Gennady Golovkin vs Dick Tiger

Awwwww, look, someone's desperate to validate his era of fandom.

 

^^ Awwwww, look an old biddy trying to convince himself that boxing stopped in 1975.

Don't worry, pops, they "don't make em like that anymore."

 

They don't actually. And I'm more a fan of the 80's, not the 50's, but that's fine.

 

I wouldn't waste my time trying to tell a smartarse kid like you anything.You already know all there is to know.
FYI Mimms was ranked for 6 straight years in a stacked era that included.
Calhoun
Castellani
Giardello
Olson
Langlois
Humez
Giambra
Fullmer
Lausse
Robinson
Webb
Basilio
Tiger
Jones
And he was only stopped once, on cuts.
So my cocky, smug, little gobshite, keep illustrating just how much you actually don't know and how, because posters don't agree with you they must have an old days were best agenda.
You won't learn anything on this forum, you have a closed mind and are only interested in your own opinion,if your tongue was long enough you would lick yourself your so in love with yourself.

 

It's the age-old battle of youngsters feeling the need to defend their "turf" as it were, which in this instance is the boxing they are being weaned on in present-day. They don't want to feel like they missed out on anything such as we had once upon a time, so they feel compelled to defend what they have, even if it isn't really worth defending. It's like someone insulting your hometown in a way.

Meanwhile, nothing's ever as good to us oldsters as it was when we were young. These kids now will sing this same tune to the snot-noses twenty years from now.

It's a reassuring cycle in its own way...…...

 

I shouldn't waste my time posting the footage of your heroes, because the reel you watch in your mind is another reel entirely. In "Cinema McVey" Mims is 6'2 and a monster. The ground cracks at his tread and the air cracks at his punch! Tough boxers are despached with ease ... except for, you know, when they weren't, and he lost.

I know that Mims looks like a breadstick man next to Jacobs and that Jacobs would carpetbomb his weedy ass. Of course, in Cinema McVey power-puncher Mims has a KO ratio in the 70% and not the actual 13% that reflects on his record.

That's because he never met Jacobs who would have rapidly corrected that footnote. But I guess a KO record of 81% in this nothing modern era is insignificant.

Somebody bring gramps some whisky and warm milk before he starts yelling again.

I know that Jacobs is 5'11 with a reach of 73''. And that he probably weighed around 185lb when he fought Golovkin. I know that Mims was 5'7 and fought as low as 154lb on a same-day weigh in. I know, thanks to this thing called film, that Jacobs is huge and explosive and mobile and Mims is not on his level.

These posters are presented with actual footage and timestamps that illustrate my point, and choose to ignore this entirely and instead trot out a list of names as "proof" of ... something?

Au contraire I've been engaged in charity work helping some folks round out their understanding here.

^ You meant to say "you're" in that sentence as in, "you are". You're welcome

 

I'd lean toward GGG, in a rough,rough fight.

 

^^^ Agenda!

Boooo ... hisssss ... throw him out!

So sick of these smug little twerps coming in and messing up Cinema McVey! This has to stop, I say, STOP!!!

If it doesn't I shall write a strongly worded letter to the President complaining.

It will be registered post too!!!

 

Just **** off Sonny, you convinced nobody

 

Oh boy, only a single sentence!

Seems to me that the Valium they dissolved in gramps' hot toddy is kicking in

 

I don't think you can just focus on Hank's wins and ignore his losses. Had he gone undefeated against his opposition aside from Tiger than it would be a great win but he didn't. If we make excuses for all his losses we can just as easily make excuses for the guys who lost to him, it cuts both ways.

 

I don't believe anyone is trying to "ignore" the losses. Hank, like any other fighter, had faults and was hardly unbeatable (obviously). The point I at least was trying to make is that one cannot simply look at Boxrec and compare won-loss records and come up with an idea of whom was better based on that. It simply doesn't work that way. Everything in the context of its own time...…...

 

Henry Hank had a lot of chances, he often came up short, but won a few.

If Jacobs fought everyone A to Z at middle weight, he'd have some good wins too, and based on what I've seen would out point Hank, who lost way too many times to lesser men!

It seems some people give credit only for wins, here but completely ignore losses, and draws, and the ring record in general.

GGG passes the eye test and would easily beat Hank. He's an all time puncher, with a great jab, great body shots, and an iron chin. His footwork and defense are under rated. Not to mention he's the record holder for title defenses at middle weight, and #1 pound for pound at ring magazine.

He's past his best at age 36, but still good.