GGG is - at the very least - the Greatest middleweight since Hagler

They're very respectable wins. But again, nothing special. I don't see why other great MW's of the past couldn't also have gotten those same results.

 

This is true - or at least i believe it to be true. However, after GGG's destruction of Lemieux and Brook, I think more and more fighters that GGG will opt to fight with a very defensive as did Jacobs and Canelo. In other words, the primary concern of GGG's opponents will be to not get ko'd and hope that their "running and punching" can convince the judges (also, probably a lot of holding and clinching, too). As a result, I expect the fights to get uglier.

 

No.

Toney is just too inconsistent at any weight class to have sustained success.

Roy outgrew middle at the same age Golovkin turned Pro. Coming in over 180 to fight at 160 had to be taxing, no way he could keep that up for another 7 years to match Golovkin's run at MW.

Even if Jones magically stayed at 160, he did lose to a lesser fighter in Griffin while still in his prime. The DQ happened because Jones was frustrated, behind on the cards for first time in his career, and got overzealous when he hurt Griffin. And yeah Jones got back on track and obliterated Griffin in the rematch, but that just goes to show how remarkable long dominant runs like Golovkin's are.

Doubtful, what Golovkin is doing is very special.

If you are already cutting tremendous amount of weight, it's easier than you think to move up weight divisions and find more favorable match ups and title opportunities.

This whole they are better because they could hypothetically replicate his success doesn't fly with me. Toney is the only one of the three that had any kind of serious run at MW and he didn't look all that great.

So a 25 year old Roy Jones is going to cut over 20 pounds a night over a decade, and avoid Griffin situations in his prime and Johnson/Tarver mishaps when his reflexes slow in his 30s? I don't buy that.

And approaching 36 years of age, Golovkin is still showing up every fight.

 

so u r giving credit for being a long term bumkiller with a short term period of dominance?

 

Well, of course, that's assuming that he'd ever fight him. Martinez was not keen to face GGG at all, and GGG beat Murray who arguably beat him.

 

no thats a lie, BCS. Oneof his staff said he wasnt ready to face 3G when straight back from injury.

That is not the same at all as SM saying he wont fight him at all.

 

^ Huge, huge Golovkin fan in action here folks

 

just because i like a fighter it dont mean I dont see truth, 3G wasted too amany years killing bums, but has risen to dominate recently.

I dont hide from the truth like you with martinez and 3g

 

Bhop....B comes before G all day everyday.

 

https://www.ringtv.com/179505-martinezs-team-wants-golovkin-fight-just-not-now/

 

Golovkin should have beaten Popkins' ass when he was still hobbling around, just for laughs.

 

You sound very infatuated with Golovkin.

 

The Kentucky Cobra,

I'm not talking literally, I'm just being hypothetical and highlighting that there's nothing really special about what GG is doing.

IF Roy had fought under the same circumstances, where he could have comfortably spent his whole career at MW, then he'd have replicated GG's results without any issue.

Look, I'm a GG fan myself, but he's supposed to be beating the guys who he's been fighting.

There's nothing special about scraping past Jacobs and beating Canelo.

Yes, Toney was inconsistent. But again, he could have replicated that timeline.

Bernard could also have beaten Lemieux, Murray, Jacobs and Canelo etc.

He fought Griffin in his 3rd weight class, and Griffin was a tricky opponent. No, he didn't lose. On a technicality yes, but nobody can say that Griffin really beat him. Roy deservedly got disqualified, but Griffin was done. You can't put it forward as some sort of evidence to suggest that he couldn't have replicated GG's timeline. Do you seriously think that Roy would have scraped by Danny Jacobs? What would he have done with Lemieux and Canelo? He'd have beaten them comfortably.

Again, there's nothing remarkable about what GG's doing.

He's a great MW who's beaten mostly B class guys.

Why is it very special?

Again, what's special about beating a guy like David Lemiuex?

What's special about having a close win over Jacobs?

What's special about beating Canelo?

His longevity should be respected, but he's not doing anything remarkable.

Everyone's circumstances are different.

Well, it doesn't fly with me that you think that GG is doing anything remarkable.

Toney didn't look as dominant, because he'd fought almost 50 fights by his 26th birthday, and he'd fought guys like McCallum, Johnson and Nunn etc.

If GG is having competitive fights with Canelo and scraping past Jacobs, then how do we know how dominant he'd have been following Toney's timeline?

Again, circumstances.

I know that Roy could never have spent his entire career at MW like GG. Again, I was merely pointing out that under the same circumstances, he'd have had no issue beating the likes of Murray and Canelo etc.

That's great. But again, how would he look if he'd fought significantly more fights against better competition?

We don't know.

He's a great fighter. But he's dominating an era that isn't particularly strong.

If you had a time machine and you could drop GG into the early 90's mix, then you could bet your life that he wouldn't have been as dominant as what he currently is.

Mike McCallum was a great fighter. He never dominated in the way that GG has. But that's because he fought guys like: Graham, Watson, Collins, Kalambay, and Toney x 2 etc, before moving up. But there's no reason why he too couldn't have replicated GG's results under different circumstances.

It's okay noting GG's dominance, but everything has to be put into context.

 

You sound like a *** to me, but that's not my problem.