Golovkin Against The Bodysnatcher..?

All your so called points have been rebutted and you're so called context there is none BTW has also been rebutted.

Now your suggesting it's an older generation being biased well I'm in my early 20s buddy so you can throw that theory out of the window.

I'm done with this debate I think I've clearly stated my case you want to harp on about Golovkin beating Geale, Brook, Lemiuex, whilst dismissing Jackson, McCallum, Toney, be my guest I think anyone with an ounce of knowledge on boxing will know thats absolutely ridiculous. When you accuse someone of having double standards and then post something like that I think you want to look at yourself.

 

Mike Mccallum was one of the most completely well rounded boxers ever, he was the perfect JMW and damn near a perfect MW. His chin was strong enough to stand up to anything Golovkin had, and he was better (as in he showed far more depth to his game) on the inside, with short punches and on the outside. His feet were also better than Golovkin's feet.

I don't see a scenario that would lead me to believe Golovkin wins by decision and he definitely ain't stopping Mccallum, that's not possible.

 

I've never seen anyone make that comment on classic forum but even if they did I don't see what that has to do with anything.

People a year ago on general forum were saying Joe Joyce was the next George Foreman and would beat a prime Mike Tyson.

Whilst I'm not comparing Golovkin to Joyce clearly Golovkin was looking sensational against B and C class fighters. And once he stepped up fighting more notable names he looked alot less sensational and much more beatable.

The argument is that was it down to Golovkin's age ? But another poster here was claiming Kell Brook was one of Golovkin's stand out wins which was 1 fight prior to Jacobs fight.

 

My lasting memory would be destroying the hardest punching Jr Middleweight of all time in 2 rounds Julian Jackson.

 

That's the issue John and that's what I was pointing out in this thread.

Golovkin lacks a standout win and his opposition overall was not that stellar, so we're making assumptions on how Golovkin does vs opponents in the next tier above the likes of Jacobs, Dereyanchenko, etc who he struggled with immensely.

Now the issue I have people are saying Golovkin was old vs Jacobs, but in same sentence they're saying Brooks is a standout win for Golovkin which was 1 fight previous to Jacobs.

So was Golovkin in his prime vs Brooks ? And suddenly got old vs Jacobs ? That seems like people are trying to make their own narrative to favour Golovkin.

If people want to say Golovkin was slightly past his prime when he stepped up in competition fair enough, but then you also have to take into account it was also higher class of opposition which is why Golovkin struggled aswell.

As for Canelo fights they were decent fights I've always thought people overrated how good they are personally. Pavlik vs Taylor for example was a much better contest for Middleweight title fought in a much more assertive manner.

But I didn't think Golovkin really asserted himself in either of the 2 fights, especially the 2nd fight he allowed Canelo to be the aggressor and take the play away from him.

And me for overall that's why I don't consider Golovkin an ATG Middleweight despite his many title defences.

 

Great post, John. Superb!

 

No kos in this one

 

Interesting fight ... very close as Mike was long in there tooth at 160 and GGG was so strong ... maybe the best Mike edges him by decision but not sure ...

 

You mean the fight that made Duran run scared from him, into the arms of Hearns?

Sure, Mike had some poor ones. Kalambay really made him look bad in their first and Graham was hard work (even though I think the close decision was mostly a hometown one - not that close really). And he might actually get somewhat overrated on here now. GGG would probably have almost 10 lbs on him in the ring, in a weight class that wasn't McCallum's best even.

So, yes, the vote is probably a bit lopsided in McCallums favour. Worth it, though, to **** off BCS8.

 

I'm not annoyed. I'm amused by the mental image of a big circle of naked liver spotted old geezers circle jerking each other around a shrine made from celluloid fight film tapes of guys that would get the **** knocked out of them by Gabe Rosado

 

I think you get off a bit on that, to be honest.

 

Sure thing Mr Burns

 

BCS8,

Many great fighters have struggled with lesser opponents during their careers. But if you want to debate the career of Sumbu Kalambay, then we can do that. But it seems as though you’ve just pulled his record and found Duane Thomas on it, in order to try and discredit him.

Yes, Sumbu Kalambay lost a few fights. But he was an absolute technician. A really skilful fighter with a tough style to beat for many guys. And he was a better fighter than a guy like Danny Jacobs. And if I did a poll, then most people would agree with me.

Absolutely. So you tell me why you think that they were so great.

Now as I’ve said before, all these guys are warriors who deserve our utmost respect. Guys who fight at any level have my respect. So I don’t want to disrespect them in any way whatsoever. But as far as I can see, GGG fought mostly B and C level guys.

So I really don’t see what you find so great about those 21 defences.

Again, 21 defences of a MW title is prestigious. But who you fight is the most important thing.

Do you think that Sven Ottke and Joe Calzaghe also had amazing title reigns at SMW?

I think that we’ve had a misunderstanding here. When I say opportunities, I’m saying that there’s many guys of the past who didn’t win a belt before only having to face a number of B and C level guys. In other words, they didn’t have the easy path that GGG had.

Really?

Then give me your ratings.

How were guys like Rubio, Macklin, Lemiux, Monroe and Wade etc, not B level fighters?

Okay. Then enlighten me. You tell me what’s so special about beating those guys listed above, as well as having close decisions with Derev and Jacobs?

Why is that some amazing feat?

I wouldn’t argue with that at all. But like GGG’s MW resume, it mostly consisted of beating B and C level guys.

Comedy angle?

Mike McCallum beat the following fighters: Ayub Kalule, Donald Curry, Julian Jackson, Milton McCory, Steve Collins, Sumbu Kalambay, Micheal Watson and Herol Graham. He also drew with James Toney, in a fight where many think that he won.

So how on earth is it comedy to think that the same guy who beat those guys, couldn’t have beaten David Lemieux, Matthew Macklin and Danny Jacobs etc??

James Toney - one of the “so called better fighters”

Really?

This garbage doesn’t even warrant a response.

I don’t take drugs, but if I did, I’d certainly be asking for your suppliers number.

Back in the real world:

Mike fought a prime Roy Jones as well as James Toney x 3 etc, where he was never even close to being stopped in his entire 55 fight career.

Whereas your guy could barely beat Derev and Danny Jacobs.

So there’d probably be more chance of me winning the lottery this week, than GGG having knocked out Mike McCallum.

That’s because you are biased and lack knowledge of many of Mike’s opponents.

If you want to say that he was faded, slightly faded or not fully fit for whatever reason, that’s okay.

I’ve simply picked out those fights and fighters as they were his best opponents.

Ha!

Hilarious.

Based on what exactly??

Let’s do a thread and a poll.

Look at the technical guys who Canelo fought.

Go and look at his results against them.

It’s just a ridiculous comment by you that’s based on absolutely NOTHING.

Nobody gives Floyd more criticism than me over that ludicrous catch-weight.

However, I don’t believe for one second that he was a mummy from being dehydrated.

The fight simply came too soon for him. He was naive, it was a bad stylistic match up, and he showed Floyd far too much respect.

 

You told me yesterday that GGG had the flu etc, and that he wasn’t at his best in his close fights.

Yet you won’t make allowances for Toney not being in any way 100% fit or motivated against Dave Tiberi, when it was only about 9 weeks after he’d beaten Mike McCallum.

What were you saying to Dynamicpuncher about double standards?

It’s okay for you to mock Toney and claim that something like that would never have happened to GGG, but then we don’t know, as GGG wasn’t fighting that often.

Imagine GGG fighting a guy 9 weeks after Canelo, where he was injured and not fully fit or focused.

It’s just another example of your bias, where you either can’t or won’t allow for any context.

By the time James Toney had fought Roy Jones at 26, he’d fought 46 fights.

That’s one more fight than what GGG has right now.