Showtime Crew: "Jacobs beating Quillin is better than anything on GGG Resume"

Here comes the duck

 

No, we have been telling you all along inferior Chocolate is not the man he needs to beat, you were wrong about him. Because YDNSAB

 

I vote no because of the ducking and dodging the kids done

 

Very reactionary. So Quillin would be a great, signature win for GGG, but since Jacobs beat him, he's now not as good as he was considered to be before last night? You don't see how that can be considered a biased opinion?

Why can't it just be called straight? Jacobs beat him and it's a better win? Also going with your prior statements regarding Quillin/Lemieux, if GGG was to face Quillin, and it last into the 4th or 5th round, or pater, does that mean that Jacobs is better than GGG?

To me there's not much chance that Jacobs would beat Golovkin, despite the fact that he has the better singular win. I don't see why the ideas need to conflict.

 

There is no argument for inferior Chocolate being better than GGGs best wins.

 

Yes, if he fought GGG and GGG knocked him out in one round it could be just that GGG was that good or Quillin wasn't as good as he was advertised so I'd be more conflicted. However the fact that Jacobs done it proves to me the latter.

After last night, I think both Murray and Lemieux would have beat him if Quillin ever stepped up therfore I rate those wins higher now in hidnsight. What's the problem here?

 

And what is the argument that Lemiuex and Murray are better wins?

 

There are sound arguments being made for them being better.

Can you make a sound argument of your own? Because this logic is leaning more towards, kid glass being no worse, which obviously does not equate to better.

 

The Showtime idiots would be wrong as usual. Geale was ranked #2 when Golovkin beat him, which is better than anything Jacobs has done. There is really no discussion when talking about resumes, because when doing so you have to include the bad and the good. Jacobs was destroyed by Pirog and looked like he was about to go life and death with a skeletal old Mora.

 

The problem is that is self-serving.

 

You can't prove that lol... My reasoning makes perfect sense, you can't dispute that so all you can do is come and accuse me of bias.

Hey, if Quillin went full rounds and put up a good fight I'd actually say yeah, Quillin would be the best but the fact that he got beat so easily shows he was never that good. good

 

Neither guy was ever considered THE GUY at any point that GGG needed on his resume. They were consolation prizes, 2nd choices after Quillin. Quillin can box and punch.

To me they are all of similar level of fighter, and none have a great resume. To me Quillin has the better body of work, although not lately. Lemieux's best wins are bascislly the same guys as Quillin, except after the fact and further down the road. Add to that he has lost to inferior fighters(even after last night), journeymen types, and that he is a limited slugger, fun to watch, but it is what it is.

I actually think Murray is the best of the 3 h2h, but he has no real signature wins, hard luck or not.

My main issue is with guys who were saying Quillin was the guy keeping a big win out of GGG's pocket, were calling for him to win last night, watch him get KO'd and now after the the fact say he was never any good. But somehow had it been GGG who did it, it sould have still been a great and signature win. It's hypocrasy out best, booshee at worst.

So, there's my end. What about yours?

 

ESPN.com
Tbrb.org

Or anyone else credible...

 

I accept your surrender...

 

I said I want him to get KO'd and that Jacobs will KO him, my prediction is there for all to see in my post history. So I'm not one of those guys. :good