly and that I think they'd have given many great MW's in history fits.

Let's be honest here, the only reason a guy like Hopkins gets rated so highly at MW is because of his longevity. Golovkin has at least equalled that. I agree that if Jacobs turns to garbage and Alvarez beats his ass then their value goes down. That's fine, therefore so does my assessment of GGG.

With respect, you brought up Tiger's work at higher weights.

 

The misty-eyed old time double standards vanish when examined.

My take is the very best should seldom if ever lose to journeyman, non-top ten types unless they are past their prime.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

>>>As they say on ESPN, Boom goes the dynamite. 10-0-1 vs
11 guys that were contenders for world titles and 6 champions.

 

You've been here long enough to know BS when you read it, so I know you're doing this just to needle and start discussion. That's cool, no harm no foul. Of course, everything is relative, and we al know not all these people were "champions." In this day and age, everyone's a champion. Again, this numbers game can't be used in arguments like this, it's invalid. None of those people would have been good enough to scale the ladder and be the champ in Tiger's day. You know that as well as I do. Lemieux? Who? Rubio? Seriously?

No. Invalid.

 

Exactly! Henry Hank for example has better wins that Jacobs and Alvarez ,Golovkin's 2 best opponents .One he squeaked by the other held him to a draw!

 

And I'm living in the 60's because I say Fullmer,Tiger,Giardello,Webb,Carter,Griffith are better than anyone on his record? The mans a nonsense!

 

For sure. But, we also deal in likelihoods, in such discussions as these, and I don't think it outlandish to think he's going to be hard-pushed to achieve the context required.

In any event, I think that would be an analysis worth seeing, when the dust settles.

I'm not sure how far we can confidently attribute these speculative factors to the relative performances.

So which is it - they were the best Golovkin's faced or they had an unfair advantage?

I can't see either of them doing to well in eras past.

I don't think it is the only reason Hopkins gets a high rating. Reasons given previously, on other threads, go beyond the mere longevity of Hopkins. 'Dominance' being the core of the disparity between he and Golovkin.

With respect, citing Tiger's work in a higher weight division, in terms of actual career achievement, the context in which it was initially raised, is not the same as making speculative references to perceived size advantages, in the same division.

 

Henry Hank and Tiger Jones both eat Golovkin for breakfast.