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

Crowcroft,

1 ) You don't care who beat more ranked opponents. GGG by a large margin.
2 ) You might want to re-count GGG's title defenses again you math is wrong, and 6 more title defense is a lot more by the way.
3 ) Flyweights have been ranked in the pound for pound rankings for years, Chang was a ranked flyweight. He was eligible. DUH.
4 ) GGG was not well known, even as a young champion. Chang took forever to make the hall of fame, because he fought in a thin divison and simply was not that good
5 ) Top fighters are seldom beaten. Chang can not say that, GGG can.

I'll spare you the amount of excuses and bad analogy's you made. You schooled no one. YKSAB!

 

Stop being a bellend, learn to quote and admit a 16 year old has absolutely obliterated your argument.

When one fighter has beaten better fighters, and the other has beaten 'higher ranked opponents' only someone with an agenda would pick the guy with the worse résumé on the rationale that you're using.

It's laughable.

Yeah, when past his prime and not a P4P fighter anymore. Well done. Dumbass.

GGG is known now. Not when back in 2012 but he's known now and is known as Canelo's best win. He'll get in on popularity. Not skill or legacy.

Chang > GGG

If GGG had Chang's luck with decisions he'd have 4 losses too....

Yeah, Mr. Chiquita > Zapata dumbass.

I'm done. You're done.

This whole fiasco, like every Chang fiasco, has made you look like a right tit. It's funny.

 

Mendoza, you are one proudly - and fiercely stupid - lad, aren't you?

Another point-by-point, as I did in the Gonzalez v. Chang thread where you embarrassed yourself even more.

As I said, I have a guest, and it's obvious that you are trolling, so I won't respond to you here any more after this.

This sounds like your only half-way intelligible argument. You've elaborated this point elsewhere (both on this thread and in other threads) in more detail and with greater clarity.

The gist of your argument is: "The talent at 108 pound sucks, and hence anyone who fought at that division cannot be considered great, no matter how dominant."

If this is the case, then nothing anyone will say will convince you otherwise. You have an inherent bias against the division. But make this argument against the division more clear, rather than hiding behind an anti-Chang guise. Further, perhaps more important, be consistent and employ the same standard against other junior flyweights who never moved up, such as Finito, for instance.

As for the validity of the argument itself, I do not subscribe to the argument that the talent is thinner at lighter weights, because few Americans or Europeans have thrived in it. We can easily flip the argument and say that the talent is thinner at, say, heavyweight or light heavyweight, because few Asians and Latin Americans have flourished in it. To judge your argument, one would have to do a serious demographic study to determine, for instance, how many boxers in the world participated at a given weights at a given time. So far I am only persuaded that American talent sucked at the division, at the time, not the division as a whole.

You do realize that there are fewer knockouts at the division, don't you, especially since the switch to 12 round title fights? Being a power puncher at 108 is not the same thing as being a power puncher at unlimited or even 160.

Now you are completely bull-crapping or the writer you quote has no idea what he is talking about (as is the case with many Western boxing scribes who write about the Asian boxing scene). Chang was notorious for slacking his training and barely making weight - even though he had a small frame. He was the Korean Benitez in this respect. The guy said in a recent television interview that he was drunk almost every day of his life, since his teens!

I was living in Korea during Chang's prime, but I do recall someone mentioning that the Ring magazine actually did have Chang in pound-per-pound list, albeit not top 5. But the 80s was among the golden decades of boxing, and that a fighter from the 108 division was in this list is utterly remarkable, if true. Chang would have had to fight uphill against the bias against the 108 division - the very same bias you exhibit.

Eh, Chang is in the IBHoF. I know, because I was heavily involved in the process, as the Korean delegation asked for my help, when he was inducted.

If you meant to say that Golovkin will get there sooner than Chang did once he is retired, so what? IBHoF voting, like much of the voting, is a popularity contest; and IBHoF is in the U.S. Meaning: Of course, the voters are more familiar with fighters with American exposure.

I did not mention that I was involved Chang's induction to boast I am special, but rather to highlight how arbitrary and unfair the process is after all. I don't want to spill the beans in public, but let me tell you something about how these things are decided. When the Korean officials approached me first, their preference was someone else. The reason? It had nothing to do with boxing - or rather - with boxing talent or accomplishment. This other person was initially pushed, because he had more post-fight success than Chang, and he was actively involved in Korean boxing. So the whole thing is political, through and through. And I cannot imagine what kind of horse trading went on between the IBHoF and the Korean boxing officials either.

Neither was Chang. If you think Golovkin beat Canelo in their first fight, as I do, then you cannot claim Chang did not beat Zapata in their first fight either. And unlike Golovkin against Canelo, Chang utterly pulverized Zapata in their return match to show who was the clearly superior fighter.

 

By the way, it took Harada - who is my #1 all-time flyweight and top #20 pound-per-pound fighter - 26 years to make the IBHoF.

I guess Daniel Zaragoza is definitively better than Harada, since it took him only 7 years. Almost 4 times better!

Bathetic.

 

Spitting hot knowledge right there.

 

FighterInTheWind, I have no issues with you. I think you showed us your cards,

" because I was heavily involved in the process, as the Korean delegation asked for my help, when he was inducted. "

Chang is your hero. Okay, I get it. Yes, I think the 108-pound divison is perhaps the first one boxing should rid itself of and all it did was split the talent up at the time when Chang was champion, which limited his opposition. I'm sure we agree on the 2nd point, if you disagree, say so.

There was a thread here on the first divisions boxing needs to do away with. I think 108 was #1.

If Chang had issues making weight, he could fight at 112. The jr fly division can be BS; they are Fly's who shed weight on the scales then fight above the weight class division on fight night. If you disagree with that point, once again, we can debate it.

Yes, Chang was ranked as a pound for pound guy, not but not nearly as high as GGG ( #1 overall ). A reason I say GGG is the better fighter, using 3rd party date with no horse in the race.

In a similar fashion GGG will make the hall of fame on his first try. It took Chang 20+ years. The HOF voters know what they are doing. I know some of them myself. Another 3rd party indication as to who was the better fighter which we will see in the future.

We know who had more title defenses >>> GGG. We know who lost less. >>>>GGG . We know who beat more top ten opponents recognized by Ring Magazine. >>>GGG.

Saying Western scribes didn't give Chang a fair shake bogus. He fought in Korea, in all but one of his fights. ( You can tell me if Korean judges are honest to foreign born fighters )/ American and Europeans have grown out of the 108 pound divison in general. I probably meet 3,000+ men and not one of them is 108 or even 120 pounds. Probably a reason many don't care about boxing @ 108 pounds. The average Korean is at least 130 pounds. They should have something above feather historically speaking but that is not the case. Looking at who is ranked today at fly and Bantam, Japan has way more.

The 108 pound divison is strictly reserved where small men come from and IMO Jr Fly and Straweight were partly created to promote boxing in the Orient. A truly great fighter won't need any " horse trading " to make the hall of fame. Manny Pacquaio makes it on his first try, so if you suggesting Chang got the shaft because he Asian, what you're suggesting doesn't hold water.

Regarding GGG vs Canelo 1 GGG won by a bigger margin that Chang did vs Zapata 1. I'll have to score that one myself one da/y GGG also took this fight at age 36, Chang was past his his fans say by 26 and his prime cs Zapata. Also Zapata was Ko'd in 2 round in 1982, Ko'd in 3 round by Chang in 1983, then lost again via KO in 1983. Hw was also Ko'd in 2 rounds before he meet Chang. The guy had a glass jaw at 108 pounds, nd was beaen many times before and after via KO. Let's not over rate him.

Having said that you're respected far more than Crowcroft. I have no real issues with you, and understand why you like Chang.

There was a great Korean boxing movie I saw dubbed in English where two friends from the same gym ultimately end of fighting. What was it called? One of the best boxing movies I ever saw.

 

I think it's because of the years of being smashed repeatedly in the face with clubbing haymakers by mcvey. @George Crowcroft mcvey might gladly pass on the mantle to you, he's kicking on a bit now and I suspect his fists are ****ed from years of punching that bell metal skull even he is still keen in spirit.

 

I don't have to take Choklab too, do I?

 

Presenting The Ring and the HOF as objective authorities, especially in decades past, with regards to the lower weight divisions, is in inherently flawed. It reduces the argument to a popularity contest.

The comment citing the boxrec rating system takes the cake, however. It was not only ignorant, but altogether illogical.

 

Chang, obviously.

I thought Golovkin won the first Canelo fight but not a robbery at all overall (apart from the abysmal scorecard which was clearly a fix) and had Canelo winning the second fight that Golovkin could arguably have won.

Still, I ain't giving him credit for both as 'wins' and that'd be the only thing that would make this a sensible debate.

 

Chang was in The Ring's P4P list.

They only had him as the no.2 at flyweight (when they didn't do separate light fly rankings) whilst a guy he had already beat (Chitalada) was no.1 for much of the decade and another guy he beat (Zapata) was top 3 at one stage as well.

In short, Chang was the best fighter at 112lbs and below for much of the 80s. So yes, he's evidently greater than Golovkin, who has benefited from a very biased couple of loser reporters at The Ring magazine nowadays. Like, Fischer actually believes him to be one of the very greatest MWs of all time and cites his record-breaking record....mostly comprised of defending the useless WBA strap.

 

Everyone should just put Mendoza on 'ignore', he brings nothing to the table in terms of knowledge, is an awful debater and quite frankly a very rude poster. Why even talk to him?

 

Seeing him 'argue' why GGG > Monzon is always a good laugh though.

 

Mcvey has been banned for the third time. Let us hope its 3 strikes and you're out. Not that he was any good at a debate but at least he brought for information forward, which seems beyond Crowfort, who can't seem to keep a debate clean or answer questions. Notice how the facts I bring forward aren't debunked, it always has to be personal. I think that says it all. My points are too strong, some people just can't take it. Maybe next time if Crowfort remains bitter, I'll simply let him run his mouth and he can join Mcvey..

 

Look who reappeared? Yes Chang was in the pound for pound list, he never attained the high spot that GGG did. A point I made.

If you want to talk who had more title defenses, who has a better ring record, who will be in the hall of fame faster when their career ends, you know how greatest is defined... I already served you and anyone on this topic, many of whom don't like GGG the end game.

If you want to talk boy lover infatuation at 112, please PM with others. Chang wasn't champion as long as GGG was. Also more people care about who the middle weight champion is. That's a fact. Far less care about flyweight, let along jr fly. But I guess the flea sized men do.

Was Chang the best at 112 for a short time in the 1980's? NEVER PROVEN. He was a

This content is protected

This content is protected

world alphabet champion flea man with some real jokes for title defenses. Did he win any world titles at flyweight? NO, he's 0-2 at Flyweight so to call him the best at 112 when he didn't win a fight in that divison is a real reach, even by your standards. Chang could have fought at 112 is he wanted to. He wanted 108, which was a new divison with no lineal history.