GGG: how many title defences do YOU say he's made?

[T.M.K]

Hi all,

we all know the reason WHY this absurdity is actually a valid question....but what do you say? I feel bad for Hagler, Monzon and Hopkins when I see press releases saying GGG is about to defend the title for 16th time. It's a bit of an insult (totally the WBA's fault, no-one else) to be honest.

"T.M.K"

[crow]

Well,boxrec already answered that one for you; the title Gennady won vs Nunez is the same one that Hagler defended vs Hearns.

/end of thread.

[Boxing Prospect]

For what it's worth the win over Rubio has to count either way as he won the bout (unlike...say Daiki Kameda Vs Liborio Solis, where Solis came in over weight and Kameda lost BUT the IBF continued to recognise Kameda...at least in the months that followed)

[jas80s]

If you are going to compare his acheivements in a historical context, then you must level the playing field somewhat. He does not hold the same middleeight title that Hagler and Monzon held. He may prove to be as good a fighter, but I don't see 16 defenses in the historical sense of the term, champion. Not his fault, just saying title defenses should at least sometimes come against guys at the top of the division in question.

He has 16 defenses of HIS middleweight title. He has zero defenses of THE middleweight title.....again, not necessarily his fault.

[Evander]

Gennady goes on Saturday so no doubt I'll be watching.
Bottom line as I see it is this and I haven't really wavered too much on it, GGG is a fantastic boxer puncher most of us know this already.
But for whatever reason many are losing their bottle and are steering clear of him, it's actually a compliment when you think of it
This has happened throughout boxing for a long time, nothing new here.
Point is what is he going to do about it ... make a move man.
Unless his people want to front the money and get him a somewhat prime name he only has 1 choice and that's to continue beating what's in front of him and letting the pressure build on his potential opponents, even still should he beat a washed up name it will only buy him small juice and the questions will remain.
Opponents are GGG's Achilles heal, he's basically 1 or 2 credible opponents from the real big time where he's recognized all round as being top boy.
Speculation only takes GGG so far, he needs a name fighter who's relatively hot and that's it.
Many of us I'm sure are gagging to give him the ultimate respect, but GGG is in the big leagues and we don't take it easy on the big names it comes with the territory.
Knocking opponents out is good for him but I've seen every single Top 10 P4P boxer in the last 32 years ... show me something I haven't seen.

[Tarkus]

Hi all,

we all know the reason WHY this absurdity is actually a valid question....but what do you say? I feel bad for Hagler, Monzon and Hopkins when I see press releases saying GGG is about to defend the title for 16th time. It's a bit of an insult (totally the WBA's fault, no-one else) to be honest.

"T.M.K"

I feel bad for GGG. Old timers had one belt to fight for. All you needed was to be the best and you could reign as long as you stayed the best. Current champions need to chase all the cherry picking divas and ducks. GGG was champion in my mind starting from the WBA regular. Why? Because it was Sturm that started the great tradition of of GGG ducking.

[crusader]

Hi all,

we all know the reason WHY this absurdity is actually a valid question....but what do you say? I feel bad for Hagler, Monzon and Hopkins when I see press releases saying GGG is about to defend the title for 16th time. It's a bit of an insult (totally the WBA's fault, no-one else) to be honest.

"T.M.K"

I feel bad for GGG. Old timers had one belt to fight for. All you needed was to be the best and you could reign as long as you stayed the best. Current champions need to chase all the cherry picking divas and ducks. GGG was champion in my mind starting from the WBA regular. Why? Because it was Sturm that started the great tradition of of GGG ducking.

I agree. Given aall the belts and evasion today, modern fighters who are the best in their divisions have a tougher time acquiring widespread regard as legitimate champions. Some people cling to lineage as the only source of legitimacy, but to me that's a highly flawed method in today's landscape.

[Tarkus]

Hi all,

we all know the reason WHY this absurdity is actually a valid question....but what do you say? I feel bad for Hagler, Monzon and Hopkins when I see press releases saying GGG is about to defend the title for 16th time. It's a bit of an insult (totally the WBA's fault, no-one else) to be honest.

"T.M.K"

I feel bad for GGG. Old timers had one belt to fight for. All you needed was to be the best and you could reign as long as you stayed the best. Current champions need to chase all the cherry picking divas and ducks. GGG was champion in my mind starting from the WBA regular. Why? Because it was Sturm that started the great tradition of of GGG ducking.

I agree. Given aall the belts and evasion today, modern fighters who are the best in their divisions have a tougher time acquiring widespread regard as legitimate champions. Some people cling to lineage as the only source of legitimacy, but to me that's a highly flawed method in today's landscape.

Could not agree more. In today's landscape no system could work in every instance. The idea of lineal champion is as unreliable as the idea of unified champion for example. Every situation needs to be analyses on an individual bases. GGG as a WBA regular is very different from Quigg. And Fury as a lineal champ is very different from Canelo.

[T.M.K]

Hi gents,

I can see where you are coming from: however if you win the WBC/IBF/WBO title, even though you are one of 4 champs you can still put a claim together. When there are multiple champions within one organisation, and you get upgraded as things change - that's not fair! If you make 5 crappy defences as Interim champion and then beat the proper champion, it's unfair to link those interim defences onto the reign......

Well,boxrec already answered that one for you; the title Gennady won vs Nunez is the same one that Hagler defended vs Hearns.

/end of thread.

I'll have a pint of whatever you're drinking! The reality is that Hagler won the undisputed (WBC/WBA) title and defended it multiple times, without their being a super-champ above him, or him being passed-off as world champion when he wasn't.



My own thought is that, as good as he obviously was and as avoided as he was, he was only the proper champion when Geale was stripped. He has made 10 defences of his crown, not 16.

Chris John seems to have gone down in the record books with more defences to his name than he should have - he wasn't the proper champ until he dethroned JMM.

Cheers

Col/T.M.K

[crow]

All considered, since Hopkins faced blown welters and janitors during his reign ( Bo James, Council, Brown, Jackson, Hakkar) i'm going to downsize his middleweight defenses from 20 to 15.

Makes sense.

[jas80s]

All considered, since Hopkins faced blown welters and janitors during his reign ( Bo James, Council, Brown, Jackson, Hakkar) i'm going to downsize his middleweight defenses from 20 to 15.

Makes sense.

That's a good point. I mean, we can go the opposite way here and deify the reigns of previous champs which would distort what often were tenures filled with less than spectacular defenses.

Golovkin is the best MW out there, but it's hard to pinpoint a "title winning" type fight for him; a passing the torch type of win. I think I agree with many of the others, it's just such a different era now that it is hard to really compare.

I still don't think he has really secured THE middleweight championship in the historical sense, but then again, I am not really sure I see a true MW champion out there at the moment for him to chase down and beat, it's a strange division at the moment. I do think of him as "the guy" right now for whatever that is worth.

[crow]

I still don't think he has really secured THE middleweight championship in the historical sense

Well, during all his title defenses, how many oponnents have won 2 rds or more ?
The guy hardly loses ROUNDS, let alone fights.

[jas80s]

I still don't think he has really secured THE middleweight championship in the historical sense

Well, during all his title defenses, how many oponnents have won 2 rds or more ?
The guy hardly loses ROUNDS, let alone fights.

That he has been dominant was in no way part of any point I was making...I wholeheartedly agree that he has been dominating his opponents. In fact, if you look at my posts in this thread, I said that in my estimation, he had established himself as the guy at Middleweight.

I would just submit that he has, more or less, moved into the number one spot by virtue of a void of a true MW Champion for him to dethrone among the current crop of MW fighters campaigning at the moment. And that, as such, I have a hard time estimating how many times he has "defended" the MW championship, in the historical context. I just can't see him as THE MW Champion by virtue of him dethroning Mitlon Nunez and Nilson Julio Tapia, best fighter in the division or not.

What is your take if I may ask? Is he THE middleweight champion? If he is, what of the others? Are they THE middleweight champion? Does the lineal title matter in this discussion? Is there a hierarchy? Is the notion of being THE champ antiquated? Just asking the questions because this is a complicated topic in my opinion. A lot of great fighters have been the best in their division for a period of time before they became the champ,

That he is the top fighter in the division is a total no brainer to me.

[Aaronide_ger]

16

[magicrp]

10 times. HBO mentioned this topic in a video. 15 times just for promotion , like pacman 8 divisions champion.

[crow]

I would just submit that he has, more or less, moved into the number one spot by virtue of a void of a true MW Champion for him to dethrone among the current crop of MW fighters campaigning at the moment. And that, as such, I have a hard time estimating how many times he has "defended" the MW championship, in the historical context.

If that's your point, then why subject Golovkin to a stricter rule than other champs ?

Is Mike Mc Callum not the wba super welter champ because he won it vs Sean Mannion ?

Wilfredo Gomez doesn't hold the record of consecutive KO championships because he beat 20 year old former Muai Thai champions with only 2 boxing fights under their name ?

Joe Louis used to have his "bum of the month" tour: does his record of consecutive 25 HW title defenses stand ?

Jack Dempsey AND Jack Johnson once they won the HW belt drew the color line and refused to fight other good black fighters.
Is there anyone claiming therefore they weren't the HW champs ?

Double standards, anyone ?

[jas80s]

I can appreciate any post with some nice history in there, though I think you obscure my view when you pick one paragraph and ignore the rest.

You didn't quote the parts where I said that his lack of fights against other champions was not his fault and instead attempted to paint my view as simple effort to avoid giving a terrific fighter his just due, when I believe you know full well that I am making a larger point about how we determine who the champion is in a given division today versus in the past.

Jack Johnson is an interesting comparison as he distinguished himself against tough opposition and then became champion by beating Tommy Burns who won the title in a somewhat dubious fashion...Some similarities there. But, comparing resumes as champion was never my point. My point centered more on path to championship and determining how one becomes THE champion today.

Dempsey is ridiculous however, he defeated Jess WIllard who previously defeated Jack Johnson to win the title. His path to the championship could not be more clear and thus represents a stark contrast to the considerably muddled path of Golovkin. Remember, this isn't about how good anyone is, or resume, it's about how one defines the champion of a division in different eras.

But what of my questions...when did Golovkin become champ in your esimation? I am just saying it's a different era now and I don't know if he IS the middleweight champion, he certainly hasn't beaten the man who beat the man, he certainly hasn't beaten the best in the division (which I believe he would, FWIW), is it simply he became THE champion when you decided he was the best fighter in the division? That's valid, but what if we disagree on when that was? How many defenses does he have by that definition?

If your point is that ANYONE who holds a belt is a champion, that is also valid. I would say that represents a difference from previous eras when only one title was available and thus makes comparisons tricky, which again was my original point. It was the OP who brought up Monzon and Hagler which in turn prompted my view on Golovkin and the differences between them due to the fact that they fought at different times.

I'll repeat my original answer....how many times has he defended a middleweight title? 16....how many times has he defended THE middleweight championship? I don't know, when did he win that?

Sorry, I just find nuance more interesting then saying I love this fighter and hate this other one, so these are the types of answers you get from me.

[crow]

I'll repeat my original answer....how many times has he defended a middleweight title? 16....how many times has he defended THE middleweight championship? I don't know, when did he win that?

And i repeat you're just scapegoating Gennady for the lack of talent in the middle division.

The multiplication of sanctionning bodies, and the multiple champions in a division is a whole problem by itself and Gennady has nothing to do with it.

The OP used this problem and attempted to downplay Gennady's number of title defenses, without applying his reasonning to the rest of many current or past champions.

Scores of them, even during the times with one single champion by division, won and defended their titles against questionable opposition, exactly like Gennady did.

Does the OP reference them ?

No ?

Why ?

[Lennox]

He did not start having decent standard fights until he became IBO champion.

The IBO rules are vastly stricter than the WBA for opposition quality.

[Crease]

He became a recognized World Champion when he beat Nunez for the WBA World Middleweight Title. But I don't count the IBO as a World Title.

[jas80s]

I'll repeat my original answer....how many times has he defended a middleweight title? 16....how many times has he defended THE middleweight championship? I don't know, when did he win that?

And i repeat you're just scapegoating Gennady for the lack of talent in the middle division.

The multiplication of sanctionning bodies, and the multiple champions in a division is a whole problem by itself and Gennady has nothing to do with it.

The OP used this problem and attempted to downplay Gennady's number of title defenses, without applying his reasonning to the rest of many current or past champions.

Scores of them, even during the times with one single champion by division, won and defended their titles against questionable opposition, exactly like Gennady did.

Does the OP reference them ?

No ?

Why ?

This is pretty routine, if you attempt to make any comparison of someone's favorite fighter that even suggests they fall short of ANY mark, you are attacking that fighter, purely out of spite in most cases....You got me.

Are you saying that a lack of talent in a division has no bearing on a discussion comparing fighters?

Why is pointing out differences between the reigns of champions (such as multiple titles and their impact) attacking, or scapegoating, one of the fighters? Are you suggesting that the championship run of GGG is as impressive as that of Hagler, Hopkins, and Monzon? You are not, so we agree. Do I have to believe that not only is GGG the best MW ever, but also that his reign is as impressive as any other and just as legitimate in order to NOT be scapegoating him? It is beginning to sound like I do.

You yourself said that defending (and winning the title presumably) "against questionable opposition" is EXSACTLY what GGG did....and yet, somehow, I am scapegoating him for saying that I can't really compare him to Hagler, Hopkins,and Monzon because I don't see that he has the same kind of legitimate claim to the title.

And while we are at it, we BOTH acknowledge that GGG's defenses aren't not quite at the same level as the other three. You just keep forgetting to inlcude that, like you, I don't blame him either. So, there is another difference between the championship reigns of the fighters that, at the very least, complicates a comparison. Again, my original point, and one that truth be told, I hasten to wager you also agree with.

I think had Golovkin fought in those eras, it is quite possible, if not likely, he would have done the same thing....I can offer you that.

[magicrp]

OF COURSE，people can say that Braehmer has 6 title defences in light heavyweight

[T.M.K]

The OP used this problem and attempted to downplay Gennady's number of title defenses, without applying his reasonning to the rest of many current or past champions.

Scores of them, even during the times with one single champion by division, won and defended their titles against questionable opposition, exactly like Gennady did.

Does the OP reference them ?

No ?

Why ?

Hold up. I believe I have made the point.

Brahmer is not the proper WBA champ while Kovalev is above him.........and as posted above Jurgen can claim to have made 6 title defences - but he's still not the true champion. Chris John has been given all title defences Interim/Regular while there was JMM above him, and I say his reign only counts (against the likes of Eusebio Pedroza) from when he became THE WBA champ.

While I think GGG would have sparked Sturm or Geale, he was not THE WBA champion until just before he fought Rosado.... It is not his fault for the title mess, but he wasn't the proper WBA champion until Geale vacated the Super-title.

This is not used as a way to deflate GGG, rather a way to get annoyed about the untrue hype which seems to get press released by promotional firms.


"T.M.K"

[crow]

While I think GGG would have sparked Sturm or Geale, he was not THE WBA champion until just before he fought Rosado.... It is not his fault for the title mess, but he wasn't the proper WBA champion until Geale vacated the Super-title.


"T.M.K"

Yap all you want.

Gennady's next defense is the one he equals Wilfredo Gomez' record KO streak in title fights

HBO will make sure to remind everyone.

And if you don't like what the record books say, you can always send them a letter.

[Syntax Error]

He did not start having decent standard fights until he became IBO champion.

The IBO rules are vastly stricter than the WBA for opposition quality.

Oh the irony of it all.

The IBO is not recognised as a credible 'world title' belt & gets laughed out of town, yet its fighters have to fight better quality opposition than the those of the supposed credible WBA.

This sport is utterly bonkers.