Is GGG being overrated?

Because there was a ****ing tournament. He was lucky to have gotten the chance to participate in something like that. He was pretty much guaranteed to fight the best in the division. Imagine if every division had a tournament like that. If there was one at MW, we would finally be able to see GGG in with the best in the division (regardless of how you feel about it and its lack of depth). Don't act like Ward went out and negotiated those fights to happen. They were pretty much lined up because of the tournament.

 

The hype for the kid is massive

But unlike 90% of guys, GGG will live up to it

He's the Real Deal for sure

 

Uhh huh. This from the guy who thinks beating an over 40 Winky Wright who hadnt fought in 3 years and was coming off two losses makes for a legit resume. Kingpin Quillan!

 

You really need to stop with this "guys fight @ '54 but should be @ '60" crap. That argument works BOTH ways. I could argue that guys like Golovkin and Macklin should be @ '68 but cut to '60 cause they would get pulped - same as you can...

Lara is more skilled than ANY 160'lb're not named Sergio Martinez..

LOL..

It's painfully obvious that YDKSAB...

 

Beating an old Winky is better than ANYTHING Golovkin has done to date...

 

He seems to have the goods but yes he is being overrated considering he's beaten no one of note. I think he'll fulfill his promise, but no sense speculating till he beats some decent names.

 

:deal

 

You should really refrain from the YDKSAB line, were I you id remove those keys from the keyboard entirely - lest you proceed to type it again then proceed with a quote like this.

 

Who was ranked higher. Winky when he fought Quillin or Macklin when he fought GGG?

 

Depends, by some yes but not majority. He is the best MW right now, but if Sergio was prime it would be hard to pick, that would have been very good fight.

 

Come on, that is simply untrue. I have utmost respect for Wright but coming off a three year layoff and without a single victory in six years (and without a creditable victory over a live opponent - not blown up, aging, slowing, dejected and fed-up-with-the-sport not to mention personal-friend-of-his Bazooka - in seven years) outpointing him is less of a feat than utterly destroying Macklin.

Prime for prime and career for career, Winky >>> Mack - but comparing those versions of them and the results themselves...come on, man.

Sure, Pete gets a little extra credit for the knockdown - but not enough to say it outshines Golovkin's biggest achievement.

 

Far as I can tell most exerts view him as the top fighter at 160, especially given Martinez' trouble as of late. Not sure that would count as overrating.

 

Ron wasn't ranked, period. He was three years out and had fought just once in the preceding 59 months.

MM was, meanwhile, a prime ranked contender who the year before gave the lineal champ hell.

 

Tell ya what.
While you're waiting on your phone call or memo or what ever you self important douches think you deserve, the rest of us will be watching fights.
Have fun being melodramatic!

 

Macklin was 1-2 in his last three. This small inconvenient FACT seems to get overlooked whenever discussing Golovkin's resume.

Sure, Wright was old and had been out of the ring for three years - but that doesn't change the fact that Winky is a first ballot HOF'er. Something that can not be dismissed.

What the hell had Macklin ever done besides dropping 2 of his last 3 before facing Golovkin?