Why I think GGG is a top 15 all-time middleweight.

You clearly haven't read my post(s). I gladly consider the views of @mcvey and I have produced several more applicable examples to support that view.

You have no idea how these fights were organized, who they were with, who was training them, how they added to or took away from Monzon as a professional, you cannot, therefore, make a useful assessment.

What we do know is that it does not, in the least, compare to Golovkin's journey.

Don't be so naive. The point made here is one small piece of a much bigger response to your non-statement.

 

No. I dealt entirely with Monzon's losses and draws.

I don't have to give Monzon "a pass". In boxing terms, he did that all by himself.

 

mendy wtf u trying to say ggg is superior to monzon??


people like you ruin ggg's reputation like this.

 

You can't be serious?

GG has a 70" reach, he's easy to hit and he marks up.

A former WW in Brook hit him with numerous flush combinations in those early rounds.

I like GG, but this sort of nonsense is why he gets hated on.

Roy had a 5" reach advantage over GG and Brook.

Roy's hand speed was insane.

GG is very easy to hit.

It doesn't take a lot of working out.

Roy was easy to trap on the ropes? What?

Roy didn't know how to escape from the ropes? What?

Montell Griffin wasn't very good? What?

Who in their right mind after watching GG struggle with Jacobs and Canelo, would then favour him over a prime version of Roy?

It's a fantasy.

 

I appreciate the effort that's gone into this.

He's a great fighter, and I don't really have too many points to make.

I think on a H2H basis, he's high on the list. But to me, he hasn't done anything overly impressive.

He's only done what he's supposed to have.

Yes, he's undefeated, but I think other great MW's of the past could also have remained undefeated following his exact timeline.

I don't rate him as a better MW than a guy like Mike McCallum.

You mention that he's undefeated, whereas as greats like Marvin and Greb etc weren't, and that their longevity wasn't as good etc. Well yes. But Marvin had 30 extra fights, and Greb fought what, 300 times over his career? As Great as GG is, he's recently scraped by Jacobs and was troubled by Canelo. So realistically, he wouldn't still be undefeated had he have fought more top level guys with a much busier schedule.

 

People like you shift the definition of "English Speaker" further and further into the realm of pidgin talk and "learn English in only 3 weeks" speakers.

 

Maybe so, but if the people he'd wanted to fight had actually fought him instead of running for cover, he might have a far better resume. It's only now that he's getting senior citizen discounts at the supermarket that guys are lining up to fight him.

 

This is my issue with guys who create threads like yours.

You love quoting the stats, but you're not high on being objective and putting them into context.

How can we have an interesting, in-depth debate, when you ignorantly brush of a guy like Mike as above?

Mike is best known for losing and drawing?

No, he isn't.

Not if you knew who he was.

Yes, he had draws.

Yes, he had losses.

Look at who the man fought:

Jackson
Starling
Curry
Toney
Collins
Kalambay
Graham

Look at their skills and styles.

Take into account that most of those were at their peak.

Now how do we know that GG would have beaten all of those guys?

How about if we hypothetically look at Mike following GG's exact timeline?

If we did that, there's not a doubt in my mind that he too would have gone undefeated.

 

I agree that Marvin would have suffered more defeats with an extra 4 years added. But again, what if GG had fought 67 times?

 

I'm a critic of Bernard's MW resume, but he lost to a peak version of Roy, and he had 2 close fights with a very good fighter in Jermain Taylor whilst in his 40's.

Again, it's context.

GG would never have beaten a prime version of Roy Jones, and I think a Taylor fight would have been very interesting, especially at an advanced age.

Regarding the first Mercado fight, I do believe that the altitude in Ecuador was a factor.

 

Come on now, Mike never fought the version of James who showed up against Tiberi.

 

people like you duck the answer everytime for any reason you can gather.

 

he mentioned you. You being synonymous for stupidity.

 

What on earth does Dave Tiberi have to do with anything?

I really hate nonsense like this.

Dave Tiberi beat James that night, and James' acknowledges that himself. But come on now, James was young and fighting every 6 weeks at one point.

Although I'm an advocate of styles make fights, I think Tiberi just caught James on off night, like what happened to many other fighters over the years, especially ones who had tough schedules.

If James wasn't a better overall fighter than Dave Tiberi, then he would never have beaten Nunn, Johnson and McCallum etc.

Just focusing on the Tiberi defeat without analysing all factors is absolutely pointless. Otherwise, you could just find any MW who you consider to be better than Tiberi, and then proclaim that they would also have beaten James on the grounds that he did. It's nonsense.

Chris Eubank beat peak versions of Nigel Benn and Michael Watson, yet in most people's opinion he lost to guys like Ray Close and Dan Schommer.

The version of James who fought Mike was fully focused, fighting to his full capabilities. And that was because he had huge respect for Mike's abilities. He was a fan of Mike's.

James was so frustrating to his fans. One minute he was struggling with guys at LHW, and the next he was beating Jirov at CW. But on his best day, he gives anybody in the history of the MW division something to think about.