GOLOVKIN - NOW IN CONTEXT!

[Tuan_Jim]

For years GGG has been dismembering the great middleweights of the past in online discussions because he could bash second-raters and it followed that he would be able to perform to the same standard against the monsters of yore.

It turns out he needs judges to help him overcome Daniel Jacobs.

Daniel Jacobs!

Who ever could have guessed that boxing is a sport of levels and a tough guy with a big punch might thrive in an era of low talent and multiple belts, but ultimately falter when challenged and be proven to fall short in all the essential catagories of greatness? I would have thought everybody but apparently not.

I wonder if people may now exercise some caution in their raging fandom and wait for a fighter to be tested at top level before picking him over everyone in his division in history? Probably not.

[DazDiCanio]

Well said. I like GGG, he's great for the sport no question.

He is, though, absolutely over-hyped to the limit.

[veriton]

Think you're doing Jacobs a disservice there pal. He's top level and showed it against GGG. But styles make fights, I still think GGG would hammer canelo but Jacobs was smart and can hit like a mule too. You're writing GGG off on one result (a win!) which is just as bad as the nuthuggers on the other side

[dalcumly]

ALL the great middleweights needed 'judges' on occasion to win their fights.

The greatest middleweight of all time was Sugar Ray Robinson and in my lifetime, a close second was Marvin Hagler. Golovkin is not at that level, but that doesn't mean he's not at the very top. Its a personal opinion but when you have a boxer in any era who when fighting for a world title can knock the other guy out with one punch, that's stardom. So he couldn't stop Jacobs, but he retained his titles by unanimous decision. Still undefeated and all his defences have been on foreign soil ( for him). Does not not show he can box AND punch.

[Ezzard]

For years GGG has been dismembering the great middleweights of the past in online discussions because he could bash second-raters and it followed that he would be able to perform to the same standard against the monsters of yore.

It turns out he needs judges to help him overcome Daniel Jacobs.

Daniel Jacobs!

Who ever could have guessed that boxing is a sport of levels and a tough guy with a big punch might thrive in an era of low talent and multiple belts, but ultimately falter when challenged and be proven to fall short in all the essential catagories of greatness? I would have thought everybody but apparently not.

I wonder if people may now exercise some caution in their raging fandom and wait for a fighter to be tested at top level before picking him over everyone in his division in history? Probably not.

I agree that people need to be a little more cautious in their assessment of contemporary boxers. But let's not forget that Jacobs wasn't even a middleweight by the weigh-in rules...

And you could have posted the exact same email about Hagler the morning after the Duran fight. And as great as Duran was he would not have beaten Jacobs.

[Tuan_Jim]

For years GGG has been dismembering the great middleweights of the past in online discussions because he could bash second-raters and it followed that he would be able to perform to the same standard against the monsters of yore.

It turns out he needs judges to help him overcome Daniel Jacobs.

Daniel Jacobs!

Who ever could have guessed that boxing is a sport of levels and a tough guy with a big punch might thrive in an era of low talent and multiple belts, but ultimately falter when challenged and be proven to fall short in all the essential catagories of greatness? I would have thought everybody but apparently not.

I wonder if people may now exercise some caution in their raging fandom and wait for a fighter to be tested at top level before picking him over everyone in his division in history? Probably not.

I agree that people need to be a little more cautious in their assessment of contemporary boxers. But let's not forget that Jacobs wasn't even a middleweight by the weigh-in rules...

And you could have posted the exact same email about Hagler the morning after the Duran fight. And as great as Duran was he would not have beaten Jacobs.

Who disputed the Hagler/Duran verdict, Ezzard? Also, Duran had more genius in his little finger than Jacobs!

[Ezzard]

Duran was as good as we'll ever see. But he was not a great middleweight.

A generation of men shook their heads after that fight and told me Hagler would never have lived with Monzon, Tiger or Fullmer.

In all sports the media are trying constantly to tell us that what we're seeing is the best that's ever been...because they're trying to sell to us. So I totally agree with you.

On the other hand fans today also want to tell you a guy is useless if he loses a single fight. Or has a below par performance.

[thepocketrocket]

Duran at Middle was not the Duran who beat KB and Lightweight. He would go on to get done in two by Hearns, lose to Rockin Robbie Sims, and win a split over Iran Barkley. Size alone makes Jacobs a favourite.

Jacobs is fast, elusive, and hits hard (ask Quillan) Any fighter would struggle against guys who have those three attributes.

[stujones]

I think people are doing Jacobs a huge disservice. Lets not forget, prior to the Pirog fight he was seen as the next big superstar of boxing and looked like he had P4P potential.

Sure he had a terrible night vs Pirog, but he was very green also - since then though he hasn't looked close to losing a fight and hasn't put much foot wrong, albeit against medicore opposition.

Perhaps Jacobs just stepped up and finally fulfilled his massive potential in running GGG close.

If British fighters were written off when losing when being a bit Green then the likes of Chris Eubank Jnr and even Nigel Benn would have been long written off.

[Nightmare Roy]

The guy is 35 next week and he's had about 500 fights, He's bound to be on the slide a bit.

[Ian1973]

For years GGG has been dismembering the great middleweights of the past in online discussions because he could bash second-raters and it followed that he would be able to perform to the same standard against the monsters of yore.

It turns out he needs judges to help him overcome Daniel Jacobs.

Daniel Jacobs!

Who ever could have guessed that boxing is a sport of levels and a tough guy with a big punch might thrive in an era of low talent and multiple belts, but ultimately falter when challenged and be proven to fall short in all the essential catagories of greatness? I would have thought everybody but apparently not.

I wonder if people may now exercise some caution in their raging fandom and wait for a fighter to be tested at top level before picking him over everyone in his division in history? Probably not.

Marvin Hagler needed the judges to beat Marcos Geraldo who had lost 15 fights at the time they met. Doesn't mean he wasn't a great fighter.

[rhino222]

like ggg said in the post fight presser, jacobs made no mistakes in there for 12 rounds. ggg lets the bombs go when he sees an opening, he was not able to manipulate jacobs into position to land the 'smoker' like froch did vis groves in series 2.

the ggg/jacobs fight reminded me of ward v kovalev. master boxer v ko machine.

incidentally, i had jacobs winning by 1 point but the first 3 rounds were close. depends how you shaded them.

[Bricks]

For years GGG has been dismembering the great middleweights of the past in online discussions because he could bash second-raters and it followed that he would be able to perform to the same standard against the monsters of yore.

It turns out he needs judges to help him overcome Daniel Jacobs.

Daniel Jacobs!

Who ever could have guessed that boxing is a sport of levels and a tough guy with a big punch might thrive in an era of low talent and multiple belts, but ultimately falter when challenged and be proven to fall short in all the essential catagories of greatness? I would have thought everybody but apparently not.

I wonder if people may now exercise some caution in their raging fandom and wait for a fighter to be tested at top level before picking him over everyone in his division in history? Probably not.

This is the thing...otherwise sane forum posters have been banging this greatest of all time MW drum for GGG and I never understood it.....I see a old mike mccallum in his MW peak of 1989-1991 beating GGG much less a Hagler or Hopkins circa 2001

[Bricks]

For years GGG has been dismembering the great middleweights of the past in online discussions because he could bash second-raters and it followed that he would be able to perform to the same standard against the monsters of yore.

It turns out he needs judges to help him overcome Daniel Jacobs.

Daniel Jacobs!

Who ever could have guessed that boxing is a sport of levels and a tough guy with a big punch might thrive in an era of low talent and multiple belts, but ultimately falter when challenged and be proven to fall short in all the essential catagories of greatness? I would have thought everybody but apparently not.

I wonder if people may now exercise some caution in their raging fandom and wait for a fighter to be tested at top level before picking him over everyone in his division in history? Probably not.

This is the thing...otherwise sane forum posters have been banging this greatest of all time MW drum for GGG and I never understood it.....I see a old mike mccallum in his MW peak of 1989-1991 beating GGG much less a toney .....much less a Hagler or Hopkins circa 2001

[TheGingerBomber]

If he KO's Saunders & Canelo this is all forgotten about. I say we wait and see, but I agree on the OP's statement of going hype surrounding a fighter, I think Luis Ortiz is one of those.

[xerz00]

Think you're doing Jacobs a disservice there pal. He's top level and showed it against GGG. But styles make fights, I still think GGG would hammer canelo but Jacobs was smart and can hit like a mule too. You're writing GGG off on one result (a win!) which is just as bad as the nuthuggers on the other side

well said!

[Asterix]

I wonder if people may now exercise some caution in their raging fandom and wait for a fighter to be tested at top level before picking him over everyone in his division in history? Probably not.

Nah, it always happens.

[Asterix]

If he KO's Saunders & Canelo this is all forgotten about. I say we wait and see, but I agree on the OP's statement of going hype surrounding a fighter, I think Luis Ortiz is one of those.

Time is not on Golovkin's side. He's unlikely to get better. He needs the biggest fights right now. I don't think a Canelo fight would happen any time soon.

[Tuan_Jim]

For years GGG has been dismembering the great middleweights of the past in online discussions because he could bash second-raters and it followed that he would be able to perform to the same standard against the monsters of yore.

It turns out he needs judges to help him overcome Daniel Jacobs.

Daniel Jacobs!

Who ever could have guessed that boxing is a sport of levels and a tough guy with a big punch might thrive in an era of low talent and multiple belts, but ultimately falter when challenged and be proven to fall short in all the essential catagories of greatness? I would have thought everybody but apparently not.

I wonder if people may now exercise some caution in their raging fandom and wait for a fighter to be tested at top level before picking him over everyone in his division in history? Probably not.

Marvin Hagler needed the judges to beat Marcos Geraldo who had lost 15 fights at the time they met. Doesn't mean he wasn't a great fighter.

You think Marcos Geraldo beat Marvin Hagler? You must be the first person in history to hold that opinion. Nevertheless, your sight impairments do not disprove my point.

[Tuan_Jim]

If he KO's Saunders & Canelo this is all forgotten about. I say we wait and see, but I agree on the OP's statement of going hype surrounding a fighter, I think Luis Ortiz is one of those.

But BJ Saunders is the type of second-rate opponent (historically speaking) that Golovkin has been bludgeoning for years. I don't think that will restore his aura in any way. The man who had a dash of everything made him look distinctly ordinary.

I called Canelo over Golovkin a long time ago - I may yet be proved correct!

[Counter-puncher]

For years GGG has been dismembering the great middleweights of the past in online discussions because he could bash second-raters and it followed that he would be able to perform to the same standard against the monsters of yore.

It turns out he needs judges to help him overcome Daniel Jacobs.

Daniel Jacobs!

Who ever could have guessed that boxing is a sport of levels and a tough guy with a big punch might thrive in an era of low talent and multiple belts, but ultimately falter when challenged and be proven to fall short in all the essential catagories of greatness? I would have thought everybody but apparently not..

Marvin Hagler needed the judges to beat Marcos Geraldo who had lost 15 fights at the time they met. Doesn't mean he wasn't a great fighter.

You think Marcos Geraldo beat Marvin Hagler?.

He clearly says Hagler needed the judges to beat Geraldo- (he's actually quoting you here, it should make it easier for you, you see in your first quote the bit I bolded for you? he then echoes your phrasing as a (failed) aid to your understanding)

don't let that get in the way of your rushing to 'harrrrrumph' at someone, though, I'd hate to be denied the very minor pleasure of you making a prat of yourself.

[Tuan_Jim]

Marvin Hagler needed the judges to beat Marcos Geraldo who had lost 15 fights at the time they met. Doesn't mean he wasn't a great fighter.

You think Marcos Geraldo beat Marvin Hagler?.

He clearly says Hagler needed the judges to beat Geraldo- (he's actually quoting you here, it should make it easier for you, you see in your first quote the bit I bolded for you? he then echoes your phrasing as a (failed) aid to your understanding)

don't let that get in the way of your rushing to 'harrrrrumph' at someone, though, I'd hate to be denied the very minor pleasure of you making a prat of yourself.

A fighter "needs" the judges to help him when he can't beat his opponent decisively - Hagler beat Geraldo decisively thus didn't require any dodgy scorecards. Golovkin was seen by many to lose to Jacobs, thus needed the judges to scribble out dodgy scorecards to gift him a decision.

The meaning was so plainly obvious I thought I could get away with being economic with the number of words employed, and in fact everyone else but you and Ian managed to navigate the paragraphs without any confusion. You making a prat of yourself has given me no pleasure.

[Stuarty]

You think Marcos Geraldo beat Marvin Hagler?.

He clearly says Hagler needed the judges to beat Geraldo- (he's actually quoting you here, it should make it easier for you, you see in your first quote the bit I bolded for you? he then echoes your phrasing as a (failed) aid to your understanding)

don't let that get in the way of your rushing to 'harrrrrumph' at someone, though, I'd hate to be denied the very minor pleasure of you making a prat of yourself.

A fighter "needs" the judges to help him when he can't beat his opponent decisively - Hagler beat Geraldo decisively thus didn't require any dodgy scorecards. Golovkin was seen by many to lose to Jacobs, thus needed the judges to scribble out dodgy scorecards to gift him a decision.

The meaning was so plainly obvious I thought I could get away with being economic with the number of words employed, and in fact everyone else but you and Ian managed to navigate the paragraphs without any confusion. You making a prat of yourself has given me no pleasure.

Just because the judges not agree with you doesn't mean it's a dodgy card. You know yourself that you see things differently from ringside plus there were a lot of pro GGG fans there making noise and that's likely to sway a judges opinion.

I had Jacobs by two but I gave him the first three rounds when neither were doing much. I like both guys and had Jacobs winning but it wasn't a robbery at all. It's a subjective sport and it's a matter of opinion at the end of the day.

[TheGman]

Im a GGG fan but he lost this fight,dorsnt mean if they had a rematch he wouldnt make easier work of it,GGG couldnt get anything in his right hand to trouble jacobs when he was in the southpaw stance but thats down to GGG finding a way through bit like my team liverpool beginning of the season smashin everyone in the league then come up against hull burnley and Leicester and end up losing cause they cant find a way through to score a goal. GGG is good,probably the best since hopkins but this is boxing and no one is gonna stand there and let u knock them out its down to GGG to find a way this is part of his 6-8 weeks training camp,find sparring partners that imitate jacobs style and find your game plan,lucky enough GGG had 3 of his mates scoring the fight

[ALI]

Golovkin will be 35 in 2 Weeks he's probably past his peak now , not many fighters have been the undisputed no1 at that age

Well said, the author would have been wise to consider this prior to posting this thread.

GGG has had a long career, i believe he is showing signs of decline. A few years ago i think he would have done a a better job on Jacobs.

Perhpas Bellew would always have beaten Haye (err ), it is all very hypothetical, we can only make our own judgement. GGG, at 2 weeks shy of 35, a long career and a couple of sub par performances in a row, it does not take a rocket scientist to work out GGG is slowing down.