Page 2 of 2
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 01 Jun 2016, 10:52
by man
jujigatame wrote:Kalan wrote:jujigatame wrote:Just because Floyd ended his career with that shameful Berto fight doesn't change this
YES it does... It changes EVERYTHING... Kell Brook and Keith Thurman were the only 2 prime welterweights, who were the most logical opponents for Floyd face, who were full sized Welterweights with power, speed, and great boxing ability.
Canelo was green when he fought Floyd and he was weight drained... Oscar was a crack head... Mosley was done... Corrales was a punching bag... Hernandez had no skills either - he was a punching bag... Maidana was a punching bag... Guerrero was a punching bag... Oritz was a punching bag... Berto was a punching bag... Pacquiao WAS truly a great fighter but he had a badly torn rotator cuff and was not allowed pain killing shots before the fight - even though the pain killers weren't on the PED list... Miguel Cotto was Floyd's best opponent but he had a terrible coach for that fight in Pedro Diaz - who Cotto ditched after the Trout loss.. Cotto jabbed Floyd up nicely and got the blood flowing from his nose but he never turned up the heat.. Diaz kept telling Cotto he was winning the fight.. That was the only real fight Floyd ever had I think - the Cotto fight. Cotto is an ATG great fighter, but he's very short and easy to hit.. Canelo had no trouble beating the crap out of Cotto so I really don't think Floyd ever fought an excellent opponent and I was hoping he'd fight Brook or Thurman instead of somebody like Berto or Khan or Bradley.
You are ridiculous.
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 01 Jun 2016, 12:08
by jamesmcdonnell
jujigatame wrote:Kalan wrote:jujigatame wrote:Just because Floyd ended his career with that shameful Berto fight doesn't change this
YES it does... It changes EVERYTHING... Kell Brook and Keith Thurman were the only 2 prime welterweights, who were the most logical opponents for Floyd face, who were full sized Welterweights with power, speed, and great boxing ability.
Canelo was green when he fought Floyd and he was weight drained... Oscar was a crack head... Mosley was done... Corrales was a punching bag... Hernandez had no skills either - he was a punching bag... Maidana was a punching bag... Guerrero was a punching bag... Oritz was a punching bag... Berto was a punching bag... Pacquiao WAS truly a great fighter but he had a badly torn rotator cuff and was not allowed pain killing shots before the fight - even though the pain killers weren't on the PED list... Miguel Cotto was Floyd's best opponent but he had a terrible coach for that fight in Pedro Diaz - who Cotto ditched after the Trout loss.. Cotto jabbed Floyd up nicely and got the blood flowing from his nose but he never turned up the heat.. Diaz kept telling Cotto he was winning the fight.. That was the only real fight Floyd ever had I think - the Cotto fight. Cotto is an ATG great fighter, but he's very short and easy to hit.. Canelo had no trouble beating the crap out of Cotto so I really don't think Floyd ever fought an excellent opponent and I was hoping he'd fight Brook or Thurman instead of somebody like Berto or Khan or Bradley.
You are ridiculous.
Yeah, Corralles was a punching bag - an undefeated punching bag, with 33-0 going in, and 3 title defences. SMH....laughable bullshit.
Clearly this guy's dream would be to be spit roasted by GGG and Wilt Chamberlin.
I mean I like GGG, but not to the exclusion of giving Floyd credit.
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 01 Jun 2016, 20:05
by Badhusker
man wrote:jujigatame wrote:Kalan wrote:
YES it does... It changes EVERYTHING... Kell Brook and Keith Thurman were the only 2 prime welterweights, who were the most logical opponents for Floyd face, who were full sized Welterweights with power, speed, and great boxing ability.
Canelo was green when he fought Floyd and he was weight drained... Oscar was a crack head... Mosley was done... Corrales was a punching bag... Hernandez had no skills either - he was a punching bag... Maidana was a punching bag... Guerrero was a punching bag... Oritz was a punching bag... Berto was a punching bag... Pacquiao WAS truly a great fighter but he had a badly torn rotator cuff and was not allowed pain killing shots before the fight - even though the pain killers weren't on the PED list... Miguel Cotto was Floyd's best opponent but he had a terrible coach for that fight in Pedro Diaz - who Cotto ditched after the Trout loss.. Cotto jabbed Floyd up nicely and got the blood flowing from his nose but he never turned up the heat.. Diaz kept telling Cotto he was winning the fight.. That was the only real fight Floyd ever had I think - the Cotto fight. Cotto is an ATG great fighter, but he's very short and easy to hit.. Canelo had no trouble beating the crap out of Cotto so I really don't think Floyd ever fought an excellent opponent and I was hoping he'd fight Brook or Thurman instead of somebody like Berto or Khan or Bradley.
You are ridiculous.
Kalan is too stupid to even realize he is stupid.
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 01 Jun 2016, 21:53
by Kalan
jamesmcdonnell wrote:jujigatame wrote:Kalan wrote:
YES it does... It changes EVERYTHING... Kell Brook and Keith Thurman were the only 2 prime welterweights, who were the most logical opponents for Floyd face, who were full sized Welterweights with power, speed, and great boxing ability.
Canelo was green when he fought Floyd and he was weight drained... Oscar was a crack head... Mosley was done... Corrales was a punching bag... Hernandez had no skills either - he was a punching bag... Maidana was a punching bag... Guerrero was a punching bag... Oritz was a punching bag... Berto was a punching bag... Pacquiao WAS truly a great fighter but he had a badly torn rotator cuff and was not allowed pain killing shots before the fight - even though the pain killers weren't on the PED list... Miguel Cotto was Floyd's best opponent but he had a terrible coach for that fight in Pedro Diaz - who Cotto ditched after the Trout loss.. Cotto jabbed Floyd up nicely and got the blood flowing from his nose but he never turned up the heat.. Diaz kept telling Cotto he was winning the fight.. That was the only real fight Floyd ever had I think - the Cotto fight. Cotto is an ATG great fighter, but he's very short and easy to hit.. Canelo had no trouble beating the crap out of Cotto so I really don't think Floyd ever fought an excellent opponent and I was hoping he'd fight Brook or Thurman instead of somebody like Berto or Khan or Bradley.
You are ridiculous.
Yeah, Corralles was a punching bag - an undefeated punching bag, with 33-0 going in, and 3 title defences. SMH....laughable bullshit.
Clearly this guy's dream would be to be spit roasted by GGG and Wilt Chamberlin.
I mean I like GGG, but not to the exclusion of giving Floyd credit.
Corrales was a indeed a punching bag.. He was weight drained and weak as waif for Floyd.. He had nothing in that fight... Hatton was a world champion with a great undefeated record too. 43-0 I believe... I always figured Hatton for a punching bag.. Knew Floyd and Pacquiao were going to kill him... Just because a guy is undefeated doesn't mean crap to me... I don't have Golovkin a great fighter because he undefeated.. He's just good.
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 02 Jun 2016, 15:20
by Noxy
I think it's more a question of where is his superfight, who can give him it
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 02 Jun 2016, 16:32
by Butterbean
fighters offering him fights... meeh.
ward.... lol. he dare not. he is in the same league as chickenelo, and that scared guy from the ss6 that ran of into the sunset because someone dared hit him.
the league of chickens, at the dark ages of modern boxing.
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 02 Jun 2016, 17:38
by Badhusker
Kalan says GGG isn't great now and only just good......after a while back saying he was the best fighter of all time......better than SRR, because he sat ringside and saw many of his fights.
Someone should have warned me to put my boots on before reading this thread.
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 02 Jun 2016, 18:46
by Tony1244
Badhusker wrote:man wrote:jujigatame wrote:
You are ridiculous.
Kalan is too stupid to even realize he is stupid.
He kind of reminds me of Brut/49-0. Maybe I'm on to something there. He or they, will make a few reasonable and knowledgeable statements sandwiched in between stuff thats patently ridiculous. He lost me with Chamberlain could have beaten Ali in the 1960s/70s and Too Tall quit because he couldn't get fights. Too Tall quit when he saw his peak wasn't going to be very high.
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 02 Jun 2016, 18:49
by boxing_rocks
Badhusker wrote:Kalan says GGG isn't great now and only just good......after a while back saying he was the best fighter of all time......better than SRR, because he sat ringside and saw many of his fights.
Someone should have warned me to put my boots on before reading this thread.
You misunderstood this quote:
I don't have Golovkin a great fighter because he undefeated.. He's just good.
It means that Golovkin is a great fighter not because he is undefeated, but because he is just SO good.
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 02 Jun 2016, 18:56
by Kalan
Badhusker wrote:Kalan says GGG isn't great now and only just good......after a while back saying he was the best fighter of all time......better than SRR, because he sat ringside and saw many of his fights.
Someone should have warned me to put my boots on before reading this thread.
Badhusker you're really a simple, stupid MFer who has no points to make and nothing to contribute. Grow up idiot.
Re: Realistically, how great can GGG be?
Posted: 02 Jun 2016, 23:40
by Like a Boss
GGG is currently the best 160 pound fighter on the planet and all the signs are that he will just keep winning. How that stacks up all-time we won't know until he retires.