Who had a better MW title reign: Hopkins or Golovkin?

its too late for 3G to reach double figures of defences now, hes 34.

But he can still acheive half of what hopkins did.

 

Tito is the only one with a case for being better at 160.

 

Lol.

Oscars resume was better than jacobs. He was never koed before the hopkins fights and hopkins isnt even a devastating power puncher, he had phenomenal technique, accuracy, and body shots. Oscar was a very durable fighter. He was faster than jacobs, better stamina, arguable on par with him in punching power, and like i said, better resume.

Jacobs best wins are sergio mora and quillin (who avoided a lot of the best fighters and was somewhat manufactured). Oscar had mayorga, vargas, sturm, quartey, gatti, chavez, camacho, and pernell sweet pea whittaker. Are you serious right now?

Thats 2 names, oscar and trinidad, who had way better resumes than jacobs. They were just as athletic and tough and had better ring iq and experience against elite fighters.

Thats not even including what Hopkins did at light heavy. There is just no comparison between GGG and Hopkins other than the number of title defenses and punching power. GGG still has a lot to prove. If he can beat canelo and unify with saunders its a closer debate.

 

I assume he meant that Jacobs has a better resume at 160. What makes you say that Oscar has better stamina and punching power than Jacobs? Hard for me to imagine either being true.

 

I'm sensing a weird troll job for reasons unknown.

 

I didnt say he hit harder than jacobs, i said its debatablr if jacobs hit "a lot" harder than oscar given jacobs "ok" resume.

I said stamina because oscar threw way more punches and could box and move for 12 rounds without getting tired. Ive only seen jacobs do that once against ggg, correct me if im wrong. Jacobs hasnt proven to be a workhorse who can go 12 no problem.

Im "trolling" by saying oscar and trinidad were better wins than jacobs? Lol. That statement alone makes you a GGG fanboy, as if its ludicrous to compare hopkins best wins to his.

 

Hey dumba ss, I said Hopkins had a better resume. You said Joppy and the rolly polly 160 Oscar were better than Jacobs. It's a strange and false think to say.

 

Youre a dumbass if you think jacobs is better than oscar. Once again, lol.

 

Just to clarify:- Are you suggesting Oscar was better than Jacobs, pound-for-pound, or that he was a better Middleweight than Jacobs is?

 

P4p, oscar only fought once at the full 160. His sheer resume craps all over jacobs best wins. For example, when hearns fought hagler he didnt have a lot of experience at that weight but he was still one of haglers best wins because of how awesome he was at lower weights.

Oscar frequently competed at 154, its not a gigantic leap for a robust, athletic, 5'10 man to add six lbs. It would be different if oscar was some short scrawny guy who had no business at jr middle let alone middle.

 

Post like these makes me laugh!

HerolGee, Are you aware Hopkins achieved most of his legacy past the age of 35?

By the way, GGG is 35 now, not 34 as you mentioned.

Your quickly replacing Dino, who I heard is on a break.

 

i'm glad i make u luagh, because u r in a mental hospital. its awesome that u pointedout 3g is 35 - that makes ur argument even weaker.

3g has 2 years max left in hhim. u already know this, but keep living your lie.

 

Ok, you said that Oscar is "arguable on par with him in punching power." At 160? I just don't see any reason to doubt that Jacobs hits harder than Oscar de la Hoya. It might be debatable if Jacobs hits harder than 147-lb Oscar in some pound-for-pound sense, but in terms of absolute punching power I just don't see it. From what I recall of the fights, Oscar's punches had virtually no impact on the only real middleweights he fought, Sturm and Hopkins (even at the silly catchweight), and it's not like he had previously been starching many of his opponents in early stoppages at 147 and 154.

Not sure that's true of the somewhat soft and bloated version of Oscar who actually fought at 160 though. And didn't he notoriously fatigue down the stretch against Tito?

 

I see - I don't think there's an argument against Oscar being better than Jacobs, pound-for-pound. It goes without saying.

But, at Middleweight, Oscar was stretched beyond his effective limit and he never fought there again, after the defeat to Hopkins. Hearns, to take your example, was much bigger and stronger than Oscar to start with and continued to operate at 160, 175 and 200 - proving he was able to carry himself and his power into bigger divisions - for some 5 or 6 years and 20 or so fights.

So, I can see why people would view a win over Hearns, as being of greater value than a win over Oscar - at Middleweight.

 

Jacobs was flipping massive for his fight with GGG. One of the biggest MW's I've seen.