Had a ggg vs middleweight hall of famers thread a few months ago

Being that Calzaghe wasn't a middleweight, give me Golovkin by stoppage.

 

I made some claims in that one I think. I'd stand by them, I'm not adjusting my thoughts of him on one close fight.

 

If you truly believe this you truly DKSAB, that's a fact

 

I'm confused on what trolls think they saw, what was it ?? They don't even know

 

Why not?

 

Athletes get bigger, stronger, better. Deal with it.

 

Thats just how fanboys work.

 

Some guys just have other guy's numbers, some guys have off nights, some guys suffer complacency. I'm assuming he fights Saunders next, if he struggles in that fight too I'll know I overrated Golovkin. But as I see it, he won a close fight against a good fighter in Jacobs, just because he didn't win as easy as I assumed he would in this one bout doesn't mean my entire opinion of him needs to be reevaluated...yet.

It's like Floyd-Maidana 1. It was close, I thought Floyd won and still considered him the better fighter but that one showing didn't make me think he was any worse than I considered him and he proved me right with the follow up fights he had.

 

But Floyd was already long proven before Maidana by beating 20 active world champions , hall of famers and all time greats.
Plus being a world champion in multiple weight classes.

The two best guys Golovkin fought are Lemiuex and Jacobs. Lemmy was the only active champion he ever beat.
Thats one good win and the other win was a narrow points decision in a fight where a lot of people thought he lost.
Thats pretty much the pinnacle of his career yet he is talked about as being one of the greatest MW of all time

 

Its nothing like Floyd-Maidana. Through resume, Floyd was a proven elite fighter for a decade before that fight. GGG lost the first time he stepped up, you need to drop the groupie **** and step into the real world.

 

Not a snowballs chance in hell in beating Hopkins? Jermain Taylor just called. He disagrees with you.

 

I'm not comparing them achievements wise or in terms of levels of wins etc, probably not the best example to use but it's the first one that came into my head. But anyway my point is not every fight can be a top performance and it is often how a fighter responds to a flat outing that can help define them. Ideally I'd like to see him rematch Jacobs but realistically they'll look for Saunders and then Canelo. If he ices those two (both big ifs) then we can retrospectively say either Jacobs just knew how to work him close or that he just had a bad night. I want to give Jacobs credit for the performance though so I'll lean toward the latter

 

Do I detect some rage, pal?

 

Not at all, must be projection.