Marvin Hagler vs Gennady Golovkin At MW

No, you poor semi-literate twit, herol. ( Were you drunk when you typed that ? It's barely legible ! )

Things just go over your head, don't they.

Dino posted:

This content is protected

Clearly, he was (erroneously) implying that he had the answer to the thread question, which was
Marvin Hagler vs Gennady Golovkin At MW ? Who wins ?

And his answer was Hagler, because Hagler had beaten Hearns in two rounds and it had taken Golovkin five rounds to stop Brooks. And since Hearns was an ATG and Brooks wasn't, this, by Dino's 'logic' proved that Hagler would beat GGG.

Are you following along so far, herol?

Good.

Then we'll carry on...


Now, we come to my story, sonny.

Ali had lost to both Frazier and Norton.

And as I stated, he had struggled against both in the rematch, winning close decisions.



And so herol, my poor confused, semi-literate, simple-minded cuckold, he had NOT beaten both twice, but was rather, 1-1 with both fighters as he headed into his fight with Big George.

And Big George was going into the rumble in the jungle having utterly destroyed both Frazier and Norton inside two rounds.

So prior to the Ali-Foreman fight, a pundit with Dino's (and herol's) level of reasoning and boxing smarts would have picked Foreman on the basis of Foreman's vastly superior performance against these two common opponents.

That pundit might even have chimed in some glib cliche like...."end of story."

And how would that have worked out for this Dinoesque pundit ?




Have I given you a clue here, herol?

Are you getting the picture ?



It seems the usual sloppiness in your reasoning process has been rendered even more slipshod by your recent unhappy discoveries at home, what with Missus Gee scampering around like a bunny-rabbit.

It can't be easy, lad, but try not obsess.

That only clouds what little bit of judgment you have left.

 

Its not even a fight between the two. Hagler reach 75 inches. Golovkin 70 inches.

Golovkins tremendous no argument there...but hes tremendous going forward after nullyfiying the opponent. He would never be in that position against hagler.

Hagler is so far past anyone hes fought its unreal. Take everything away from hagler. Just watch his footwork the next time you watch him fight then compare it to anyone golovkins fought.

The only person hes fought with footwork is brook. And it caused him big problems. Hence the he is a good judge of distance comment from golovkin. If brook was a middleweight he d have beat golovkin.

I d go as far to say if brook didnt have the eye injury and he was a bit stronger mentally...he d have won that fight. People can say what they want. That style would have been kryptonite for golovkin. Or anyone that can take his power with a good engine and good offense. Give eubanks a year i guarantee he ll beat him.

And i love golovkin

 

Ill never question another mans knowledge of the fight game, especially if their on this site. Now I may question his opinions. Your making Brooks sound like he's a special talent. He wasn't, and he was tailor made For a big Middle Like Triple G. Brooks made his career beating what would've been called club fighters yrs ago. Maybe your impressed by the undefeated record. Everyone knew he had very little chance of upsetting GGG. And judging by how quickly they stopped the fight his own corner knew. You say Triple G did an excellent job cutting off the ring. I saw a slow footed, slow puncher that took a lot of shots from Brooks and just wore him down. Nothing special about that, a good big man beating a average little man by attrition. Hagler feasted off of fighters like Triple G. Roldan,Minter,Sibson,Hamsho. All had good to excellent power, all were aggressive. All were destroyed by Hagler. Triple G. Would suffer the same fate.

 

Doing a disservice to brook if you think hes only good for club fighters.

Look beyond the punches. Footwork and elusiveness is genuine world class. One thing about the ingles thats not credited enough is the footwork. Thats what caused golovkin the problems.

Going forward golovkin wont face anyone with footwork as good as that including canelo.

 

lol he lost to 2 club fighters in 72, had a draw with a club fighter in 73 and KO'd by a borderline club fighter in 76. Like I said if we're comparing him to GGG opponents he would be someone like Lajuan Simon

 

Hagler was more like a natural 154

 

Stop getting upset in some attempt to cover up your mistake.



Everyones knows that midcareer Ali wouldn't be rated as high as complete career Ali. Why are you labouring that point as if its been misunderstood by anyone? Because the alternative is to admit your mistake, ok mate, no ones missed that. And so to answer this question of yours -

nearly all the pundits actually did pick foreman over ali, so if Dino WAS one of those pundits, he'd be in line with them all. You claiming all those pundits were idiots? no, YOU are the idiot if you think they ALL are.



You used Ali deliberately to add the weight of his complete career's ATG status, to compare to Canelo in order to belittle Dino. And you fail because its a futile comparison, Canelo isn't ever going to get close to at any point in his career to ATG HW number 1 Ali at any stage.

 

I don't know what you are laughing at since it is you, who clearly has the lack of perspective and knowledge, here...


And, I repeat: If the mid-70s Monroe were around today and lined up for a challenge to Golovkin, he would be the best opponent Golovkin has faced to date.


By the way...

Since when has 1972 been referred to as the "mid-70s"? I even specified the years of '74 to '77 in my previous question, which most would fairly consider as being the mid-70s. You couldn't even get that right.

That aside, I also asked you to name these so-called "club fighters" but you didn't manage to do that, either; instead, referring to them by year. Perhaps if you had studied up a little better, you'd have been able to do so - and also have realized that Max Cohen was a French-Moroccan; two-time national champion and world title challenger (i.e. He was a world ranked boxer).
Is that really your idea of a club fighter?

Your other 1972 reference is to Alvin Phillips.
Monroe had already beaten Phillips, who would nonetheless get favored in their return and also add other future or existing Ring Top-10 opponents to his resume (Harris; Watts; Licata [x2]; Bouttier). Granted, he would only yield one win and a draw from those other contests but Phillips was definitely a prospect vying for contention.

Both these Split-Decision losses in '72 were suffered by Monroe in less than three years of him being a professional and both were in the opponents' backyard.


Even if you wanted to consider '73 as mid-70s then Monroe's resulting Draw in 1973 does not count as a loss, does it?

Nonetheless and again, the contest was overseas - in France - in a bout with yet another French National Champion - Bettini - who was highly experienced and had faced a host of named boxers, including a couple of 10-Rounder Decision Draws, against the old Sugar Ray Robinson. Bettini a Club fighter? I think not.


By the time of his '76 Loss to David Love, Monroe had reached a ranking in the Ring Top-10. Love earned his own place in the Ring Top-10, that year, by beating Monroe but had had a good win in South Africa, over their national champion, earlier in the year. In any event, Love cemented his ranking by beating Watts in '77. Nothing remotely "borderline" club fighter about that. Monroe would then lose twice to Hagler, in '77.


You obviously have no clue about the era in question and, therefore, combined with your man-love for Golovkin, can't avoid the type of dismissive bias of a fan; making the sweeping statements that you do. The Lajuan Simon comparison has twice now made me laugh very hard indeed, it's such a misconception. Still, perhaps I'll know what level to expect from you, next time.

However, if there is a next time and you get the urge to spew an unwarranted response of indignation to a perfectly reasonable claim (i.e. the one I originally made on page 11 and have repeated above), get you're facts straight and know the subject upon which you are about to comment.

 

Hagler on points.

To beat GGG you need to be able to box and fight, Hagler can do both.

He has durability, the chin, the work rate, the desire and strength down the stretch to negate GGG.

People bang on about GGG's power, but what impresses me more is his ability to cut the ring off. For me that wouldn't be a big deal in this fight... Hagler can take the power and GGG certainly won't be walking him down, he won't have to go looking for Hagler that's for sure.

Then we look into resume. Through no real fault of his own, GGG's resume really isn't all that... he's had MW's running away, hence Brook showing balls of steel jumping up from WW. Hagler as we all know fought a list of who's who.

 

Yet the last time he fought below middleweight was in the amateurs.

 

It seems your idea of a club fighter is just someone that you don't know about.

 

*Monroe.

 

Thanks. Now amended. (I think I got them all).

 

herol lad, you seem to mistake my amusement and (some small degree of pity) for irritation.

And you still don't grasp the point, persisting in believing you see a mistake somewhere other than in Dino's ill-thought out post.

Now I'm loathe to belabour the point that your post history points to a serious case of pathological obsession and that this must put a near unbearable strain on your ability to think semi-cogently, but it needs to be pointed out that here, as in many other instances, you seem to be struggling a bit with certain basic tenets of logic.

But I'm nothing if not compassionate, so I will endeavour yet again to set you straight, to point out the errors in your thinking processes, in the hopes that the light-bulb might finally kick in inside your tormented brain.

Because, my dear fellow, you completely missed that point in one of your early attempts at expressing yourself.
You wrote:

See your error here, herol ? At the time of the Ali-Foreman fight, Ali had NOT beaten either of them twice. He had lost to both and as I pointed out, struggled in the rematches , leaving him with a 1-1 record against both.

Pundits handicapping the Zaire affair, could consider the record of things past, not things yet to come.

And I daresay if they had been given some magical insight into how Ai-Frazier 3 and Ali-Norton 3 were going to unfold, it would have made little difference to their prognostications.

You see, the point you are missing is that they would have (and did !) looked at the manner and speed with which Big George dispatched the two pugilists, compared that to Ali's struggles with the same two, and concluded (wrongly, just like Dino) that this meant Ali was going to get whupped.

Are you still following along here, herol. If you're having difficulties, maybe get your crayons and draw a diagram. It sometimes helps in cases like yours.

Exactly my point, dear boy !

They were all (or nearly all) wrong.

They made the same basic mistake in 1974 as Dino makes in 2016.

Where did I make the claim that the pundits ( or even Dino) were idiots ?

I merely pointed out that they got it wrong and that the reasoning they used was parallel to Dino's reasoning re Hagler and GGG, so therefore, Dino's surmising of the hypothetical outcome rested on faulty thinking, demonstrated by a real-life example.

So no, they were not idiots. Just mistaken.

They would only have been idiots if they had been certain in their foresight and stated something along the lines of ...Foreman is going to win with certainty, end of story !"

And since Dino had added the "end of story" bit, he clearly believed that he had proved his position beyond doubt and there was no point in further speculation, hence his "end of story" quip.

I entered the thread and told the other story, which opened Dino's story to serious doubt and questioning.


See, it's all fairly straightforward if you break it down, herol.

Take your time. Re-read the thread as many times as you like.

Phone a friend if you need help with the reasoning process.

And stop obsessing, lad. It only makes things worse.

 

Guys who lose basically every time they step up past the club fighter level are club fighters.

This describes all of the aforementioned fighters(Cohen-Bettini-Phillips) except maybe Love who lost most of his fights past the club fighter level but actually won a handful too.