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

Ikr.

Such a ridiculous way to judge a record.


Ugas is a 5 star fighter.
Pacquiao is also a 5 star fighter.


These men are equal.

 

Ah, ok; is that actually the system Boxrec uses? Where does it originate?

As an aside, pound-per-pound is really nebulous to me, and I try to avoid it. It's difficult to compare fighters at flyweights, for instance, with heavyweights, because the tools needed to flourish in those weights are different, respectively.

 

ROFL.

 

This content is protected

George Crowcroft,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.

This content is protected

Do you think Chiquita would beat Sot? I don't.

This content is protected

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.

This content is protected

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.

This content is protected

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.

This content is protected

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.

This content is protected

 

No it ****ing doesnt you're chatting complete waffle.

Go on Boxrec right now and go past the top 100 active and tell me how long it takes you to get to a 4 star rating.

 

Nope. I just think he's a bit over rated, beat a very similar types of opponents, fought too often in one nation, and has fans full of excuses. I never said he was dull. He's flashy, and could afford to be as he didn't fight many punchers, and when he did later in his career, started to lose.

I think the 108-pound division is the most needless division in boxing. Sorry. Some of the title matches are jokes, and the competition is thin, which is why you see the same names often listed twice or three times on a fighter ledger.

Although it has nothing to do with who I think was the best of the weight class, it's hard for me to identify with 108 pounds. I'm over double that weight, and there is no such thing as a 108 pound athlete in any sport I can name except for boxing, and that includes being a jockey.

I have nothing against Asian boxers, whomever said that. GGG is half Korean. Harda was fantastic. Galaxy a is fighter who some think is overrated is a guy I think is underrated, and I am a fan of Pacquiao who is among the best 3 pound for pound fighters in the past 15 years.

 

While I don't use the BOX REC star system, is getting 4 stars that easy? You seem to think so. For Chang he has four matches that had four stars and was 2-2 in those matches.

 

What I'm saying is the star rating system is about as useful a measuring stick as the opinion of your local taximan.

 

Okay, so you think GGG is the greater fighter?

Why don't you just demonstrate the reasons why, instead of needlessly attacking Chang?

 

Classic comparison of Top 25 ATG in MW versus Top 3 ATG in Light Fly

 

This highlights all the **** I'm talking about with you.

You do realize GGG nearly lost to 13-1 Derevychenko for a world title?
Defended his title against the likes of:
Nilson Tapia 14-2-1, Kassim Ouma 27-7-1, Fuchigami 19-6, Rosado 21-5.


So the point you are making there is completely irrelevant, you just come across as a hater.

A hater against a super fun fighter, who most people haven't heard of, who hasn't even fought in close to 30 years.

That seem okay to you?

 

Well that fight was close and he was 37 year old, not 26. See a difference? If not Derevychenko is currently ranked #4 by ring magazine, I've already asked for the opponents Chang fought who were ring ranked at flyweight., which includes anyone below 112 pounds.

There are very few. [url]Zapata[/url], [url]Torres[/url], [url]Chitalada[/url]. That's all I see. Are there more? Yes, Sot and Gonzlaez were ranked later, Chang lost to both of them.

GGG had far more title defenses vs ranked men. The four you listed didn't have the best records, though Ouma was decent, but compare the records you listed to some Chang title opponents and you'll see a difference. I don't think any point you made is a hater point by the way,

I think GGG probably lost a very close one to Derevychenko, but like I said he was 37 and had lots of fights, both professional and amateur on his odometer.

When it comes to the hall of fame, GGG will be first ballot enshrine. It took a while for Chang to get in, correct? Nearly 20 years after he retired!

GGG was the #1 pound for pound fighter for a while, something Chang didn't come close to.

Just a few reasons why I think he's better. Of course they can't fight, not even in a fantasy setting. 108 is slim pickings, but if they did fight it would be over in a round, maybe 2.

 

What the **** are talking about? You asked me for ring rankings in a division which weren't ranked by ring. How else did you want me to respond? Don't go on a mad one like I'm the one who's said something stupid.

A better puncher? No chance. You're reaching.

Yup, he stopped an old Chitalada who should've just lost to an old Chang. Well done Kittikasem! What a guy!

No i gave you three with higher than 60% of their wins. You didn't say that wasn't allowed.

And who gives a ****? You're the one 'moving goal posts'. You're the one setting the bar a HALF A PERCENTAGE above what his opponents had. Come on

You don't recognize the champions in his record? The championship he won? Looks like Keed was right, you're not qualified to speak here. He literally beat 4/5 champions I can recall.

I'm making an analogy. Their power is never questioned from their percentages. Why should Torres'? Funny you don't mention Durrele, who's in a very similar (but worse!) situation to Torres. We know he can punch, low %.

Torres could punch. Everyone knows this.

You're like a brick wall.

Chang was coming out off retirement, burnt himself out, was broke ass poor and had a hectic personal life. ON TOP OF deteriorating before retiring.

That is an old 26. Like Benítez's, Tyson's of Lewis'. Old.

Nah, I'd rather talk about GGGs best wins. And just to really hammer my point home, I'll let you move the goal posts as much as you want. You think Canelo, Derevyanchenko, Jacobs, Lemieux and Murray is better than Chitalada 1&2, Zapata 1&2, Torres 1-3, Tokashiki, Ohashi 1&2 ect.? No, coz it's not.

Gladly.

I take it you think GGG matches Hopkins' title defences? That would mean that GGG has defences over a guy who was 27-7-1, a guy who was 24-8-2, a guy who was 19-6, and dragged a guy who was smaller, two years removed from his last fight (which was a loss iirc) and that's a credible defence?

His best win is a guy who's 13-2...

 

George Crowcroft, What the **** are talking about? You asked me for ring rankings in a division which weren't ranked by ring. How else did you want me to respond? Don't go on a mad one like I'm the one who's said something stupid.

This content is protected

Yup, he stopped an old Chitalada who should've just lost to an old Chang. Well done Kittikasem! What a guy!

This content is protected

No i gave you three with higher than 60% of their wins. You didn't say that wasn't allowed.

This content is protected

You're like a brick wall.

This content is protected

Chang was coming out off retirement, burnt himself out, was broke ass poor and had a hectic personal life. ON TOP OF deteriorating before retiring.

This content is protected

Nah, I'd rather talk about GGGs best wins. And just to really hammer my point home, I'll let you move the goal posts as much as you want. You think Canelo, Derevyanchenko, Jacobs, Lemieux and Murray is better than Chitalada 1&2, Zapata 1&2, Torres 1-3, Tokashiki, Ohashi 1&2 ect.? No, coz it's not.

This content is protected

 

Yeah, like you haven't this entire thread. In which I've schooled you not once. Not twice. But 3 times.

If you're not replying, I shouldn't do it again but since your arrogant attitude is irritating I'll smash your final 5 points and leave it at that. Good? Good.

Who gives a ****? It's been spelt out to you why this very neiche and specific ranking system is absolutely ******ed to use in the situation. Chang as the clear edge in résumé.

No he doesn't. 15 > 9. By a whole 6!

Yeah, the publication which didn't even rank Chang's division didn't rank him as a P4P talent. And the 80s were much much better than the 2010s. There's no argument here. GGG was a P4P talent when Andre Ward was #1, Chang was in an era where Sugar Ray Leonard was #1...

No lmao. He'll be in coz he's a mainstream fighter with KO reputation. Whereas Chang is a fighter who never made it big in the US and fought at 108. GGG will be in coz people know who he is. Not because he's better.

That's not an excuse by the way, that's me destroying your flimsy arguement. Again.

Wow! Chin > Greatness? Okay then. Canelo > GGG...

I done schooled you bro and all you've done is made me chuckle.