Gennady Golovkin vs Mike Gibbons.

This is the ultimate bull vs matador matchup for me.

Golovkin continues to consistently mow down ranked opposition and I think we have to accept his power as elite. His chin, his stamina, his footwork might not be there but his power should be beyond debate. His style is come forward, seek and destroy.

The total opposite end of the spectrum is Mike Gibbons, potentially the most pure boxing MW we've ever seen in history. Who else comes close to his style since him? At a push you're probably limited to saying Kalambay, Toney and Jones but that's about it as far as MW men go. His reflexes and his footwork are beyond debate, his power at the top level raises questions.

What we are left with is maybe the most deadly aggressor in MW history up against the most evasive wizard in MW history.

Who comes out on top here? Does Golovkin break him down or does Mike dance his way to victory?

 

Pep didn't have the power to keep Saddler off but when the two were at their best he was able to box to victory.

Whittaker didn't have the power to keep Ramirez off but when the two were at their best he was able to box to victory.

Not having the power is a lazy assumption in my mind. What Gibbons does have is accuracy, timing, patience, reflexes and god given footwork. I've no doubt that during the first few stanzas Golovkin doesn't get close enough to do damage. What I doubt is whether or not Golovkin can slow him down and finish him during the final stretch.

Fighters of that era seem to have otherworldly stamina. But we do know Golovkin can force the pace for a full fight because of the Murray victory. The question, in my mind, is whether or not Gibbons can stay one step ahead for the full fight.

 

Do you reckon the converse to what you say is also true?

Who has Golovkin fought with the footwork and technique of Gibbons? No one today comes close, the nearest you could get would be Lara.

I've never seen Greb fight so can't comment on him.

 

Let's not compare him then.

At present would you say it's fair to say he's atleast the outstanding MW contender (assuming you recognise Canelo as the MW champion).

That's all he is atm right,the top contender to the lineal champion. So if that lineal champion was Gibbons and that top contender is Golovkin, it's reasonable to debate whether or not Gennady would dethrone the champ.

After all, ever single champion in history, bar a couple of exceptions, lost their title in the ring to a man who was a contender and was less accomplished than they.

 

I think most people agree that he shouldn't be compared with ATG fighters, at least those who study boxing history.

However this thread is talking about a fight between two boxers.

 

This is how I feel.

 

Some have certainly looked better. Julian Jackson and Benn have more 1 shot power imo.

Glovkin is about the level of G-Man now where he seems unbeatable based on the fights he's had which haven't been at the top level.

He has been very consistent against ranked opposition and is currently in his prime. Gibbons is from an era some call primitive and pre modern which can only be said by those who haven't watched his fights.

Plus above anything else it's a good style matchup as well as being an underlying era debate.

As I say, I pick Gibbons on points.