Pick em' then debate. Golovkin vs Hopkins at their best

Does this really help you make a case for Golovkin against Hopkins?

All 'If's' and all debatable; the arguments from which, would still not help you make a case for Golovkin beating Hopkins.

No, I am not. I'm bluntly pointing out the initial flaw in your logic, when you dispute Hopkins being the best Middleweight since Hagler. The flaw remains. Your only recourse has been to use a series of 'If' Statements; nothing based in reality.

Thus, I still maintain that Hopkins is the best Middleweight since Hagler.

Yes, we all know he's a big puncher. If it makes you feel better to use the word "Elite" to describe Golovkin's power, that's fine.

So what, if Golovkin hits hard? He's not the first and he won't be the last hard-hitting Middleweight.

Golovkin is roughly on the same level as Jacobs. What level do you think Jacobs is on?

I think the above, if posted with genuine intent, has to rank as one of the most fatuous remarks that I have ever encountered on these forums.

I've never seen scorecards used like this before, i.e. to determine whether or not a Boxer could be considered "elite". Could you explain the science behind that for me please? How exact a science is it?

To be frank, I'm not concerned with whether or not one tags Hopkins with the 'elite' label or not. It seems plain to me and several others that Hopkins was a better Boxer than Golovkin, no matter how one wants to describe that level of superiority. But, I can’t take seriously anyone, who genuinely weighs Hopkins' losses at Middleweight against him in the way you just have.

Indeed, the division in Hopkins' day was not particularly strong but his overall level of competition was better than what Golovkin has had to face. Golovkin's KO% is high because he has a punch and doesn't mind taking a few to land it, whilst doing so against limited opponents.

It didn't happen against a decent, world class opponent, did it? I would bet that you predicted a Golovkin KO/Stoppage victory over Jacobs. But GGG couldn't get him out of there. And, no doubt, you've been scraping around for reasons to justify why he wasn't able to, ever since.

Fair enough, if you believe that to be the case. I think it's debatable. I still do not see these perceived differences in speed as having a material impact on Hopkins/Golovkin.

Did you bother to take note of what I was responding to when I wrote that?

If you did then why are you posting that quote now, as if it is evidence of parity between yours and my respective references to the first Hopkins/Mercardo bout?

Your reference to the fight was a clear attempt to denigrate Hopkins; claiming that this was a bout, in which Hopkins was "embarrassed" and received what was likely a "gift draw". This was your idea of a useful comparison with the Golovkin/Jacobs fight. It is not.

You have trawled back, through over seven years of my posting history, in order to dig out this one quote, from a post I made in respect to a fantasy match-up between Hagler and Hopkins. And, all for nothing.

Taking someone's words, from an old and quite separate argument, and using them out of context is very poor form.

Yes. And, he did.

LOL - if your idea of leisure time is that spent trawling through any of my posts on Kovalev then be my guest.

I doubt you'll find anything in my name stating "Hopkins would win easy" against Kovalev and I've made it clear from the outset of this thread that I am not a "big Hopkins fan". I never have been.

Regardless of whether my mind was made up or remained open, your argument has done nothing to change it in favor of Golovkin. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I find it interesting that it is clear you are aware of Hopkins' skills, since your argumentation has been aimed at minimizing Hopkins' demonstrable level of ability - so as to perhaps place him on the same level with Golovkin, in that respect. Then, in your world, all you have to do is add Golovkin's "elite" power into the mix and you can believe yours is a winning formula.

The problem for you is that you've done a poor job of reducing Hopkins sufficiently for your little fairy tale to fly.

- Jones, Calzaghe and Taylor having beaten Hopkins is a weak point - where's the relevance?
- Jones "easily defeated James Toney"? at 168 - who cares?
- If Hopkins was 'elite', he'd have lost less decisions and have wider winning scores - for real?
- Comparing the Hopkins/Mercardo with Golovkin/Jacobs - is that fair and balanced? You have even gone as far as to quote me out of context; from a post I made about Hopkins, seven years ago, to add some respectability to this comparison.

Ultimately, you have insinuated I am guilty of 'fan bias' and stated that Hopkins was only great against smaller fighters, despite him being a unified champion, at 175, in his 40s. In truth, you couldn't have strayed much further away from keeping your points relevant, in support of Golovkin. I can understand, to some extent, why this has been the case...

...You're clearly just high on Golovkin's power but, you can only play the 'elite power' card so many times and it will only take your argument so far.

 

I can't see Bhop spoiling his way through this one, have to say GGG takes it and probably stops him.

 

How many of Hopkins fights prior to 2002 have you watched?

 

Golovkin is too easy to hit. BHop would have plenty to work with.

 

keep it real biatches gstring wussed on this one elpollo style. refused to fight bhop with some bizullshizit excuse im a small mw. they are contemporaries and gstring has already wussed discussion over.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

No you can't - I couldn't care less about Golovkin's amateur record. He met his match in Jacobs. That's his pro level.

You can always dream.

 

I'm sure Golovkin would have gotten FULL credit from all and sundry had he KO'd Old Man Hopkins on his 75th birthday.

 

No you can't - I couldn't care less about Hopkins other fights. He met his match in Segundo Mercado. That's his pro level. You can always dream.

 

Which part of "at their best" are you not getting?

 

Was BHop at his best when he lost to RJJ, or was he best when he got whooped by Taylor?

Fact is, Jacobs would have given Hops all kinds of problems and GGG would have beaten him.

 

GGG fans are the ones that need to dream and do so, regularly on these forums, because their man's pro career record is virtually void of real Middleweight talent. As soon as he faced a live opponent, the fight's result not only didn't end up in a KO win for him but, instead could have gone either way, on points.

That's the truth that GGG-Boys can't handle and so, they have to crap on the nearest thing to an elite fighter they can find, in order to artificially boost Golovkin's status.

Golovkin = Jacobs
Hopkins > Jacobs
Hopkins > Golovkin


Hopkins beats the easy to hit and rack up points against Golovkin in a comfortable UD12.

 

Golovkin beats the slow and overconfident Hopkins by knock out after Hops discovers that his jab n grab doesn't work so well when the other guy has elite footwork, a great jab and elite power.