Gennady Golovkin vs Mike Gibbons.

I would expect Golovkin to win, on the basis of his jab and his power.

 

You can't say Golovkin hasn't faced MWs of the highest level. He has. They're just not as good as the MW classes of the past.

Gibbons on points, regardless.

 

How would you rate GGG's skills, power, footwork, balance and chin?

Lately, GGG has developed a damaging jab

Gibbons would be on the run all night, and could not afford to have many changes.

 

Gibbons had 132 fights ,was never stopped and beat .
McCoy
Lewis
TK Lewis
Greb
Smith
Chip
Bartfield
McGoorty
Ratner
O Dowd
Clabby
Dillon
Mantell
Houck

Among others.

Golovkin has had 34 fights and beaten who?
This is a joke right?

 

It wasn't meant personally, but as a device to draw attention to the dearth of quality on Golovkin's resume.
I think he is easily the best 160 pounder out there,I also think saying that doesn't mean much!

 

I'll tell you when he fights someone. every trait you listed can be deceptive and look much better when matched against no-hopers. This is a little bit of an apples and oranges comparison I admit but look at Ronda Rousey. Everyone was dusting off her place in history and talking about how great she was. She looked sublimely skilled, and totally unbeatable against the level of opposition she fought. The first time she comes up against an experienced, well rounded fighter with a game plan she completely fell apart and looked like she was absolutely nothing (and keep in mind Holm was cherry picked because of her age and perceived lack of experience in MMA). Another example is Hamed. Everyone was talking about his power, his speed, and his reflexes until he fought Barrera who dominated him and made him look like an amateur (and Barrera was cherry picked as well because he was smaller and thought to be damaged goods). Put Golovkin in the ring with someone who has talent, experience, a gameplan, and maybe some intangibles like speed or power and you just might see different side of him than the guy whose been blowing out carefully picked opposition. Like I said, where are you going to find that someone? The division is pathetically weak right now which is really sad because its my favorite division and historically the deepest division.

If Gibbons needed to be on the run all night he could. He went twelve rounds or more something like 20 times and only lost over that distance once, in his second to last fight against Mike O'Dowd (who was no slouch) when he was going blind. They didn't used to say that he looked like he was gliding around the ring on roller skates for nothing. Golovkin as been 10 rounds once and 11 rounds once. That's it. We don't even know if his legs would carry him to the finish in a 12 or 15 rounder against an ATG. Going 10 and 11 rounds against a shot Kassim Ouma and Martin Murray is a far cry from travelling the distance with a guy who can make you hit air all night and counter you. BUT Gibbons didn't need to run to keep from getting hit. He was a master at standing in front of a guy and making him miss and pay. He didn't get his nickname "the phantom" for nothing. My real question would be the size. Mike was a small MW. He was too big for WW and too small MW. His skills are what really kept him in the game at that weight but 154 would have been ideal for him and keep in mind this is an era of same day weigh ins. Would Golovkin be able to make 158 in Gibbons' era? Doubtful. If he did he wouldn't be the same fighter Id guess. Would Gibbons be able to compete with MW's today who come into the ring at 180 and can be as tall as 6'2" Itd be tough. His skills would keep him in the fight but against really talented bigger guys he might just end up being content to make them miss and not risk getting clipped. Today Gibbons would likely be able to make the WW limit with 36 hours to rehydrate, maybe even JWW (he weighed 150 in a fight when he was well past his prime). So its a tough call on that end.


All things being equal you have to go with Gibbons but there are a lot of variables as I stated above.

 

Well Gibbons for one,because he never got his shot.
Do you mean Valdez? Wins over Briscoe x2 ,[ the only man to ever stop Bennie], Cohen,Tonna,Robles. aren't that shabby ,that's 5 wins over rated contenders.

Hagler had beaten:
Watts
Geraldo
Hamani
Briscoe
Seales
Finnegan x2
Demmings
Monroe x2
Hart
Ford

That's a damn solid list!


Golovkin would be a heavy favourite to beat those you named, but the point is he hasn't done so yet.

So, jury still out ,is the expression.

 

Yeah I don't agree with the idea that MW contenders have thin resume's before getting a fight. That's a byproduct of todays world, not a representation of historical fact.

Greb had a massively deep resume well before he ever got a title shot.
Even if you include his fight with McCoy in 1917 he was pretty experienced and had been in the ring with several contenders and ex champions.

Ketchel had basically cleaned out the division when he was recognized as champ.

Tiger Flowers had an impressive resume before facing Greb.

Frank Klaus had a very deep resume before winning the title.

Mickey Walker had a great resume going into his title fight.

Freddie Steele had a very good resume going into his title fight.

Apostoli, LaMotta, Robinson, Olson (if you don't count his first bogus Pennsylvania state world MW title fight with Robinson), Basilio, Fullmer, Giardello, Tiger, Griffith, Benvenuti, Hagler, McCallum, Trinidad, etc.

Im sure Im missing several. Now, one might say "yeah but those guys are all time great fighters" well, that's my point and Golovkin doesn't deserve to be mentioned with them yet and at his age and how weak the division is he has a lot of catching up to do.

 

Those guys are by and large garbage though. Yes they were rated but what does that even mean anymore? I mean, your list has Ishida for gods sakes. His only notable win was against James Kirkland who has done nothing in the sport. He was no more than a failed prospect who got a lot of ink. You could go down that list and tear it apart from top to bottom because the division is that weak.

One of the sad things I noticed when I quickly put together that list above of fighters that were really experienced and whose abilities were really well known going into championship fights, fighters whose class was already established: There is a dramatic drop as soon as the belts start to split and there is a proliferation of titles. That should have been obvious to me but when you really start looking at it its stark. Guys are winning titles before you even know if they can fight, before they have ever faced a stiff test. Then they can use the sanction body to avoid other talented fighters that might be ranked by another body. The fighters don't fight each other because they can pick and choose fights from three or four ranking bodies to find the path of least resistance to a championship. Its a shame and very easy to see why the experience isn't there these days nor the impressive resumes. I look at that list above and wonder why Im supposed to give Golovkin credit for fighting those guys. Its a very mediocre list of opponents and all of them will be forgotten within five years.

 

Okay, you're here to talk boxing. I can respect that.

The comparisons you made is more like Apples and Coconuts. Rousey is a female MMA fighter, and there is next to no depth in women's MMA. She's more interested in media stuff and said she plans to retire by 30. She fought her frist real opponent and got demolished.

GGG has 200+ amateur fights, and 15 world title fights as a pro boxer under his belt. Yes--15. Sorry, but GGG is far from a new champion. Also, guys are ducking him!

Judging by his punch output, and how he retains his stamina, 12 or 15 rounds would be no problem for GGG. We are talking about a well-conditioned middle, here, not a fatter upper weight fighter. The problem here is he knocks his opponent out in almost all cases faster than the field did. That's very impressive. Not buying your if his legs would carry him to finish argument at all.

1 ) Who had made GGG miss badly? No one

2 ) To counter, you have to be in position. I highly doubt Gibbons wants to stand toe to toe with Golovin. Countering with moving feet is very hard in boxing unless you have a huge range advantage.

3 ) Gibbons could not punch hard at all. GGG would walk through him and not respect his power. He stopped just 38 of his 132 opponents. Not a puncher at all

4 ) Which puncher on GGG's level did Gibbons ever face? I see none. Gibbons ability to take GGG's rib shaking body short or hooks are completely unproven.

5 ) Styles. The aggressive swarmer with skills usually beats the fleet boxer with skills , especially if the attacker type has more power and nothing to fear in terms of the incoming.

6 ) Gibbons lost quite a few times. I'll be generous and start looking in 1912 when he was a pro for 5+ years...

Jack McCarron, Eddie McGoorty, Soldier Bartfield, Packey McFarland, Jeff Smith, Mike O'Dowd, Chuck Wiggins, Tommy Robson, and Harry Greb.

I'd pick GGG to do much better vs the same guys.

I can agree with this, but the question is would he try this vs a skilled puncher like GGG? Not for long in my opinion.

.

Good point. Cotto and Canelo, won't come near GGG at 154. IMO Cotto is going to the hall of fame. Cotto is very skilled, and Canelo skilled for a puncher.

He's 160 and a shade on weight ins. Sure he could. But we are talking about a fantasy fight here, presumably at 160 pounds or their best weights. The second a poster plays the catch weight game, there's a reason.

Agreed, but not very relevant to this match up

I'd pick GGG, likely via decision or TKO. One can play the game he didn't fight anyone yet, but they can't say he lacks great power, great balance, has a shot gun jab, is accurate, has an all time chin never being floored as a pro or amateur, and has had zero problems on the score card, even vs. boxer types. Also, GGG doesn't care if he gets hit as long as he can also land, and shows zero retreat on any punch landed as a professional during exchanges.

 

:deal Great post. I agree with virtually all of it.