Would Daniel Jacobs at age 30 give all time greats at 35 trouble?

I thought GGG and Jacobs fought a good fight...it was a good match. Don't have a problem calling GGG a great fighter either. Would say Jacobs give the ATG's a good fight, but cannot pick him to beat any of them.

 

I don't know, I didn't like what I saw the other night from Golovkin.

 

Well, Floyd Patterson had a problem with concentration vs Johansson the first time...and Joe Louis kept his left too low vs Schmeling,..and various and sundry fighters had initial problems in certain losses that they managed to correct in subsequent rematches...soooo...
Hey, maybe Golovkin does have a heart/motivational problem...I don't know....I'm just not jumping on that "GGG is a shot never-was" train that seems to be going around lately...I'm just giving him the benefit of a doubt.

 

I think Jacobs is being slightly overrated. He fought a great fight, but his punch technique was sloppy. His jab fell short often and he didn't turn over on his hooks. Triple GGG has a good defense which helped him in this bout which was a bad style Match for him.
Jacobs was a good amateur, he was peaking and he is a huge middle and very good puncher. In short he's a good fighter. I'd like to see how he does against Lemieux and a rematch before I really pick him over any atg's of yesterday

 

He probably would give plenty of greats problems at 35. But the trends were drastically different in a lot of earlier periods however. Most great champions of yesteryear didn't turn pro in their mid to late 20's and fight only 30-45 times. Marvin Hagler for example turned pro when he was 19, fought 67 hard fights and was retired by the time he was maybe 32-33. Additionally they fought in 15 round bouts, were more prolific, and also had to fight longer and harder given that fights weren't stopped so quickly when one man got in trouble. So yes, while its true that Daniel Jacobs may have troubled a lot of great middles at 35, I don't think it creates any sort of clear comparison between Golovkin and other middles when they were at 35 or their best for that matter.

 

Hagler retired with 69 fights. Monzon retired with 87 fights.

Golovkin has had 37 fights PERIOD. And petty much every one of them was a cake-walk due to the low level of competition.
He is in his absolute prime.

If Jacobs made him look past prime then that says more about him being a hypejob than being past prime.

You have no better opponent he beat to point to that proves he was better before. Jacobs was the best guy he ever fought and he struggled badly.
Exposed / past prime. There's a deference.

And i like GGG so calling me a hater won't change anything. Deep down i respect his skill and ability and always tell my casuals friends to tune-in when he fights. . I simply don't want to be on the same team as a bunch of degenerates who are bad for the sports image which is why i don't worship him as a God like you.. I like him for the right reasons , you like him for the wrong reasons. J'understand?

 

Like several others here I think the question is framed wrong. The question should be how many ATGs around their prime would have trouble with Jacobs.

It wasn't more than 15 months ago Golovkin walked through Lemieux like he was nothing and only 11 since he mowed down Wade. No one called him old then. Didn't see it thrown about much after Brook either nor before this fight. But he looks human in one fight and all of a sudden he is past prime according to his fans.

It's not out of the question that he's aged badly over the last year, but it's more likely that Brook and Jacobs being better than Golovkin's previous opponents made him look worse. Because the one thing we know for a fact is that they (at the very least Jacobs) represent a step up in comp.

But I don't know how Jacobs would have done against prime ATGs of the past, since we don't know how good he is. He's obviously looked good up to now and might turn out to really be a killer.

So we should wait a bit with rushing to conclusions.

 

It's apples and watermelons when you compare same-day-weigh-in guys against a bloated incredible shrinking man who steps into the ring as a full-blown light heavyweight while calling himself a middleweight.

Better question for historical purposes is how he'd do against Michael Spinks, Bob Foster, Archie Moore, etc.

 

And you would have to do the same with GGG. No way is he fighting anybody on the day he drains himself down to 159.

Both these guy would be 175 pounders 30 years ago

 

Agree. They can fight LaMotta. He came in around 165 most of the time on same-day weigh-in (which is light heavy in his day) and was probably closer to 170 by first bell

 

Agreed, he is bothered mentally by getting hit sometimes it kind of disturbs his rythm and momentum more than it should

 

I've come to the conclusion that although he's a great man and a very good fighter I always have to big him up in my own head and make him better than I actually think he is. Nearly every fight I've seen of his there's lots of moments where he looks very ordinary, I can't put my finger on it. I think we have all got the same mentality, I mean he went 345-5 in the amateurs, that must make him great surely.......

 

Matt Korabov went 300-0 in the amateurs.. Got snuff'd out in 6 by Andy Lee.

 

Jacobs gives any version of Hopkins trouble, we saw this in the only athletic 160lb fighter who Hopkins didn't have a size advantage over in Jermain Taylor.

To me Jacobs and Taylor are very similar fighters only that DJ hits harder.