Michael Nunn vs. Gennady Golovkin.

Why does Nunn get a pass when GGG doesn't? GGG ended up destroying Brook and ruining his career. Nunn barely won a boring decison.

Criticizing one but not the other is the height of hypocrisy.

 

I predicted Canelo would beat Lil G and I was right and you and others might not like it but I was right and it’s true. Same way Jesus Christ was in actually darker skinned brown man like people in Arabia and the Middle East not the blue eyed European Caucasian Hollywood tries to portray him as. Before anyone predictably says I pick on race remember I was adamant on here that Tyson Fury would beat Wilder in both fights and predicted the knockout victory in the 2nd fight. I pick fights based on what I see. I am very experienced in the fight game. I don’t care about popularity I will always call it like I see it.

 

You are a younger less experienced guy based on when you started watching boxing. It’s not about getting a pass. It’s about seeing best of both guys. GGG or Lil G is good but have I seen better Middleweights most definitely yes. To say Nunn would beat him is not to denigrating him hell we are taking about someone bigger, stronger faster and with better technical ability than Canelo and a southpaw as well. Nunn was so good he could have been anything he wanted in the game.

 

We are agreed on Clenelo the Clenbuterol Kid’s brilliance but yes he he is better than GGG or Lil G certainly better skilled.

 

I am saying the smart ones adapt their styles. Lil G I have looked at closely and he cannot adapt his style. A lot of people marvel at his power but his most impressive strength is his tenacity not punching power because he is like an energy bunny. That lack of versatility is what holds him back from the pantheon of the very best.

 

What the actual **** is this? Have you genuinely just tried - and failed - to belittle Sugar Ray Leonard's résumé, while riding the coat-tails of Gennady Golovkin?

Benitez at twenty-one was completely prime. He won the title at 17, and had faced about fifteen contenders upto that point. Losing to a lightweight in your prime isn't a great look, but that lightweight essentially grew into a welterweight and is my pick for the best fighter of all-time. There's no 'Leonard cherry picked him' implicated bollocks either. There was a rematch clause, Duran ballooned up anyway. I fail to see what relevance being down on points vs Hearns is going into the final quarter has, given that Hearns is the hardest man to outbox ever at 147. Leonard coming back in the final three and getting a KO would happen every time too, IMO. As seen by Leonard's immense success in the twelve of their fight. He just has better stamina. And if Hagler-Leonard doesn't count because both were past their best, then Hearns vs Leonard II shouldn't count either.

There's no-way of painting three stoppage wins over bonafide all-time greats as bad. Writing off the Hagler fight is pretty stupid as well, given that he essentially jumped back in after five years out and beat the best middleweight ever. Hagler was much closer to his peak than Leonard was.

And even then, Leonard has a lot more good wins. He beat countless top contenders to get his title shot, he beat the very good Ayub Kalule to get his JMW title, and he stopped the huge punching Donnie Lalonde at 168.

But anyway, what's the point in comparing GGG to Leonard? Under the same microscope which you're viewing Leonard's résumé, GGG's looks even worse. And it was never even a tenth of what Leonard's was in the first place. Coming at 'old middleweights' due to their résumés is the weirdest take I've ever seen, given that the division from the early-mid 2010s is the worst it's ever been and that Golovkin still didn't even fight the best of it. Not to mention that fighters fight less now than they ever have, which also makes their résumés lessened. And then going at a welterweight made thingse even weirder.

A win over Vito is 'decentish'? What? How is beating the **** out of the second best middleweight in the world, with Hagler being the first, a decentish win? Vito has some brilliant wins too, and was clearly on par with Minter, who would also have to considered 'decentish'. Duran isn't even one of Hagler's best wins, it was just his first big fight. Mugabi wasn't KOing cans, he was KOing ranked contenders.

And anyway, let's actually add some more wins in here that deserve to be: Alan Minter, Kevin Finnegan, Tony Sibson
Mustafa Hamsho, Bennie Briscoe, Juan Roldan and Cyclone Hart.

Hell, GGG has no win over anybody outside of Jacobs and Derevyanchenko who's clearly better than say Fully Obelmejias. If one of GGG's victims KOed a top super-middleweight twice and won the title, we'd never hear the end of it.

Hagler is known as one of the best middleweights ever because he came up the hard way and put together a great title reign. He has the résumé to show for it.

 

On a separate how do you think your gypsy cousin will perform against the Clenbuterol Kid?

 

Well said George very well said. Bravo with honours

 

**** me, you sound like a posh Pimp C.

I might be younger and less experienced but I don't know if you've noticed, I was given a fair few shouts to be the most knowledgeable on the forum so it clearly doesn't make that much of a difference now, does it? And even though it's tongue in cheek when I say it, others who agree with me show I'm up there. So let's not pull the age card.

Anyway, it's not about giving a free pass? So why do you discredit GGG but not Nunn? If you're not giving Nunn a free pass, what are you doing? Because you're certainly not being objective. I've seen the best of lots of middleweights and I've seen better than Nunn and GGG. I fail to see what relevance that has. I've seen Nunn almost lose to an old starling, and I've seen him KTFOd and broken down in his prime. What I haven't seen, is GGG beaten clearly. I've already said this is a 50/50.

 

I don’t think so which is why he lost on the judges scorecards as well as mine. His ring generalship was lacking.