You're missing my point fella. I'm saying that the Abdullevs of this world are the exception to the rule and as a general formline it's indicative of boxing prowess - for every Abdullev there are far, far more Lomechenkos and Rigondeuxs.lefty wrote:Both things that Abdullaev had. Well actually both of his medals were gold. Regarding Lemieux, he adopted that strategy from the opening bell, it's not like he tried fighting his usual very aggressive style/ come forward style where he's throwing heavy leather from the opening bell but was getting thoroughly out boxed by Golovkin and resorted to trying to box at range. He was intimidated before the fight even started because of Golovkins power which in turn made him extremely hesitant to engage.Deserter wrote:To cut to the chase, GGG is no Abdullaev and Saunders is most definitely no Cotto. A 345-5 record that includes a world championship and an Olympic silver medal is a damn good form line regarding his capabilities as a boxer and since he's turned pro he's only reinforced that impression. Lemieux fought the 'wrong fight' precisely because GGG was dictating where the fight went, which goes back to the first point I made about opponents having a plan but it swiftly being abandoned because of that lethal combination of power and boxing ability. To claim Saunders is a better boxer is laughable IMO - as others have stated, you're confusing flashiness with effective boxing.lefty wrote: I'm not joking. A tremendous anateur record doesn't necessarily mean anything. Go and watch Cotto vs Muhammad Abdullaev. He was a tremendous amateur boxer- Olympic gold medallist, world amateur championships gold medallist and a 3 time asian games gold medallist and one time silver medsllist and something like 300 amateur victories. Tremendous amateur career better than Golovkin in fact - however he still wasn't a particularly 'slick' boxer! He beat Cotto in the amateurs and got the crap beaten out of him in the return in the pro's.
Rakhim Chakhiev is another example of a tremendous amateur career and boxer but another guy that isn't 'slick'.
Golovkin did look good boxing against Lemieux but the latter fought the wrong fight. He tried to stand off and box at range which isn't his game. Golovkin out boxing someone who isn't a particularly good 'boxer' isn't that impressive to me.
You cant tell me that in the art of hitting and not being hit that Golovkin gets tagged less that Saunders? Cmon. I remember the spike O'sullivan fight, he barely landed a glove on Saunders throughout 12 rounds. Now I'm willing to bet if Golovkin and O'Sullivan fought, the fight would be a lot shorter obviously and Spike would get badly busted up but I bet he would still land some significant punches before subsequently falling.
Golovkin gets tagged a lot. Against Munroe who's no great shakes he was getting hit a lot and that's happened in other fights aswell. I even remember the Stevens fight where he boxed a lot more intelligently, he was still getting tagged with some big counter left hooks and other shots. His great chin plays a big part.
As for the O'Sullivan example, if GGG elected to box rather than trade, do you honestly think the result would be any different to the Saunders result? GGG trades as a conscious choice, not because his defence isn't good enough, as evidenced by the tactical adjustments he made for Lemieux.