Gennady Golovkin vs Mike Gibbons.

Klompton has a history of thinking current modern champions aren't very good, especially those from welter to heavy. It's his opinion.

I pointed out how often Gibbons lost, that he can't punch, and his style up close would get him buzz sawed vs GGG! How the heck would he win? In addition, he's on the small side and no one makes GGG miss badly.

While the division isn't great, GGG's skills and dominance are impossible to ignore. Lemieux is better some of the opponents who defeated who Gibbons.

If GGG loses before father time catches up to him, it will be vs a much longer out fighter with power and a jab to keep him off, and that guy better be able to neutralized GGG's up close attack, which to date no one has come close to doing.

The concept of how style makes fights on this board can be hit or miss.

 

See I just don't agree. Garbage is garbage and the division is in ruins right now. Simply beating a bunch of bums who happen to rated doesn't make you great. Proving yourself against other great fighters or at least very good fighters is what makes you great and with or without GGG none of those guys he has fought yet was ever going to be remembered as anything special in five years. FIVE YEARS, forget 20, 30, or 100 (like Gibbons is still remembered) five years from nobody would or will be watching those guys fights or talking about them whether GGG beat them or not. If you can say that about a guy who supposedly has 15 MW title defenses then his record is pretty weak IMO. Some people say "well Robinson was a MW champ so many times because he lost so many times" but look who he was fighting. Outside of Turpin all of those guys are guys we still watch and talk about. Even Monzon, who lorded over a pretty weak era and ducked his top challenger for years you can still fall back on the names he fought, faded or not, there was a pedigree there. You can go down the list but GGG hasn't done anything to be considered great at this point and as weak as the division is and with his age its unlikely he will. Lets use the Ring magazine ratings right now as an example. Lets say he fights and beats everyone from Canelo on down in the same fashion he has been. In 20 years are you and I really going to be saying "gee whiz remember how great he looked when he beat up Billy Joe Saunders and Daniel Jacobs?" LOL. I mean come on. People would look at us like we are crazy if they even knew who those two guys were. Canelo is arguably the biggest fight in the division for him. If he fights Canelo and beats him who else is there? So the guy has one fight against someone who IMO is overrated anyway but that is supposed to be coming great and that's supposed to be some kind of impressive resume? I don't see it. Theres just no depth there to the division. When the two top guys are basically a blown up WW and a JMW that doesn't give me much hope for GGG to be proving his credentials anytime soon.

 

hard fight for me to pick, gibbons points is a fair answer but people gone for that already so i'll take ggg to hurt him a couple times, maybe get a kd and win more rounds. i'm pretty close to 50/50 tbh.

 

Working backwards, the Middleweight division has always been a home to welters and jr middles.

When a fighter is ducked as GGG is by Canelo, Cotto, and Martinez if becomes part of his legacy. GGG would destroy these guys. They know it, he knows it, and the fans know it.

GGG is not only the top dog in his division, he's dominating as good or better than a prime Mike Tyson in the mid 1980's to 1990, who also reigned over a weak time for heavies, and did not have nearly the same amount of title defences!

You think Tyson is a top ten heavy, correct? I'll answer for you. Yes you do! If I'm mistaken speak up. Right there Klompton you have a double standard whether you realized it or not.

What Tyson had was Don King at the high of his power to make the matches. Politics prevents this today, and politics in no way shape or form can be held against a fighter.

I think you are discounting during GGG's skills, power, undefeated track record. His amateur record matters as his record is stellar and he beat several name opponents who became Pro's.

If you want to look at Monzon, he struggled far more than Golovkin ever has in the ring.

Finally, GGG has been in 34 pro fights. Where in any match or round has he shown weakness? Weakness can be show in victory, even vs the greatest of all time often vs. lesser competition. I haven't see any of it in GGG so far.

 

You honestly don't see the obvious difference in class between Golovkin and the Lacys/Taylors of the world?

 

Credit where it is due.This is an excellent rebuttal:good

 

Lacy was a fundamentally limited physical dynamo and Taylor also had obvious fundamental flaws (his telegraph bow-and-arrow right, for example).

Please break down the similarities between Golovkin and a 24-yo Zab Judah. Judah got ****y and lackadaisical after winning the first round easily and he got caught. I've seen nothing to suggest that Golovkin has any similar mental infirmities.

 

You should really check out Sergiy Derevyanchenko and Brian Castano they are the future opposition at MW that will likely 'legitimize' Golovkin. Arif Magomedov, Andrade, Khytrov, Quigley, Murata would round out the resume nicely too if he stays at 160 there's upcoming talent for him to fight.

Dervyanchenko vs Castano in WSB quality fight.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbl9UD29Ec[/url]

Magomedov (only 22) knocking out Boone
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbl9UD29Ec[/url]

 

What is your opinion of this matchup? You're one of our most knowledgeable posters when it comes to the middleweights.

I don't know enough about Gibbons to give a good reply here, but as much as a fan of GGG's as I am, the arguments put forth by Klompton definitely have merit. I can't deny that.
I don't think he has a hell of a lot of time to rebut the naysayers, due to his relatively advanced age. Pity.