Like a Boss wrote:The fighter in question knocks an opponent out - "oh but that opponent was no good anyway."
The fighter scores a one sided points win - "oh but he wasn't good enough to knock him out."
The fighter wins narrowly on points - "oh but blah, blah, blah."
Nobody is forcing anybody to like every fighter on the planet. But when credit isn't given when it is due it tells people a lot about the poster concerned.
I agree with a lot of your sentiments, but to be fair, the vast majority of GGG’s title challengers were unheralded before they faced him and an awful lot of people claimed the Brook bout was a borderline mismatch that would end around the halfway mark.
Whilst I absolutely adore Gennady’s fighting style, his resume is pretty weak (regardless the reason) and I can’t ever recall a top three pound-for-pounder that has earned such praise whilst having faced such weak opposition.
Like a Boss wrote:The fighter in question knocks an opponent out - "oh but that opponent was no good anyway."
The fighter scores a one sided points win - "oh but he wasn't good enough to knock him out."
The fighter wins narrowly on points - "oh but blah, blah, blah."
Nobody is forcing anybody to like every fighter on the planet. But when credit isn't given when it is due it tells people a lot about the poster concerned.
I agree with a lot of your sentiments, but to be fair, the vast majority of GGG’s title challengers were unheralded before they faced him and an awful lot of people claimed the Brook bout was a borderline mismatch that would end around the halfway mark.
Whilst I absolutely adore Gennady’s fighting style, his resume is pretty weak (regardless the reason) and I can’t ever recall a top three pound-for-pounder that has earned such praise whilst having faced such weak opposition.
I largely agree with your sentiments too. But people seem to lose track of the fact that GGG has cleaned out the middleweight division and everything points to him continuing to do so.
Like a Boss wrote:The fighter in question knocks an opponent out - "oh but that opponent was no good anyway."
The fighter scores a one sided points win - "oh but he wasn't good enough to knock him out."
The fighter wins narrowly on points - "oh but blah, blah, blah."
Nobody is forcing anybody to like every fighter on the planet. But when credit isn't given when it is due it tells people a lot about the poster concerned.
I agree with a lot of your sentiments, but to be fair, the vast majority of GGG’s title challengers were unheralded before they faced him and an awful lot of people claimed the Brook bout was a borderline mismatch that would end around the halfway mark.
Whilst I absolutely adore Gennady’s fighting style, his resume is pretty weak (regardless the reason) and I can’t ever recall a top three pound-for-pounder that has earned such praise whilst having faced such weak opposition.
I largely agree with your sentiments too. But people seem to lose track of the fact that GGG has cleaned out the middleweight division and everything points to him continuing to do so.
The counter point to what you say is that almost every fighter has a weak resume. It is only the exceptional Japanese fighters in the lower weight categories that debut against top 100 fighters and continue to fight very good opposition. If you go to the www.premierboxingorganisation.com and check the ratings of the current best 1700 active fighters (100 in each weight class) you will see plenty of fighters that are top 15 ranked by the ABCs that have never beaten an independently ranked top 100 opponent, yet have a 20-0 record. Managers create paths for their fighters in the exact opposite way to how it should really be to get a world title. GGG as it stands is unbeaten 36-0 (20 have been top 100) (16 have been top 50) (14 have been top top 20) and 10 have been top 10. He has cleared the division out barring Daniel Jacobs and Billy Joe Saunders. So if you think GGG resume is weak, which undefeated fighter has a better one?
Enlightened-One wrote:
I agree with a lot of your sentiments, but to be fair, the vast majority of GGG’s title challengers were unheralded before they faced him and an awful lot of people claimed the Brook bout was a borderline mismatch that would end around the halfway mark.
Whilst I absolutely adore Gennady’s fighting style, his resume is pretty weak (regardless the reason) and I can’t ever recall a top three pound-for-pounder that has earned such praise whilst having faced such weak opposition.
I largely agree with your sentiments too. But people seem to lose track of the fact that GGG has cleaned out the middleweight division and everything points to him continuing to do so.
The counter point to what you say is that almost every fighter has a weak resume. It is only the exceptional Japanese fighters in the lower weight categories that debut against top 100 fighters and continue to fight very good opposition. If you go to the http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com and check the ratings of the current best 1700 active fighters (100 in each weight class) you will see plenty of fighters that are top 15 ranked by the ABCs that have never beaten an independently ranked top 100 opponent, yet have a 20-0 record. Managers create paths for their fighters in the exact opposite way to how it should really be to get a world title. GGG as it stands is unbeaten 36-0 (20 have been top 100) (16 have been top 50) (14 have been top top 20) and 10 have been top 10. He has cleared the division out barring Daniel Jacobs and Billy Joe Saunders. So if you think GGG resume is weak, which undefeated fighter has a better one?
You can only beat those who are prepared to get in the ring with you.
Ironically GGG is probably his own worst enemy because he simply wins so easily. If he had gone life and death with a couple of his better opponents some of his detractors may actually rate him higher.
I just enjoy watching the guy fight and I'm so thankfully I have been lucky enough to coincide time wise with his reign.
Like a Boss wrote:The fighter in question knocks an opponent out - "oh but that opponent was no good anyway."
The fighter scores a one sided points win - "oh but he wasn't good enough to knock him out."
The fighter wins narrowly on points - "oh but blah, blah, blah."
Nobody is forcing anybody to like every fighter on the planet. But when credit isn't given when it is due it tells people a lot about the poster concerned.
I agree with a lot of your sentiments, but to be fair, the vast majority of GGG’s title challengers were unheralded before they faced him and an awful lot of people claimed the Brook bout was a borderline mismatch that would end around the halfway mark.
Whilst I absolutely adore Gennady’s fighting style, his resume is pretty weak (regardless the reason) and I can’t ever recall a top three pound-for-pounder that has earned such praise whilst having faced such weak opposition.
At some point you have to extrapolate based on the level of performance. It's only fair.
