Marvin Hagler vs Gennady Golovkin At MW

Geale is GGGs best win not Lemiuex. The idea that you think Monroe is even remotely in the same class as a guy like Geale(has multiple wins over top 10 MWs, could even argue was undefeated before fighting GGG) is just plain absurd. Monroe is known for 1 thing and 1 thing only and that is being one of Hagler's early losses, it doesn't matter how much you want to narrow down his career he never even came close to beating a top 10 MW.

 

If you want Geale over Lemieux - that's fine.

However, you haven't quite grasped the underlying point that's been made in this discussion and you're not going to. No more than you will ever realize your post of support for Geale actually endorses the same.

I guess that's fine too. But, I'm done debating the subject of Golovkin, with what can only be described as his fanboys, thanks.

 

The point is Monroe is a D level fighter, and the most comparable person to him on GGG's record would be someone like Lajuan Simon who has exactly 0 wins against decent competition

 

Hagler isn't going to rush Golovkin like he did Hearns. Rather he'd either try to outbox him or to outlast him toe-to-toe like he did Mugabi.

Golovkin cuts off the ring as well as I've seen anyone do, so my guess is that Hagler's best bet is to try and keep it in the middle of the ring. We know that Hagler's stamina, chin and determination was absolutely elite and that he also had good power and skills. Golovkin, on the other hand, has top notch power and looks to have a very good chin and skills but has never really been tested.

 

Two outstanding MW's but don't make the mistake of selling GGG short. GGG could compete with any MW ever. Try to name one fighter that Hagler beat that GGG wouldn't also figure to beat. There is always this tendency to over-rate long retired fighters. Perhaps because you can never be proven wrong about how they would handle a current fighter. I can almost guarantee you that 20 years from now they will be talking about GGG with the same reverence they currently show Hagler.

 

Golovkin got put down in sparring by a guy with more knockout losses than knockout wins.

 

I like GGG and rate him highly, but I just don't know what he brings to the table to beat Hagler.
His power wouldn't be that much of an issue with Hagler like it is with others.
Hagler fought plenty of big hitters, Hearns, Roldan, Briscoe, Mugabi, Sibson amongst others and virtually wasn't wobbled by any of them.
I just think he's too multi faceted and skilled for GGG and would eke out a unanimous decision.

 

Golovkin wouldn't go after Hagler like he does against featherfists. He'd box him, and GGG has a very fine jab and punch variety. Conversely, I believe Hagler should take it inside just as he did with Hearns, and take full advantage of his short chopping inside blows and great chin. Golovkin looks his least impressive when pressured up close and where he can't get the sort of leverage he likes to get on his punches.

I would favour Hagler if Hagler could make it an inside brawl but it would not be an easy fight in any shape or form for either man.

 

one hell of a brawl in which haglers extra mile sees him come out on top.

 

I agree with this. Golovkin would be there in front of Hagler all the way through.
Nobody's getting stopped in this fight.

 

Doesn't that work both ways, though?
There's nothing new about 'the next big thing' being prematurely compared to and considered better than a proven great of the past. However, those people, who form such beliefs, enjoy the same benefit as you have described above, i.e. the benefit of assumption; their opinions/theories never able to be put to an actual test.

The difference is that at least the past master has a complete body of evidence in their career record, reports, footage, biographies etc, etc, which will be what brought them into the conversation in the first place. The more recent and usually active fighter (as is the case here) has not the complete comparable set of career results. Thus, the assessment made of them in the present day is based on partial evidence, with a significant amount of reliance on the 'eye-test'.

As far as the question of Hagler vs. Golovkin is concerned, it's difficult to "over-rate" the former, given their body of work, its study and the numerous conclusions drawn by many an expert. The latter, on the other hand, has nothing comparable on record - but, nonetheless gives rise to quite absolute assertions on a potential outcome, from some observers - which has to involve assumptive extrapolation and imagination. Which side of the argument is then more likely to be subject to 'overrating'?

 

Making stories up for likes....

 

This content is protected

Stay in your lane little boy

 

Dropped with a body shot, I'm guessing you never saw the shot? Just as likely off balance and fell dumb ass.....

 

A guy like Geale?