Tell me how GGG's career ranks above Wilder's

[lazboy]

I agree it's not nothing; furthermore, Brook was a late replacement for Eubank Jr and obviously made commercial sense.

Compare that to the Khan v Canelo situation. Canelo actively picked Khan, a blown up welterweight, with a notoriously poor chin. That situation, seemingly made commercial sense also. This is the state of boxing.

Everyone knows boxing is a business; given this, a fighters prowess, at times, is not proven and sometimes we (as fans) need to fill in the blanks.

Canelo faced a 147lb-er at 155lbs, whereas GGG told the media he was unwilling to face Kell Brook with a 157lbs catchweight stipulation, which resulted in Gennadiy facing the 147lbs Brit at 160lbs, despite the Kazakh regularly boasting that he was capable of competing in a lower weight class (whilst refraining to make any attempt whatsoever to prove it).

For the record, Kell Brook has never scored a clear-cut decisive victory over any universally regarded top-ten world-rated fighter. Even the boxing pundits from both the Box-Nation and Sky Sports UK TV networks thought he’d deserved to lose his bout against Shawn Porter.

Also, lets not forget that GGG had previously criticised the Canelo-Khan bout, due to him believing it was simply a “business fight”, because at that moment in time, he didn’t believe in catchweights, which was a stance he doggedly maintained until Andre Ward’s name was mentioned (or until he faced Steve Rolls at 164lbs).

Whilst my comments might appear to be needlessly facetious in nature (against Golovkin), please remember that I’d previously posted videos proving these claims.

Canelo didn’t deserve any kudos for beating Amir Khan at 155lbs. And GGG doesn’t deserve to receive any credit for beating the 147lbs Kell Brook at 160lbs.

So lets not bother applying double-standards, shall we? We should never applaud bigger men when they beat much smaller foes. And that’s not me being a "hater", it’s simply common sense!

Eh what is your point? Mine is that Golovkin proved his quality when he fought Canelo, twice. Are you able to sum up succinctly what you are saying?

[Enlightened-One]

Canelo faced a 147lb-er at 155lbs, whereas GGG told the media he was unwilling to face Kell Brook with a 157lbs catchweight stipulation, which resulted in Gennadiy facing the 147lbs Brit at 160lbs, despite the Kazakh regularly boasting that he was capable of competing in a lower weight class (whilst refraining to make any attempt whatsoever to prove it).

For the record, Kell Brook has never scored a clear-cut decisive victory over any universally regarded top-ten world-rated fighter. Even the boxing pundits from both the Box-Nation and Sky Sports UK TV networks thought he’d deserved to lose his bout against Shawn Porter.

Also, lets not forget that GGG had previously criticised the Canelo-Khan bout, due to him believing it was simply a “business fight”, because at that moment in time, he didn’t believe in catchweights, which was a stance he doggedly maintained until Andre Ward’s name was mentioned (or until he faced Steve Rolls at 164lbs).

Whilst my comments might appear to be needlessly facetious in nature (against Golovkin), please remember that I’d previously posted videos proving these claims.

Canelo didn’t deserve any kudos for beating Amir Khan at 155lbs. And GGG doesn’t deserve to receive any credit for beating the 147lbs Kell Brook at 160lbs.

So lets not bother applying double-standards, shall we? We should never applaud bigger men when they beat much smaller foes. And that’s not me being a "hater", it’s simply common sense!

Eh what is your point? Are you able to sum up succinctly what you are saying?

Most people keep applying double standards, because they always allow their personal bias to prevent logic and their own moral rules from being applied objectively and consistently.

I hate the fact that Canelo faced Khan.

I also hate the fact that GGG faced Brook.

I dislike both situations for precisely the same reasons.

I feel that neither Canelo nor GGG deserve any praise for beating much smaller men, regardless the circumstances.

It would be hypocritical of me to criticise one fighter, whilst praising another, if both men did the same thing that I felt was wrong.

GGG is perceived as the “hero”, Canelo is widely regarded as the “villain” and fight fans choose to apply a completely different set of standards to both fighters.

[lazboy]

Eh what is your point? Are you able to sum up succinctly what you are saying?

Most people keep applying double standards, because they always allow their personal bias to prevent logic and their own moral rules from being applied objectively and consistently.

I hate the fact that Canelo faced Khan.

I also hate the fact that GGG faced Brook.

I dislike both situations for precisely the same reasons.

I feel that neither Canelo nor GGG deserve any praise for beating much smaller men, regardless the circumstances.

It would be hypocritical of me to criticise one fighter, whilst praising another, if both men did the same thing that I felt was wrong.

GGG is perceived as the “hero”, Canelo is widely regarded as the “villain” and fight fans choose to apply a completely different set of standards to both fighters.

Your emotional whinging is not persuasive. I believe ggg proved his quality when he fought Canelo. I also think Brook is fine, albeit not ideal, although the circumstances need to be considered. The defining opponent of gggs career is Canelo.

Wilder may yet improve his career and surpass that of Ggg. Right now, I feel that Golovkin has shown he’s a better champion.

[Thomastearns]

Most people keep applying double standards, because they always allow their personal bias to prevent logic and their own moral rules from being applied objectively and consistently.

I hate the fact that Canelo faced Khan.

I also hate the fact that GGG faced Brook.

I dislike both situations for precisely the same reasons.

I feel that neither Canelo nor GGG deserve any praise for beating much smaller men, regardless the circumstances.

It would be hypocritical of me to criticise one fighter, whilst praising another, if both men did the same thing that I felt was wrong.

GGG is perceived as the “hero”, Canelo is widely regarded as the “villain” and fight fans choose to apply a completely different set of standards to both fighters.

Your emotional whinging is not persuasive. I believe ggg proved his quality when he fought Canelo. I also think Brook is fine, albeit not ideal, although the circumstances need to be considered. The defining opponent of gggs career is Canelo.

Wilder may yet improve his career and surpass that of Ggg. Right now, I feel that Golovkin has shown he’s a better champion.

Absolutely! To compare Canelo v Khan with GGG v Brook is seriously misleading on several fronts. Let's not forget the circumstances that lead to Hearn drafting in Brook as a replacement for Golovkin.

Taken from wiki,

"On 8 July 2016, it was announced that Gennady Golovkin would fight Kell Brook on 10 September 2016 at the O2 Arena in London, England. Brook was scheduled to fight in a unification bout against then-WBO champion Jessie Vargas, whereas there was negotiations for Golovkin to fight Chris Eubank Jr.; however, negotiations fell through and promoter Eddie Hearn offered the Golovkin fight to Brook, who agreed to move up two weight divisions to challenge Golovkin.

This was Golovkin's 17th world title defence. The fight aired in the United States on HBO and on Sky Box Office pay-per-view in the United Kingdom.

On 5 September, the WBA withdrew its sanction for the fight. Although they granted Golovkin a special permit to take the fight, they stated that their title would not be at stake.

The reason for the withdrawal was because Brook had never competed in the middleweight division.

WBA president Gilberto Mendoza Jr. said, "What I most regret is that there are no boxers at 160 pounds who will fight against 'Triple G,' and Brook has to move up two divisions to fight against him."

The Golovkin camp were said to be disappointed with the decision with promoter Tom Loeffler saying, "somehow the WBA thought it was too dangerous for a welterweight to move up to middleweight to fight the biggest puncher in boxing. I guess that is a compliment to GGG as they sanctioned [Adrien] Broner moving up two divisions [from lightweight to welterweight] to fight Paulie [Malignaggi in 2013] and Roy Jones moving up two divisions [from light heavyweight to heavyweight] to fight John Ruiz [in 2003] for WBA titles, and Kell Brook is undefeated and considered a top pound-for-pound boxer."



Brook and Khan, different fighters, different circumstances. Circumstances matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennady ... Kell_Brook

[apollo creed]

The funny thing is that the GGG's victory over 160lbs Kell Brook trumps over any win of Charlo or Andrade @ 160lbs.

Also 160 lbs Brook was a better quality opponent&win for G than Khan, Liam Smith, Fielding, Kirkland, Angulo or JCCJr were for Canelo.

[gregregegg]

I agree it's not nothing; furthermore, Brook was a late replacement for Eubank Jr and obviously made commercial sense.

Compare that to the Khan v Canelo situation. Canelo actively picked Khan, a blown up welterweight, with a notoriously poor chin. That situation, seemingly made commercial sense also. This is the state of boxing.

Everyone knows boxing is a business; given this, a fighters prowess, at times, is not proven and sometimes we (as fans) need to fill in the blanks.

Canelo faced a 147lb-er at 155lbs, whereas GGG told the media he was unwilling to face Kell Brook with a 157lbs catchweight stipulation, which resulted in Gennadiy facing the 147lbs Brit at 160lbs, despite the Kazakh regularly boasting that he was capable of competing in a lower weight class (whilst refraining to make any attempt whatsoever to prove it).

For the record, Kell Brook has never scored a clear-cut decisive victory over any universally regarded top-ten world-rated fighter. Even the boxing pundits from both the Box-Nation and Sky Sports UK TV networks thought he’d deserved to lose his bout against Shawn Porter.

Also, lets not forget that GGG had previously criticised the Canelo-Khan bout, due to him believing it was simply a “business fight”, because at that moment in time, he didn’t believe in catchweights, which was a stance he doggedly maintained until Andre Ward’s name was mentioned (or until he faced Steve Rolls at 164lbs).

Whilst my comments might appear to be needlessly facetious in nature (against Golovkin), please remember that I’d previously posted videos proving these claims.

Canelo didn’t deserve any kudos for beating Amir Khan at 155lbs. And GGG doesn’t deserve to receive any credit for beating the 147lbs Kell Brook at 160lbs.

So lets not bother applying double-standards, shall we? We should never applaud bigger men when they beat much smaller foes. And that’s not me being a "hater", it’s simply common sense!

I Think they deserve some credit for both wins. with hindsight seeing kahn get Horrificly KO'd and brook his eyesockets broken, its easy to think the weight was a ridiculouse mismatch and it was crazy matchmaking.

But at the time people didnt realy think so and you can see that by the betting odds. Canelo vs kahn had a betting line of That implied odds of the fight being about 80-20, GGG vs brooks odds implied about 85-15, both fairly big favorites, But for boxing, not overwhelmingly 1 sided.

Also both brook and kahn were arguably winning some early rounds. Id argue brook gave GGG a tougher fight than he had gotten in a while, sure it wasnt that tough, but what fight had been for him.

[boxing_rocks]

[gilgamesh]

Dan Rafael has been on a tirade against GGG haters for the last few days. Don't really get why people wouldn't like him. He was easily one of the most exciting fighters of the last decade. Nothing to dislike about him as a fighter.

[margaret thatcher]

The most hate I see him get is from Afro American/PBC/Haymond fans (lol an unseen advisor actually has lots of fans and haterz), and increasingly Mex fans due to Canelo rivarly

When you get to his level of fame and hype there is inevitably some backlash, as a lot of people naturally rebel against the establishment guy who gets hyped.

[pound per pound]

Why?

GGG has way more title defenses, way over wins over top ten opponents. A different class of skills, GGG was viewed as a pound for pound type of talent. This should not even be a question.

[Enlightened-One]

Why?

GGG has way more title defenses, way over wins over top ten opponents.

GGG’s resume lacks wins over top-ten world-rated opposition.

As great as Golovkin is, he lacks quality names on his resume.

If you care to disagree, please names the top-ten world-rated fighters he’s beaten.

And to be fair, I have never recognised the WBA regular or interim titles as being credible world championships, because they aren’t. It’s as simple as that!

And I’m not going to apply double-standards either, by making an exception just because we’re discussing the likeable GGG.

For sure, Golovkin is a dead-cert first-ballot future Hall-of-Famer, but there is a lack of quality names on his resume and most of his “world title defences” lacked credibility.

No fighter has a perfect legacy - nearly all of them have flaws, so there’s no point in dishonestly embellishing a situation, simply because you’re discussing one of your favourite guys.

[Thomastearns]

Why?

GGG has way more title defenses, way over wins over top ten opponents. A different class of skills, GGG was viewed as a pound for pound type of talent. This should not even be a question.

You're right, this shouldn't be. Unfortunately there are plenty of hidden agenda's and covert narratives at play in the way boxing is managed today.

None of these conversations would be necessary if GGG was a home grown US fighter, but unfortunately, just like the brilliant Joe Calzaghe before him, he isn't.

Even worse, he's from Eastern European descent. So finding friends in boxing's homeland was never going to be easy. Everything was going to be a battle against stacked odds all the way.

Even the near living legend Lomachenko will find it difficult to overcome his start in life with the US boxing hierarchy.

In the meantime known drug cheats are embraced by networks, media and adoring fans alike.

Boxing huh! Listen you kids out there, boxing is one hell of a tough game.

Tell you what to do, be good looking, appeal to the widest fanbase possible (Kardashian style), then sign up with the biggest promoter muscle you can, and suck up to the media til they have to such up to you. Don't forget the uncle Sam shorts and boots etc or your forgotten Mexican heritage etc.

Oh yeah before I forget, you'll have to win a few fights too.

[gilgamesh]

Why?

GGG has way more title defenses, way over wins over top ten opponents.

GGG’s resume lacks wins over top-ten world-rated opposition.

No it doesn't. As I've already pointed out. Every one of his wins isn't over a contender obviously, but he beat his share of 'em.

He doesn't have the most stellar career ever resume wise, but he did fight and beat numerous contenders.

[NateJR]

GGG has had a far better career than Wilder and it's not close in my view. I've been critical of GGGs match making in the past, but with the likes of Jacobs, Canelo, Brook and Derev as opponents, it's hard or damn near impossible to make a claim that Wilder has fought that great of competition. GGG has done much better with his career in the past few years. GGG is also the superior fighter compared to Wilder and again it's not even close.

This is kind of a rediculous thread.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

GGG has his best win over danny Jacobs. He has a draw with canelo. He beat macklin and murray, geale, lemieux, brook who all held world titles They were all solid fighters

Wilder beat ortiz twice and drew with fury. He beat stiverne twice. Other guys he beat have never won a world title or come close ( arreloa, brezeale, spilzka aka murderers row)


Both resumes lack big wins but GGG has the better solid wins

[apollo creed]

Dan Rafael has been on a tirade against GGG haters for the last few days. Don't really get why people wouldn't like him. He was easily one of the most exciting fighters of the last decade. Nothing to dislike about him as a fighter.

G was also the most avoided fighters.

[apollo creed]

The most hate I see him get is from Afro American/PBC/Haymond fans (lol an unseen advisor actually has lots of fans and haterz), and increasingly Mex fans due to Canelo rivarly

When you get to his level of fame and hype there is inevitably some backlash, as a lot of people naturally rebel against the establishment guy who gets hyped.

True. G got some underserved hate.

[apollo creed]

Why?

GGG has way more title defenses, way over wins over top ten opponents. A different class of skills, GGG was viewed as a pound for pound type of talent. This should not even be a question.

Yup. G was a monster back when he was younger. The strong proof is that a young-prime Canelo could not beat a 34-35y/o GGG. Enough said.

[apollo creed]

GGG has had a far better career than Wilder and it's not close in my view. I've been critical of GGGs match making in the past, but with the likes of Jacobs, Canelo, Brook and Derev as opponents, it's hard or damn near impossible to make a claim that Wilder has fought that great of competition. GGG has done much better with his career in the past few years. GGG is also the superior fighter compared to Wilder and again it's not even close.

This is kind of a rediculous thread.

True. Top notch opposition.

This thread is just a trolling bait.

[apollo creed]

GGG’s resume lacks wins over top-ten world-rated opposition.

No it doesn't. As I've already pointed out. Every one of his wins isn't over a contender obviously, but he beat his share of 'em.

He doesn't have the most stellar career ever resume wise, but he did fight and beat numerous contenders.

EO is just senile.

Murray, Lemieux, Jacobs, Canelo I and Derevo were top ten (world-rated opposition) wins.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

GGG had a lot of hype. People had him knocking out hopkins and hagler when he was on his roll.... but when he stepped up his level of competition against the top tier it has been clear he isnt on the hopkins or hagler level. People can argue his age but hopkins was schooling tarver and pavlik and beating pascal and winky wright when he was older than ggg.

Hes still exciting and really good. Hes fun too watch i just think the hbo hype machine oversold so there is backlash

[boxing_rocks]

Golovkin is definitely on Hopkins level.

Let's not forget Bernard's theatric performances against Allen and Dawson, two losses to Taylor and one to Calzaghe.

Fighters age differently. Hopkins was still in his prime at 40.

[gilgamesh]

Golovkin is definitely on Hopkins level.

Let's not forget Bernard's theatric performances against Allen and Dawson, two losses to Taylor and one to Calzaghe.

Fighters age differently. Hopkins was still in his prime at 40.

Golovkin had a lot more wear and tear on his body from his amateur career too. He had a WAY deeper Amateur career than B-Hop had.

[margaret thatcher]

Funny thing is that Hopkins, despite all the MW defenses, had most of his best wins at lhw in his 40s

Hop no doubt had a better career and was a better fighter (9-3), though I wouldn't go down the age route, cause he aged better than pretty much anyone in boxing history, even guys who obviously had better careers and were superior in their primes. At no point in his career, no matter how much younger, was he much better if at all than the guy who schooled Pavlik at like 43 or Tarver at like 44 or whatever. He really is a freak of nature

[margaret thatcher]

GGG had a lot of hype. People had him knocking out hopkins and hagler when he was on his roll.... but when he stepped up his level of competition against the top tier it has been clear he isnt on the hopkins or hagler level. People can argue his age but hopkins was schooling tarver and pavlik and beating pascal and winky wright when he was older than ggg.

Hes still exciting and really good. Hes fun too watch i just think the hbo hype machine oversold so there is backlash

How do you rate Geej and Wilder's careers head to head?