Worst middleweights you'd pick to beat 2017 Golovkin?

He beat everybody put before him...and you can't ask for much more than that. Just a handful are in that club. 1973, after being shot twice..in the arm and the shoulder, was Monzon's "off year",...Emile griffith was helped out a lot by that fact...and btw, their 1st meeting, in 1971 was a more accurate barometer of Monzon vs Griffith. Any carping about Monzon's performances in that year, and you have to realize that you're talking about subpar winning performances, and not losses, which festoon the records of so many other fighters that are given passes, like Duran, for one. In early 1974, if you were around then, and read the boxing magazines of the time, the cogniscenti, that is, the "experts of boxing, both writers, trainers, and a good many ex-champions, figured Napoles would beat Monzon...Napoles was the welterweight champion...a very dominant champion,...and you'd be indulging in 20/20 hindsight to deem him as "past-prime" at that time. The big names of boxing seemed to think that Jose, with his undeniable brilliance, would bedazzle Monzon, outspeed and outclass him, and make him look like a cigar store Indian en route to copping the middleweight championship. I remember that very well. It was a very viable and highly anticipated bout. Monzon, of course, badly outclassed Napoles instead, leading Angelo Dundee, Napoles' trainer, to declare that Monzon was a "super champion", who had it all. These things are unknown, forgotten or dismissed in hindsight by newbies and latecomers to the sport. Monzon impressively defeated Briscoe in '72, and if you'll watch the bout on You Tube, you'll see the champion boxing on the back foot, effortlessly throwing multiple combinations, outboxing BB in a manner which clashes with the inaccurate and uninformed description of Monzon as "stiff, robotic, and slow". He showed a truly stellar chin and recuperative powers in that 9th round when he stunned the champion badly. Monzon showed the same recovery powers that he would display 5 years later at the age of 35 with Rodrigo Valdez. He even stood and traded with Briscoe in the last 5 rounds..transcending, as writer Don Majeski of Boxing Illustated said, "from being merely a good champion, to being great". It should be apparent even to a casual that Monzon was a gifted, extremely clever fighter with an unnatural sort of cool and composure. Combine that with his physical advantages and elite ring intelligence, and I'll conclude by restating that it's pure modern day ignorance as well as myopia to say that Monzon was "overrated"....yes indeed, "to each his own".

 

So you agree with me on this one. Cheers for that.

 

So do I.

 

So do I.

You agree with me on that?

 

I've seen ever filmed fight of Monzon, I rate him the third best MW ever.

I'm not a fan of Golovkin, I root against him almost every fight.

I don't think he'd be painfully exposed against anyone but a fleet footed slickster. I give Lara better chance than Monzon.

I don't think Valdez was as dangerous as Golovkin but he's more dangerous than anyone Golovkin has beaten.

Loads of fighters throughout history would give anyone hell, it doesn't mean I'd favour them over GGG.

 

You said what I said. I'm assuming you took the time to read the post you quoted anyways.

 

Very few have proven fantasy fight results as most ATG fighters don't compete against one another in their prime.

Unless someone builds a time machine all of this is opinion backed up by a combination of resume, achievements and available footage.

Monzon and Golovkin are two extremely gifted champions and a fight between the two should be fiercely debated.

Both have bettered every man they faced, both have looked unstoppable at times, both always found a way to be the ring general.

Only one man could prevail here though, as to who that man is, we'll never know.

I'm sticking with GGG for now.

 

Well, what I'm saying is that criticisms of Monzon's style regarding "aethetics" are silly. He wasn't as picturesque and poetic a boxer as many others...but that was irrelevant. Monzon had a highly personal, hard to define, extremely effective style, both offensively and defensively. He appeared easy to hit, but of course, he wasn't. "Subtle" was an accurate term to use. He was down only 4 times, never stopped, almost never cut or bruised...or marked... in a career of 100 bouts. You don't reach that plateau without a great amount of cunning, and ring IQ. The aesthetics referred to sometime abandon a gifted fighter...their previous flashiness abandons them and they begin to crash and burn, like Icarus getting too close to the sun and having his wings of wax and feathers destroyed,...getting decked, knocked cold,...and without naming names, you can come up with numerous examples, I'm sure. I'd rather have a highly effective, intelligent style that doesn't betray you and let you down, rather than be flashy and brilliant and one day losing all that and becoming a vulnerable mortal.

 

Good analysis KK.

 

Yes, so you're agreeing with me then. Thanks for that.

 

He landed lots of good stiff jabs too. In contrast you could say the same thing for Canelo's numbers. I think Golovkin using his guard to block punches led to many grey area punches possibly being miscounted either way.

You are having your cake and eating it too, here.

 

If you agree with me then I agree with you.

 

I posted it first lol. You then just repeated what I said haha.