Who's Greater? Gennady Golovkin or Jung Koo Chang?

Chang was still in his prime when he lost to Humberto Gonzales.
So GGG for me. But this is close.

 

Chang came of retirement and was already past his prime when he went into retirement. How was he prime for Chiquita?

 

Questions for the Junk Koo fans.


1 ) How many people did he beat that were ranked in Ring Magazine's top top ten when he fought them?


2 ) Doesn't it seem him losses happened when his competition level was greatest? Yes or No?


3 ) Many think Chang had a great win over Torres, and are quick to point out at age 26 for his losses, he was past his prime. Serve me some some more double standards as Torres was the same age when he lost to Chang,
Torres lost several times before meeting Chang in 1983 ( when he was 26 ), then lost again in 1984, 1986, and 1986


4 ) Did Chang face anyone with a 60% KO percentage or greater? Yes or no? Not that flys hit hard, but it seems like all, but one of Chang's fights were in Korea ( Home field matters ) and he was mostly fighting other flyweight Asian guys, who usually aren't know for power. The quicker more skills guy at fly is going to win almost all time in a thin division where the puncher's chance means significantly less.


5. While Chang did have a good amount of title defenses, don't you think the records and stats of quite a few of his opponents were jokes? Yes or no? Maybe the division was that thin, but Dontay Wilder didn't fight 5-1, 8-2, 17-11, and 4-0 guys for title shots, did he? No. There's a lot jokes in Chang's title matches, those guys had no business being in the ring with him.

 

Well, I'll answer if you reply to the posts already given.

 

I'm just asking, as this board seems to have Chang experts on it. You tell me, maybe I'm missing something. Simple yes or no's, of fill in the blanks. Can you do that?

Sum up the questions you want me to answer in one post and I'lll do the same. Deal? I don't have time to answer multiple posts in a back and forth format, and the message becomes blurred and harder to follow as the pages roll on.

 

Fine. @Mendoza

Y'know his entire LFly career was before Ring had rankings at 108, right?

No. He should've beaten Chitalada and Zapata (his two best opponents imo) in those losses, and has two official wins over them anyway. He should be 4-1 vs his best opposition, and the loss was a result of him being past it and forced out of retirement.

You are aware fighters age differently, yes? It's not a hard concept. Sometimes extenuating circumstances make a fighter decline quicker, Chang's was being non-comittal to training and fighting world level fighters for years on end and fighting adults from the days of a teen. Torres was fighting a lot of filler.

Yeah. Torres has a 74.6% KO rate from his wins. Ohashi has a 63.2 KO rate from his wins. Perez has a 72% KO rate from his wins.

So that's 6 fights vs good to great punchers. I fail to see how this is relevant.

No? Records are often incomplete, so who cares if they are? He already beat the best of his era, dominating Chitalada and Zapata, as well as beating other champions.

How about you watch them (especially Ohashi and Chitalada) before saying they didn't belong in the ring with him, based solely off records.

Happy now?

 

He beat 9 former or future world titlists off the top of my head (and I am sure I am missing some, as I am an old man with a fading man), and he beat 4 of them before he even turned 20. Of all the nit-picking against Chang you could raise, complaining about his competition is just about the most laughable and ignorant approach. He fought almost certainly in the strongest junior flyweight era ever, and he beat a crap ton of flyweight champions, too. As you say, he knows nothing about the weight or the era. Hell, he SPARRED against two former/future champions in HIS OWN GODDAMN GYM!

Anyways, Mendoza has also been called out multiple times in other threads about his glaring errors, and he keeps persisting. (See my response here, for instance, https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/roman-gonzalez-vs-jung-koo-chang.538734/page-5 ). So he obviously has no desire to learn or change his errors is purely trolling.

I have a relative over, so I cannot post much the next few days. But Mendoza's posts are so asinine that I had to intervene. To discredit Chang on the basis of his supposed lack of competition is about as stupid as claiming that Foreman didn't have enough punching power for a heavyweight.

 

In a recent television interview, Chang said he's been drunk almost every day of his entire life since his teens. He also had a &*ked up private life, with two messy divorces. Rumor has it that he trained seriously for two fights his entire life - Zapata II and Torres I. He barely made the weight and had to shed 31 pounds (to make 108!) in the Tokashiki fight - which some observers consider his best performance.

You can imagine why he burnt out so quickly.

 

Anyways, will come back to this thread and other interesting threads that came up the last few days (e.g. the Hearns thread - who is my favorite fighter of all-time and about whom I somewhat disagree with many esteemed posters here) when my cousin leaves.

 

George Crowcroft, post: 20446909, member: 120441"]Fine.@Mendoza[/USER]

Y'know his entire LFly career was before Ring had rankings at 108, right?

This content is protected

No. He should've beaten Chitalada and Zapata (his two best opponents imo) in those losses, and has two official wins over them anyway. He should be 4-1 vs his best opposition, and the loss was a result of him being past it and forced out of retirement.

This content is protected

You are aware fighters age differently, yes? It's not a hard concept. Sometimes extenuating circumstances make a fighter decline quicker, Chang's was being non-comittal to training and fighting world level fighters for years on end and fighting adults from the days of a teen. Torres was fighting a lot of filler.

This content is protected

Yeah. Torres has a 74.6% KO rate from his wins. Ohashi has a 63.2 KO rate from his wins. Perez has a 72% KO rate from his wins.

This content is protected

So that's 6 fights vs good to great punchers. I fail to see how this is relevant.

This content is protected

No? Records are often incomplete, so who cares if they are? He already beat the best of his era, dominating Chitalada and Zapata, as well as beating other champions.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Happy now?

This content is protected

 

@George Crowcroft Just finished the first round of the Tokashiki match.

Chang is a ****ing lunatic.

 

I'm so glad you wrote this.
Just makes me like him even more.

This guy is a legitimate madman.

 

Yeah, Chang went pro in 1980. He retired in '91. Ring's rankings for the 108 division starting in the 90s.

So unless you're mixing up which division Chang fought in, which I suppose is possible, you're chatting ****. Chang's win over Shin isn't mentioned as a top win since both were so green, but it was at 108 not 112.

Chang's 108 career has NO ring rated contenders, since Ring didn't rank them at that weight.

That isn't hard to grasp.

Why? Zapata is clearly better. Do you think Chiquita would beat Sot? I don't.

What I see here is a guy who can't grasp very known, established facts about a fighter.

Are you honestly saying that Chang wasn't in decline for Chiquita? Wasn't in decline for Kittakesm? If you are, you're even more irrational than I thought.

Okay sure, we'll go with that. You asked for a non-specific KO percentage. I gave you them. 3 proper punchers, one being among the best punchers in flyweight history imo.

It's very ponderous and specific of you to raise the bar to 60%, when he beat several slightly under.

You think Torres isn't a puncher? Because of a KO percentage? Do you think Langford isn't a proper puncher when he has a 40% KO rate. How about Archie Moore? He only has a 60%, is he not a great puncher? Yvon Durrele could punch and everyone knows it, yet a 41% rate. Not a puncher?

You get my point. KO rates aren't fully representative of power. Everyone knows this. YOU know this. You're being deliberately difficult because you have some weird vendetta vs Chang. This criticism is laughable and needless.

You think Kittakesm is better than Torres? Give over.

Actually it's not. I gave you answer, you don't like it. Records of that era are incomplete. And don't tell the full story anyway. Watch them fight, even if they were novices, they were worthy of being in the ring. Chitalada was listed with way more than 4 fights for that.

No, you just exposed you don't even know what division he fought in.

Yes. The two which scored it for Zapata were American and Panamanian. Hardly bias towards a Korean. The other was by 2 Americans and a Puerto Rican. Again, hardly bias towards a Korean (or, granted, a Thai, but this one is more bad judges than bias/corruption ect.).

If you haven't got your own card, don't comment on the decision. Go watch them lmao.

Oh they could've been. But they weren't. Better?

No, I called one of them a great puncher (meaning Torres) and did give you KO% rates. I also told you why you're question was ridiculous, irrelevant and didn't even make sense.

Nah, I reckon you were pretty smug. And now I reckon you're not.

You picked 4 (of 15) which weren't even valid, since records are clearly incomplete of 1, one wasn't green at all and the other was a guy he beat twice and gave him a great fight in the rematch.

He also beat much better than them, so I fail to see how this is a fair issue. It's not like he ducked the best to fight them, he fought the best and them. It's no worse than of these were 10 round non-title fights.

failed attempt. Try again.

 

Why you beefing on Chang?

Watching the Tokashiki fight is the most fun I couldve had today without someone touching my pecker.

 

He tends to bash Asian fighters, but his hate for Chang is extreme even in that context. In another thread, he claimed Chang's competition was bad, because he never beat an elite "American" fighter. This may be his most revealing, ignorant claim ever. He obviously doesn't understand that there were no elite American junior flyweights or flyweights in the 70s and up to late-80s. As I've said in that thread, this is tantamount to saying that Pele's Brazil team had bad competition, because they didn't play Bahrain.