BoxRec

GGG by sustained violence.

I still say GGG.. you cant say based on last weeks performance who would win 3 years ago.. GGG never fought like that 3 years ago.. Froch had zero defense.. if it came toe to toe and Froch started throwing bombs, we all know very well GGG wont hold back.. he'll throw them too.. winner via referee or corner stoppage.. GGG!

Ruthless-RKO wrote:I still say GGG.. you cant say based on last weeks performance who would win 3 years ago.. GGG never fought like that 3 years ago.. Froch had zero defense.. if it came toe to toe and Froch started throwing bombs, we all know very well GGG wont hold back.. he'll throw them too.. winner via referee or corner stoppage.. GGG!

Golovkin's best win three years ago was against Matthew Macklin.

When Golovkin's shown weaknesses in the past, his jock-sniffers have jumped out and claimed that he's only showing weaknesses to entertain the fans, or to dupe Alvarez and other top fighters into thinking that he's weak.

Golovkin has never deserved the absurd level of hype he's gotten.

Horse wrote: his jock-sniffers have jumped out and claimed that he's only showing weaknesses to entertain the fans, or to dupe Alvarez and other top fighters into thinking that he's weak.

.

that "'he's only taking clean punches to the face to entertain the fans' GGG FTW lol" line used to amuse me

Frochs classic defense of using his face to block punches would have been disastrous against GGG.

GGG by serious KO.

I don't think Froch has the mobility to keep GGG away.
Also Froch is easy to hit and GGG still hits hard.

I'd favour GGG to stop him late. Be a good fight though.

Horse wrote:

Ruthless-RKO wrote:I still say GGG.. you cant say based on last weeks performance who would win 3 years ago.. GGG never fought like that 3 years ago.. Froch had zero defense.. if it came toe to toe and Froch started throwing bombs, we all know very well GGG wont hold back.. he'll throw them too.. winner via referee or corner stoppage.. GGG!

Golovkin's best win three years ago was against Matthew Macklin.

When Golovkin's shown weaknesses in the past, his jock-sniffers have jumped out and claimed that he's only showing weaknesses to entertain the fans, or to dupe Alvarez and other top fighters into thinking that he's weak.

Golovkin has never deserved the absurd level of hype he's gotten.

Agree with you here. I've always rated Golovkin but the hype has been silly at times. To have suggested he could step up and take on a true super middleweight like Froch and win... always thought that was crazy. Froch had a great jab and his superior size and strength would have been too much for Golovkin in my opinion. Although Golovkin has better footwork and all-round skills than Abraham, I could see the result being very similar.

Remember: Froch struggled with speedsters and slicksters. Golovkin is - and was - neither. As we saw against Thurman, Golovkin's forward momentum can be reversed. Froch would have backed him up all night long behind the jab and straight right.

Wonder if Carl was a bit burned out by his gruelling schedule of top 10 super middleweight opponents at this point.

He left on his own terms which is a good thing.

Shame Golovkin struggles to find his "career defining opponent" - he could well have met him last weekend and might be guilty of looking past him a bit.

Dixonian wrote:

Horse wrote:

Ruthless-RKO wrote:I still say GGG.. you cant say based on last weeks performance who would win 3 years ago.. GGG never fought like that 3 years ago.. Froch had zero defense.. if it came toe to toe and Froch started throwing bombs, we all know very well GGG wont hold back.. he'll throw them too.. winner via referee or corner stoppage.. GGG!

Golovkin's best win three years ago was against Matthew Macklin.

When Golovkin's shown weaknesses in the past, his jock-sniffers have jumped out and claimed that he's only showing weaknesses to entertain the fans, or to dupe Alvarez and other top fighters into thinking that he's weak.

Golovkin has never deserved the absurd level of hype he's gotten.

Agree with you here. I've always rated Golovkin but the hype has been silly at times. To have suggested he could step up and take on a true super middleweight like Froch and win... always thought that was crazy. Froch had a great jab and his superior size and strength would have been too much for Golovkin in my opinion. Although Golovkin has better footwork and all-round skills than Abraham, I could see the result being very similar.

Remember: Froch struggled with speedsters and slicksters. Golovkin is - and was - neither. As we saw against Thurman, Golovkin's forward momentum can be reversed. Froch would have backed him up all night long behind the jab and straight right.

Who fought Thurman?

You can argue, GGG has a very effective jab, he's also never on the backfoot.

Would've been a war.

Still think golovkin would beat froch though

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

Dixonian wrote:

Horse wrote:Golovkin's best win three years ago was against Matthew Macklin.

When Golovkin's shown weaknesses in the past, his jock-sniffers have jumped out and claimed that he's only showing weaknesses to entertain the fans, or to dupe Alvarez and other top fighters into thinking that he's weak.

Golovkin has never deserved the absurd level of hype he's gotten.

Agree with you here. I've always rated Golovkin but the hype has been silly at times. To have suggested he could step up and take on a true super middleweight like Froch and win... always thought that was crazy. Froch had a great jab and his superior size and strength would have been too much for Golovkin in my opinion. Although Golovkin has better footwork and all-round skills than Abraham, I could see the result being very similar.

Remember: Froch struggled with speedsters and slicksters. Golovkin is - and was - neither. As we saw against Thurman, Golovkin's forward momentum can be reversed. Froch would have backed him up all night long behind the jab and straight right.

Who fought Thurman?

You can argue, GGG has a very effective jab, he's also never on the backfoot.

Sorry meant Jacobs. I often get their names mixed up for some reason.

Golovkin can get backed up, however. As someone else noted, he's also not a counter puncher. Reminds me a little of Felix Sturm in the way that he backs up in a straight line with hands high. 'You have a go, I'll have a go' style. Even against Murray, Golovkin would back up on the rare occasions Murray would dare throw punches in bunches.

Also, yes Golovkin has a great jab, but I'm not sure it would be effective against Froch who's going to have significantly longer levers.

Whilst there is little point suggesting Golovkin isn't a big puncher I think we can accept that Froch has taken some shots from some very heavy hitters and didn't budge much; not like Kessler was some super-middle Malignaggi was it?

That combined with being far bigger than Golovkin's usual opponents, the bigger man by a fair size, a fantastic engine and underrated skills always made me think Froch had too much. Golovkin had been talked about as a fighter who could step up to 168 but even when that division was crawling with talent he stayed at 160 fighting average opponents. It's not a criticism, but more an illustration that he's a genuine 160 fighter and probably closer to being the type who'd go down to 154 rather than upwards; he looks like he'd easily do a 156 catchweight for example, not that I like them.

Depends what Froch turns up, doesn't it?

The one who combines boxing and fighting to a plan or the one who eats punches and waits too long to throw his own while hopelessly off balance.

DazDiCanio wrote:Frochs classic defense of using his face to block punches would have been disastrous against GGG.

GGG by serious KO.

GGG takes plenty of leather. The reason both guys are thought of as iron chinned is because they've eaten big punches and kept on coming.

i'll stick my neck out and say Frog punches significantly harder than anybody GGG has ever faced.

The only one of GGG's opponents I can see doing anything at all at SMW is Jacobs. Can you imagine how today's middleweights would have done in the super 6? Bar Golovkin and Jacobs they'd all be decapitated.

I think it's really sad that there was never another super six. Probs the last boxing 'thing' I truly looked forward to.

Tomasino wrote:I think it's really sad that there was never another super six. Probs the last boxing 'thing' I truly looked forward to.

It was really good wasn't it?

clopixolacuphase wrote:

Tomasino wrote:I think it's really sad that there was never another super six. Probs the last boxing 'thing' I truly looked forward to.

It was really good wasn't it?

Yes, it was the best idea showtime ever had.

Tomasino wrote:

clopixolacuphase wrote:

Tomasino wrote:I think it's really sad that there was never another super six. Probs the last boxing 'thing' I truly looked forward to.

It was really good wasn't it?

Yes, it was the best idea showtime ever had.

Weirdly Froch thought it was an anti-climax. He felt it didn't have the pizzazz he was hoping for and that it kind of petered out.

Dixonian wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

clopixolacuphase wrote: It was really good wasn't it?

Yes, it was the best idea showtime ever had.

Weirdly Froch thought it was an anti-climax. He felt it didn't have the pizzazz he was hoping for and that it kind of petered out.

He made his name off it

Dixonian wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

clopixolacuphase wrote: It was really good wasn't it?

Yes, it was the best idea showtime ever had.

Weirdly Froch thought it was an anti-climax. He felt it didn't have the pizzazz he was hoping for and that it kind of petered out.

I agree to an extent. You'd think the final would be some massive Vegas extravaganza and it ended up a lot less than that. A brilliant idea that needed better promotion.

dirk2686 wrote:

Dixonian wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Yes, it was the best idea showtime ever had.

Weirdly Froch thought it was an anti-climax. He felt it didn't have the pizzazz he was hoping for and that it kind of petered out.

I agree to an extent. You'd think the final would be some massive Vegas extravaganza and it ended up a lot less than that. A brilliant idea that needed better promotion.

I was just glad the best fought the best. But I do agree with your point. The bickering promotors ruined it.

Oh absolutely - I think as an idea it was superb and a credit to those involved. Essentially accepting several years of rock solid opposition in an era that still had more than enough stay at home defending against WBO ranked nobodies. It was exactly what was needed after Calzaghe's largely wasted career.

But I would have hoped it would have been bigger.

Froch by late TKO

Dixonian wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

clopixolacuphase wrote: It was really good wasn't it?

Yes, it was the best idea showtime ever had.

Weirdly Froch thought it was an anti-climax. He felt it didn't have the pizzazz he was hoping for and that it kind of petered out.

He probably only thought that because he was in a disappointing final with Ward who comfortably outboxed him.

I mean, it's just not going to be comparable with knocking out George Groves in front of 80,000 people at Wembley, is it.

dirk2686 wrote:Oh absolutely - I think as an idea it was superb and a credit to those involved. Essentially accepting several years of rock solid opposition in an era that still had more than enough stay at home defending against WBO ranked nobodies. It was exactly what was needed after Calzaghe's largely wasted career.

But I would have hoped it would have been bigger.

I think maybe Ward being Ward it never took off promotion wise. He's great but boring. All his hometown stuff as well. They did one with Abner Mares in the bantamweight but that never took off either.