who can stop Gennady golovkin?

[candyslim]

I have explained that I don't consider myself knowledgable about Harry Greb or Stanley Ketchell, mind you, everything is relative, right?

These guys fought not only the best Middleweights of their generation they took on Light-Heavyweights and Heavyweight too. Tunney who twice beat Jack Dempsey and was regarded as an excellent technical boxer and one of the best ever Heavyweights only lost one fight, to Harry Greb. Greb gave him an horrific beating despite being outweighed by 32lbs, I just looked it up. Greb also beat up Jack Dempsey in sparring.

Ketchel put Jack Johnson (often discussed when debating who was the greatest Heavyweight of all time) on the floor and as he rushed in to finish him got knocked spark out by a tremendous uppercut, if memory serves. They found Ketchel's front teeth imbeded in Johnson's glove.

These are guys who would fight anyone.

Let's leave Wilder and Joshua out of it, that would be grossly unfair, but come back to me when Golovkin beats a Usyk, a Huck or a Briedis and I promise I'll take your claims of Tripple G's greatness and how no human can withstand his power a little more seriously.

[boxing_rocks]

That's a big call considering Greb went the distance five times with Gene Tunney - a truly great light heavyweight who went on to win the heavyweight title. Not only that but we won one and drew one of those contests, while another was a split decision loss. He was only stopped twice in a 118 fight career, both when he was young and arguably pre-prime.

I'm not picking a winner in this matchup, because I could see it going either way - but to completely discount a fighter as accomplished as Greb (yes, based almost purely on his resume because of the limited available footage) is silly IMO.

My 17-year old son has better times in swimming than world records from 1920s, and he couldn't even qualify for a High School State Meet. Athletes from a century ago are so far behind that it is funny to think that they could compete on a top level now. Giving Greb 2 rounds against Golovkin is actually a praise.

I suggest you watch this TED Talk, or read the speech - the guy has dedicated his life to researching the reasons behind improvements in athletic performance.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein ... anguage=en

There is nothing special in today's pools except possibly blocks, and a high school swimmer (not even a top 16 in a state) wearing a practice suit can still easily beat 100-year old world records.

[candyslim]

Point already acknowledged, addressed and answered ... and repeated

[Enlightened-One]

poo ... I've just composed a long reply to this and it's disappeared .... back to the drawing board:

Well I'm not going to try and bullshit you EO, when Harry Greb first came to my attention there was no internet never mind you-tube. Apart from miniscule amounts of grainy cine footage all I know about Harry Greb I learned from books or articles in Boxing News, Boxing Illustrated or Ring Magazine.

Does that make me an expert on Harry Greb, of course not. The only reason he's being discussed is that he was the one selected out of my small sample of possible contenders for best ever MW as the one who wouldn't last two rounds with Golovin.

Despite your claim not to be intending to criticize, which I find a little disingenuous, the implication is clear that I don't know what I'm talking about because I never saw him fight. That's fair comment I don't take exception to being called out, but it doesn't prevent me being influenced by boxing historians that did watch him fight. The alternative is to expunge him from the record because no one can talk about him based on personally acquired knowledge anymore. I don't think that is fair or desirable do you?

Aside from the weight advantage in favour of Tunney which may have been less than my two stone estimate, did I make any statement about Harry Greb that we don't know to be true about the man? Is there anything else in my post that isnt also true?

Thanks for your reply. And for the record, I wasn’t criticising you.

It’s just that I regularly read posts on this forum submitted by “expert” fans of the sport, who passionately cite names like Harry Greb, Sam Langford, Bob Fitzsimmons, Joe Gans, Benny Leonard etc. and when this happens, I always get disappointed to find out that their knowledge of these men is minimal.

People like to boast about their “expert” knowledge of the sport by mentioning these type of “great” names (almost like it's a badge of honour), but the sad truth is… the vast majority of the reading material about these “legends” of boxing is written by people who never actually saw these guys fight, knew very little of their opponents and weren’t even alive when they were competing.

So in a Lemming-like way, casual fight fans have formulated opinions about certain old-timers being considered “great”, purely because they’ve been “told” that this is the case, by individuals who gained their own knowledge in precisely the same hearsay-like manner.

I’m not condemning the way that you formulate your opinions, each to their own I guess, but I was sincerely hoping that you were able to provide a unique insight into the boxing career of Harry Greb, hence the reason why I posed those rather simple questions, which you’ve openly admitted to being unable to answer.

To be honest with you, I don’t know much about Harry Greb either, other than a collection of statistical facts, which is the reason why I always refrain from articulating an opinion about the man.

[crusader]

Ketchel and Billy Papke (one of the men to KO Ketchel). Going by the actual footage Ive seen, I think GGG would KO both.....awful technique and they look like theyd be quite small for 160 today.

I have to lol at anyone who puts these type of guys on another level to Golovkin. Of course some go overboard with ' modern is better', but at the same time many people too readily accept what gets bandied about regarding the supposed greatness of fighters from past generations, and that's the stuff of uncritical simpletons

Some posters in the Boxing History section told me that it's ridiculous to even consider GGG fighting someone of Ketchel's ATG calibre....watch Ketchel fight and tell me why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAOHjLJGqis[

[BAD INTENTIONS]

Hopkins (2002)

That's the only name since 2000 I'm confident about.
I think GGG is a bad matchup for anyone willing to get punched.
Taylor, Pavlik, Trinidad, Martinez, Williams, Cotto ...
all would have had a hard time because they get hit.

Today, every fighter is being pushed to rumble,
even if it s contrary to their power, speed, and technique.
Guys like Andrade, better Charlo, and Lara would lose because we are in an era of forced engagement.

GGG is very difficult to beat, but I think a tall strong mover could give him tons of trouble.

[jezzamundo]

My 17-year old son has better times in swimming than world records from 1920s, and he couldn't even qualify for a High School State Meet. Athletes from a century ago are so far behind that it is funny to think that they could compete on a top level now. Giving Greb 2 rounds against Golovkin is actually a praise.

I suggest you watch this TED Talk, or read the speech - the guy has dedicated his life to researching the reasons behind improvements in athletic performance.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein ... anguage=en

There is nothing special in today's pools except possibly blocks, and a high school swimmer (not even a top 16 in a state) wearing a practice suit can still easily beat 100-year old world records.

Did you watch the whole video? It explains that much of the improvements in swimming records are down to a combination of technology and technique advancements, notably:

- the introduction of the tumble-turn (or flip turn)
- the introduction of gutters on the side of pools
- the introduction of full-body and low-friction swimsuits

Of course, even without these things, like other athletic events, there has been a trend towards improvement due to an increase in participation and more intensive training and focus on technique. Boxing has experienced a decrease in participation, hasn't benefited from similar technology advancements and there haven't been any major advancements in technique for a very long time. I would say the biggest advantages today's boxers have over those from the past is improved nutrition (which doesn't apply to all modern fighters, of course) and longer rest times between fights, meaning they carry less injuries from fight to fight (though of course this also results in them having less fight experience).

In addition to that, we know there are athletic freaks who are ahead of their time and would compete - and given today's technological advancements - possibly dominate if they competed in modern times. Case in point - Bob Beamon, whose 8.90 metre long jump in 1968 wasn't bettered until 1991 and still remains the second longest jump ever to this day. Since 2000, no one has gotten within 16cm of Beamon's jump which was nearly 50 years ago. Beamon was a freak, Harry Greb was a freak, the difference is Beamon competed in a sport where it can be objectively measured how good you are. The best we can do with Greb is dissect his record, read newspaper articles, look at the opponents he faced and their records and make a judgement of how good he was. What we know for sure is that he had a granite chin, an aggressive, mauling style, very high punch output, great stamina and relatively average punching power. While I'm stopping short of picking a winner, I think he'd be a tough matchup for Golovkin - tougher than anyone he has faced so far in his professional career.

[candyslim]

Fuuuuuuck I've just finished a massive post using an X-Box controller (which is no joke) only to find I'd been logged out and it's all lost. I'll try again tomorrow when i can use a keyboard.

[candyslim]

Excellent post Jezz. That TED talk was indeed food for thought.

[Old Jack J]

I always thought Froch vs Golovkin would have been pretty competitive and a real career defining fight for Golovkin one way or the other. Both had amazing chins, great power and although Golovkin was the better boxer, Froch had the size. Would have been a real tear up.It's a shame it never happened.

Groves is too chinny.
Degale would be out worked.
Jack has moved up.
BJS not powerful enough.
Eubank doesn't carry that power either.
Callum Smith might be one for the future but we don't yet know what he can do.
Dirrell's don't have the heart.
Abraham would have been interesting a few years ago with his size and defence, would be interesting how Golovkin would deal with it.

Apologies if I missed someone.

[jezzamundo]

I always thought Froch vs Golovkin would have been pretty competitive and a real career defining fight for Golovkin one way or the other. Both had amazing chins, great power and although Golovkin was the better boxer, Froch had the size. Would have been a real tear up.It's a shame it never happened.

Groves is too chinny.
Degale would be out worked.
Jack has moved up.
BJS not powerful enough.
Eubank doesn't carry that power either.
Callum Smith might be one for the future but we don't yet know what he can do.
Dirrell's don't have the heart.
Abraham would have been interesting a few years ago with his size and defence, would be interesting how Golovkin would deal with it.

Apologies if I missed someone.

I think GGG stops Froch in an entertaining fight - mid-rounds KO would be my guess.
Agree Groves is too chinny
Degale would win some early rounds, but I see GGG catching up to him and stopping him in the mid-to-late rounds.
BJS gets stopped in a fairly one-sided fight
Eubank I'd give a better chance against GGG than Froch - just a stylistic thing, he has a great chin and fights well on the inside, where GGG isn't so strong. I like GGG on points or a late stoppage.
Haven't seen enough of Callum Smith to make a call.
Both Dirrels would win some rounds before getting stopped.
GGG stops Abraham in a pretty one-sided fight.

[candyslim]

EO This is a forum and I expect to be challenged and critized but it’s a bit mealy mouthed to say “I’m not criticising, I’m just curious” and then to launch a series of “show us your medals type questions”

You say I can’t answer your questions: Well that’s certainly true of what’s available to watch and it follows I cannot say when I first watched Harry Greb, what made me do so, and what my favourite fights of his were, but I’m fully aware of his style and his record and have been for many years. I know I saw an old film once but quality was awful so you can forget that.

To offer the “unique insight” you seek from me personally, I would probably need to be over 100 years old and present on the scene at the time.

When I became a boxing fan, most of my schoolboy heroes were American. There was not much boxing on t.v.(all gleefully lapped up) and computers were in their infancy. Most of what I knew came from the written word, reading current and historical fight reports, reading about fighters’ records and best fights. Obviously that wasn’t ideal compared to the present day, but curiously I would say in all honesty that success in correctly predicting up-coming fights and spectacular failures in that department, were about the same as they are today (no, I’ve statistics to back that up before you ask).

You must have been a nightmare in history class, EO : “Sir, you are telling us about The battle of Gettysburg (Waterloo if you prefer) yet you weren’t there and I’ll wager you never spoke to anyone that was. You’ve seen no you-tube footage of the battle which would validate your conclusions, all you know is from lectures and books delivered and written by people who most likely weren’t there either. Now I’m not criticising how you form your opinions, Sir, each to their own I guess …” (the unspoken bit being “ I prefer not to form any opinion that way I don’t called upon to defend it”)

So in conclusion EO let me ask you a question: “Can a blind man ever have a valid opinion about anything … other than what it’s like to be blind of course?”

@Crusader: I have to say that clip looks pretty unimpressive, but when people like Nat Fleischer and other old time experts talk about Ketchel and Greb as being all-time great fighters, then I’m not going to rubbish their conclusions.

I almost didn’t bother to write this because Jezzamundo put the case for the old-timers way better than I ever could.

[PsychoGamerTwo]

Fuuuuuuck I've just finished a massive post using an X-Box controller (which is no joke) only to find I'd been logged out and it's all lost. I'll try again tomorrow when i can use a keyboard.

Ouch... i know how it feels. On PlayStation, if you wanna correct a typo, press L1 (go left 1pt) & Square (delete), but caution, be too fast, and press it at the same time, and it will delete your whole text. Happened to me, more than once.

[candyslim]

Never mind PG2. As me ol' mum would have said "It's character-building"

[Enlightened-One]

You must have been a nightmare in history class, EO : “Sir, you are telling us about The battle of Gettysburg (Waterloo if you prefer) yet you weren’t there and I’ll wager you never spoke to anyone that was. You’ve seen no you-tube footage of the battle which would validate your conclusions, all you know is from lectures and books delivered and written by people who most likely weren’t there either. Now I’m not criticising how you form your opinions, Sir, each to their own I guess …” (the unspoken bit being “ I prefer not to form any opinion that way I don’t called upon to defend it”)

I would only expect a teacher to educate me on facts – not their personal beliefs.

So in conclusion EO let me ask you a question: “Can a blind man ever have a valid opinion about anything … other than what it’s like to be blind of course?”

If the “blind man” held an opinion that was not supported by concrete facts, their conclusion was logically unsound and it was not formulated via a process that involved critical thought and analysis, then his opinion would be invalid.

[boxing_rocks]

Ketchel and Billy Papke (one of the men to KO Ketchel). Going by the actual footage Ive seen, I think GGG would KO both.....awful technique and they look like theyd be quite small for 160 today.

I have to lol at anyone who puts these type of guys on another level to Golovkin. Of course some go overboard with ' modern is better', but at the same time many people too readily accept what gets bandied about regarding the supposed greatness of fighters from past generations, and that's the stuff of uncritical simpletons

Some posters in the Boxing History section told me that it's ridiculous to even consider GGG fighting someone of Ketchel's ATG calibre....watch Ketchel fight and tell me why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAOHjLJGqis[

Here are a couple more greats:

[candyslim]

You must have been a nightmare in history class, EO : “Sir, you are telling us about The battle of Gettysburg (Waterloo if you prefer) yet you weren’t there and I’ll wager you never spoke to anyone that was. You’ve seen no you-tube footage of the battle which would validate your conclusions, all you know is from lectures and books delivered and written by people who most likely weren’t there either. Now I’m not criticising how you form your opinions, Sir, each to their own I guess …” (the unspoken bit being “ I prefer not to form any opinion that way I don’t called upon to defend it”)

I would only expect a teacher to educate me on facts – not their personal beliefs.

Yes but history is notoriously subjective, written by the winners and all that. What is fact and what is conjecture has a tendency to get a little lost in the mix. My point is simply that written accounts should not be sneered at or dismissed just because there is no visual record, because we rely on the written word almost exclusively for our knowledge of history.

So in conclusion EO let me ask you a question: “Can a blind man ever have a valid opinion about anything … other than what it’s like to be blind of course?”

If the “blind man” held an opinion that was not supported by concrete facts, their conclusion was logically unsound and it was not formulated via a process that involved critical thought and analysis, then his opinion would be invalid.

My point is simply that a blind man relies exclusively on non-visual sensory input which makes any opinion he has invalid using your argument against forming an opinion of anything sight unseen.

I don't know old you are but hypothetically, how would you feel about future generations dismissing Muhammad Ali as a contender for GOAT Hwt because all visual record of his fights had for a great many years been for whatever reason, unavailable? (even if you personally did not necessarily consider him the best)

[Enlightened-One]

You must have been a nightmare in history class, EO : “Sir, you are telling us about The battle of Gettysburg (Waterloo if you prefer) yet you weren’t there and I’ll wager you never spoke to anyone that was. You’ve seen no you-tube footage of the battle which would validate your conclusions, all you know is from lectures and books delivered and written by people who most likely weren’t there either. Now I’m not criticising how you form your opinions, Sir, each to their own I guess …” (the unspoken bit being “ I prefer not to form any opinion that way I don’t called upon to defend it”)

I would only expect a teacher to educate me on facts – not their personal beliefs.

Yes but history is notoriously subjective, written by the winners and all that. What is fact and what is conjecture has a tendency to get a little lost in the mix. My point is simply that written accounts should not be sneered at or dismissed just because there is no visual record, because we rely on the written word almost exclusively for our knowledge of history.

So in conclusion EO let me ask you a question: “Can a blind man ever have a valid opinion about anything … other than what it’s like to be blind of course?”

If the “blind man” held an opinion that was not supported by concrete facts, their conclusion was logically unsound and it was not formulated via a process that involved critical thought and analysis, then his opinion would be invalid.

My point is simply that a blind man relies exclusively on non-visual sensory input which makes any opinion he has invalid using your argument against forming an opinion of anything sight unseen.

I don't know old you are but hypothetically, how would you feel about future generations dismissing Muhammad Ali as a contender for GOAT Hwt because all visual record of his fights had for a great many years been for whatever reason, unavailable? (even if you personally did not necessarily consider him the best)

I'm not dismissing anyone's legacy, merely proposing the notion that personal opinions should not be based on the personal opinions of others, who themselves formulated their own judgment without being in possession of any facts, first-hand or otherwise.

[candyslim]

Can we at least agree that while it would be unreasonable to propose Harry Greb as Mwt GOAT for reasons that we simply have insufficient information (which I didn't suggest even for a moment while at the same time not ruling out the possibility) but that based on the eye-witness accounts of acknowledged experts at the time, that Greb deserves respect as one of the great middleweights even if we cannot rely on the testimony of our own eyes?

For the record I'd also love to have seen Golovkin fight Carlos Monzon or Marvin Hagler (or Monzon v Hagler) ... with the aid of a time-machine of course, none of those would be much of a spectacle without one

[boxing_rocks]

Can we at least agree that while it would be unreasonable to propose Harry Greb as Mwt GOAT for reasons that we simply have insufficient information (which I didn't suggest even for a moment while at the same time not ruling out the possibility) but that based on the eye-witness accounts of acknowledged experts at the time, that Greb deserves respect as one of the great middleweights even if we cannot rely on the testimony of our own eyes?

For the record I'd also love to have seen Golovkin fight Carlos Monzon or Marvin Hagler (or Monzon v Hagler) ... with the aid of a time-machine of course, none of those would be much of a spectacle without one

First, we need to agree what GOAT is. If it is relative to one's era, then Greb has a case, but thinking that he could compete with Golovkin or Hagler is just ridiculous.

[candyslim]

Rocks I don't suppose you even watched what TED had to say about how it is that your boy can beat 100 year old swim records, or took onboard what Jezzamundo said about Bob Beamon's 50 year old longjump record. It is still the 2nd longest jump in history, and the only jump to ever beat it was back in 1991. We are not a different species to those living 100 years ago.

I really like triple G and I rate him highly but he hasn't had many fights and his level of opposition has been uninspired. Do you really not see that a guy who could give away 32lbs in weight and still give a beating to a man like Gene Tunney, would at least have a chance at beating Golovkin?

If you can't at least concede the possibility then there's nothing more I can say is there, not to you anyway?

[boxing_rocks]

Rocks I don't suppose you even watched what TED had to say about how it is that your boy can beat 100 year old swim records, or took onboard what Jezzamundo said about Bob Beamon's 50 year old longjump record. It is still the 2nd longest jump in history, and the only jump to ever beat it was back in 1991. We are not a different species to those living 100 years ago.

I really like triple G and I rate him highly but he hasn't had many fights and his level of opposition has been uninspired. Do you really not see that a guy who could give away 32lbs in weight and still give a beating to a man like Gene Tunney, would at least have a chance at beating Golovkin?

If you can't at least concede the possibility then there's nothing more I can say is there, not to you anyway?

You mean this guy, right ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNE6V_RyBwg&t=215s

[Oiky]

No one at MW

[boxing_rocks]

Rocks I don't suppose you even watched what TED had to say about how it is that your boy can beat 100 year old swim records

I did, and he is wrong. At 16, my son (once again not even top 16 in our state) was almost 10 seconds faster in 100 meters backstroke than 1920 Olympic champion. He would still be faster without the one flip turn he made, pool gutters and his race suit. Rio Olympic champion in the same event is 23 seconds faster than 1920 champion. Ryan Murphy benefited more from the factors mentioned by Ted, but it would still likely be under 10 seconds. The rest is due to being stronger, better trained, better technique.

[Jip]

lara could outslick ggg would be boring but effective