If Danny Jacobs had the same resume as GGG, what would people say about him?

its not the guys GGG beats its the way he beats them
For example murray/stevens/Rubio/Monroe WILL never be beat so easy by other fighters sure they may lose but its the way GGG beats them

Murray had close fights with groves and Abraham He was beat up easy by GGG and stopped

Rubio went 12 round with dirrel GGG stops him inside 2

stevens had dirrel running for his life GGG beat him down and stopped him

 

I've no problem with most of this (it's true, Golovkin beats guys down)
but you guys have to stop using Rubio as some
sort of great win for Golovkin, Kofi Jantuah stopped him in 40 seconds.

Jacobs' resume is actually not all that much better than Golovkin,
the two best fighters on his resume (which he went 1-1) are arguably better
than everyone on Golovkin's resume though. But overall,
resumes are equally dismal

 

just no

 

No what? I'm agreeing with you for the most part.

 

Why are the two decisive options "great" or "coward"? You jump from opposite ends of the spectrum, one extreme to the other, and expect us to choose? Golovkin's resume is good, that's it: GOOD. He hasn't beat anyone that dominates. He's beaten guys that hover around the top but never actually get to THE top. He's beaten guys that don't dominate ANYONE but they're tough outings for others based on strengths and weaknesses.

Jacobs resume is slightly worse, imo, but not by much.

 

He's beating these guys like this because he's physically stronger. Obviously his skills play a part but if he had Dirrell strength, the Rubio and Stevens fights likely would play out similarly. Remember, his power causes his opponent to abandon their game plan early and retreat, making it easy for him to execute his plan.

 

The thing is that GGG had a ridiculously good amateur career. If Jacobs or anyone had an amateur career like that and then went 36-0 as a pro people would rightfully assume we're talking about an elite fighter.

 

That's a pretty fair assessment I would say.

I guess the question to ask is would both guys have the same records if they went through the other's resume. I'm confident Golovkin would have beaten Pirog (sucks so much that the fight fell through as that would mean so many of these resume arguments wouldn't come up) and he starches Quillin. Jacobs SHOULD on paper get through the guys GGG has beaten, but if Mora is dropping you then I'm not ruling out Lemmy or Stevens in stopping him, even though he is a better fighter than both.

 

agreed but golovkin is also highly skilled its just he also has the power

 

GGG has more "Known" names and as someone pointed out his finishing style speaks higher than Danny. Neither has an elite name however more casual fans recall the round 1 KO over Kid Choc Choc than most of GGG wins from my experience in listening to folks talk boxing at airports and such when I travel.

 

Easy. They'd be saying "Floyd who?"

They'd be saying this guy is just what boxing needs. That he's a throwback to the golden age of boxing.

 

I would call him a bumkiller and wonder why he's wasting his last years in boxing fighting guys like Dominic Wade or Willie Monroe.

 

I'd say he needs to up his competition. This has nothing to do with Golovkin on a personal level, but his goonish fans really think that it does. If this was "Canelo" for example and he's gotten all this praise and accolades, P4P status, and then you look at his record and see David Lemieux is his best win, I'd question his validity as well. It's called keeping it real..

This is why I respect fighters like Kovalev and Lomachenko. These guys seek out the best competition available and are willing to make concessions to get the big fights done. Look at Kovalev, took less money to get Andre Ward in the ring. That's how you do it. Not by pricing yourself out of a huge purse by saying it's not enough. Lol

 

Yeah and "IF" my dick wasn't big, it would be little.