BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:

Horse wrote:Pavlik and Taylor might well have both beaten Golovkin.

He's not beaten anyone better than either of them on paper.

I think Jacobs and Lemieux are underrated , Lemieux is a very good Fighter and GGG declassed him , he dominated and wrecked him , beat the sh** out of him .
I think Pavlik and Taylor are not a lot better than Lemieux , also it is nonsense to compare Eras.
Povetkin the big fat lumbering Bum would have beaten Jack Johnson , is he a greater Fighter than him ? Absolutely not , you cannot compare Eras , this is Bulls*** , get outta here , GGG is a great Fighter and i am not even a big Fan , you have to accept it

Lemieux is overrated as hell. Johnson would have butchered Povetkin.

Boxing developed for 100 years , Jack Johnson from 100 years ago could not beat Alexander Povetkin , but even if it is your Opinion , we will never know , so it is nonsense to compare Eras

Niko1209 wrote:Boxing developed for 100 years , Jack Johnson from 100 years ago could not beat Alexander Povetkin , but even if it is your Opinion , we will never know , so it is nonsense to compare Eras

No, it isn't.

That's what being an ATG or not is all about.

If you don't want to compare fighters from different eras then get out of an ATG discussion.

Niko1209 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:
I think Jacobs and Lemieux are underrated , Lemieux is a very good Fighter and GGG declassed him , he dominated and wrecked him , beat the sh** out of him .
I think Pavlik and Taylor are not a lot better than Lemieux , also it is nonsense to compare Eras.
Povetkin the big fat lumbering Bum would have beaten Jack Johnson , is he a greater Fighter than him ? Absolutely not , you cannot compare Eras , this is Bulls*** , get outta here , GGG is a great Fighter and i am not even a big Fan , you have to accept it

Lemieux is overrated as hell. Johnson would have butchered Povetkin.

Boxing developed for 100 years , Jack Johnson from 100 years ago could not beat Alexander Povetkin , but even if it is your Opinion , we will never know , so it is nonsense to compare Eras

One thing that isn't arguable is that men as a whole were miles tougher than they are now and boxers were much better conditioned. If you find comparing era's so foolish you might not want to offer specific examples. People probably will respond.

Horse wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:Boxing developed for 100 years , Jack Johnson from 100 years ago could not beat Alexander Povetkin , but even if it is your Opinion , we will never know , so it is nonsense to compare Eras

No, it isn't.

That's what being an ATG or not is all about.

If you don't want to compare fighters from different eras then get out of an ATG discussion.

Can you be an ATG with just beating the best in your era?

Horse wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:Boxing developed for 100 years , Jack Johnson from 100 years ago could not beat Alexander Povetkin , but even if it is your Opinion , we will never know , so it is nonsense to compare Eras

No, it isn't.

That's what being an ATG or not is all about.

If you don't want to compare fighters from different eras then get out of an ATG discussion.

You can compare resumes , but not Fighters , you cannot say if a Top Fighter from a different Era would have beaten a Top Fighter from this era , that is my Point , you surely can compare the Resumes of both Fighters and you have to do

Niko1209 wrote:

Horse wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:Boxing developed for 100 years , Jack Johnson from 100 years ago could not beat Alexander Povetkin , but even if it is your Opinion , we will never know , so it is nonsense to compare Eras

No, it isn't.

That's what being an ATG or not is all about.

If you don't want to compare fighters from different eras then get out of an ATG discussion.

You can compare resumes , but not Fighters , you cannot say if a Top Fighter from a different Era would have beaten a Top Fighter from this era , that is my Point , you surely can compare the Resumes of both Fighters and you have to do

Even though I don't agree about you think GGG is ATG. I do agree its really difficult to compare eras. I agree its silly.

world ranked wrote:Can you be an ATG with just beating the best in your era?

Yes.

Golovkin hasn't done that though.

Ricky_ wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Who really considers Golovkin an ATG right now? If he's an ATG then so are Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor.

I consider GGG an all time great, but i don't consider Pavlik or Taylor greats.

Why?

Because Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight since Hagler, possibly better. Pavlik and Taylor clearly aren't.

Clearly the best MW since Hagler? Then what is Jacobs, the 2nd best MW since Hagler?

I like Golovkin a lot, but his resume does not stack up to Hopkins or even Sergio Martinez.

jujigatame wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Who really considers Golovkin an ATG right now? If he's an ATG then so are Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor.

I consider GGG an all time great, but i don't consider Pavlik or Taylor greats.

Why?

Because Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight since Hagler, possibly better. Pavlik and Taylor clearly aren't.

Clearly the best MW since Hagler? Then what is Jacobs, the 2nd best MW since Hagler?

I like Golovkin a lot, but his resume does not stack up to Hopkins or even Sergio Martinez.

I agree with your overall point, but the bolded bit doesn't make sense. Great fighters have, on occasion, had tough fights. I imagine most would class Ali the best of the 70's. Do you have Norton 2nd best since he beat Ali and gave him fits each fight?

You can only compare how dominant any fighter is in their own era. The rest is guesswork and opinion.

However, the facts are that because of advances in training, diet, and rehydration techniques (and these are just the legal ones), fighters today are simply bigger and stronger than those of yesteryear. Jacobs and Alvarez are huge middleweights by any standard. And as great a fighter Marciano was, I doubt whether all his work rate, stamina, pressure speed and power would avail against someone like Vitali Klitschko. Just not big enough, size also matters in boxing. Besides, Rocky doesn't need to prove anything, he's definitely an all-time great.

In this era Golovkin has been as dominant as any previous middleweight. Like I said, you can only compare fighters in their own era, the rest us guesswork and opinion. We could argue about things like natural talent and greatness forever and still get nowhere. Then there are those who would remain unconvinced even if GGG knocks out Canelo, then moves up and beats both Kovalev and Ward.

We should also remember that Marvin Hagler always felt that he was never given his due throughout his career. No matter who he beat and what he did. In fact, so much so, that it drove him from the sport after his contentious loss to Leonard.

Thomastearns wrote:You can only compare how dominant any fighter is in their own era. The rest is guesswork and opinion.

However, the facts are that because of advances in training, diet, and rehydration techniques (and these are just the legal ones), fighters today are simply bigger and stronger than those of yesteryear. Jacobs and Alvarez are huge middleweights by any standard. And as great a fighter Marciano was, I doubt whether all his work rate, stamina, pressure speed and power would avail against someone like Vitali Klitschko. Just not big enough, size also matters in boxing. Besides, Rocky doesn't need to prove anything, he's definitely an all-time great.

In this era Golovkin has been as dominant as any previous middleweight. Like I said, you can only compare fighters in their own era, the rest us guesswork and opinion. We could argue about things like natural talent and greatness forever and still get nowhere. Then there are those who would remain unconvinced even if GGG knocks out Canelo, then moves up and beats both Kovalev and Ward.

We should also remember that Marvin Hagler always felt that he was never given his due throughout his career. No matter who he beat and what he did. In fact, so much so, that it drove him from the sport after his contentious loss to Leonard.

I couldnt agree more with you

jujigatame wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Who really considers Golovkin an ATG right now? If he's an ATG then so are Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor.

I consider GGG an all time great, but i don't consider Pavlik or Taylor greats.

Why?

Because Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight since Hagler, possibly better. Pavlik and Taylor clearly aren't.

Clearly the best MW since Hagler? Then what is Jacobs, the 2nd best MW since Hagler?

I like Golovkin a lot, but his resume does not stack up to Hopkins or even Sergio Martinez.

Do you think Golovkin is a better fighter than Martinez?

Ricky_ wrote:

jujigatame wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

I consider GGG an all time great, but i don't consider Pavlik or Taylor greats.

Why?

Because Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight since Hagler, possibly better. Pavlik and Taylor clearly aren't.

Clearly the best MW since Hagler? Then what is Jacobs, the 2nd best MW since Hagler?

I like Golovkin a lot, but his resume does not stack up to Hopkins or even Sergio Martinez.

Do you think Golovkin is a better fighter than Martinez?

What does that have to do with his point? People should try and go a month without missing a prediction before they use their prognosticating genius to make all time lists.

Niko1209 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:
I think Jacobs and Lemieux are underrated , Lemieux is a very good Fighter and GGG declassed him , he dominated and wrecked him , beat the sh** out of him .
I think Pavlik and Taylor are not a lot better than Lemieux , also it is nonsense to compare Eras.
Povetkin the big fat lumbering Bum would have beaten Jack Johnson , is he a greater Fighter than him ? Absolutely not , you cannot compare Eras , this is Bulls*** , get outta here , GGG is a great Fighter and i am not even a big Fan , you have to accept it

Lemieux is overrated as hell. Johnson would have butchered Povetkin.

Boxing developed for 100 years , Jack Johnson from 100 years ago could not beat Alexander Povetkin , but even if it is your Opinion , we will never know , so it is nonsense to compare Eras

Jack Johnson could fight more than 8 rounds without getting tired though.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

jujigatame wrote:
Clearly the best MW since Hagler? Then what is Jacobs, the 2nd best MW since Hagler?

I like Golovkin a lot, but his resume does not stack up to Hopkins or even Sergio Martinez.

Do you think Golovkin is a better fighter than Martinez?

What does that have to do with his point? People should try and go a month without missing a prediction before they use their prognosticating genius to make all time lists.

My point is that resume isn't everything, and not every fighter has the pleasure of a great contemporary to prove how good they are. Martinez may have a better resume, but if you believe Golovkin is a better fighter it proves my point, you would have to reach that conclusion not by comparing resumes but being objective in assessing their ability from the performances they've put in.

Ricky_ wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

Do you think Golovkin is a better fighter than Martinez?

What does that have to do with his point? People should try and go a month without missing a prediction before they use their prognosticating genius to make all time lists.

My point is that resume isn't everything, and not every fighter has the pleasure of a great contemporary to prove how good they are. Martinez may have a better resume, but if you believe Golovkin is a better fighter it proves my point, you would have to reach that conclusion not by comparing resumes but being objective in assessing their ability from the performances they've put in.

Golovkin would have absolutely wrecked Martinez in my opinion, similiar like he did with Lemieux

Ricky_ wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

Do you think Golovkin is a better fighter than Martinez?

What does that have to do with his point? People should try and go a month without missing a prediction before they use their prognosticating genius to make all time lists.

My point is that resume isn't everything, and not every fighter has the pleasure of a great contemporary to prove how good they are. Martinez may have a better resume, but if you believe Golovkin is a better fighter it proves my point, you would have to reach that conclusion not by comparing resumes but being objective in assessing their ability from the performances they've put in.

Picking a fight is picking a fight. Evaluating a career is looking at their resumes. I think Sergio and GGG are pretty close in that regard. Sergio has two greater wins, but he only had a handful of fights at the weight.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
What does that have to do with his point? People should try and go a month without missing a prediction before they use their prognosticating genius to make all time lists.

My point is that resume isn't everything, and not every fighter has the pleasure of a great contemporary to prove how good they are. Martinez may have a better resume, but if you believe Golovkin is a better fighter it proves my point, you would have to reach that conclusion not by comparing resumes but being objective in assessing their ability from the performances they've put in.

Picking a fight is picking a fight. Evaluating a career is looking at their resumes. I think Sergio and GGG are pretty close in that regard. Sergio has two greater wins, but he only had a handful of fights at the weight.

But picking a better fighter is different. Golovkin has more ability than Martinez in most areas imo.

Ricky_ wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

My point is that resume isn't everything, and not every fighter has the pleasure of a great contemporary to prove how good they are. Martinez may have a better resume, but if you believe Golovkin is a better fighter it proves my point, you would have to reach that conclusion not by comparing resumes but being objective in assessing their ability from the performances they've put in.

Picking a fight is picking a fight. Evaluating a career is looking at their resumes. I think Sergio and GGG are pretty close in that regard. Sergio has two greater wins, but he only had a handful of fights at the weight.

But picking a better fighter is different. Golovkin has more ability than Martinez in most areas imo.

I don't disagree, you just can't know unless they meet. That's why resume is the best way to evaluate guys that never fought. The trouble he had with Jacobs turning southpaw and using movement leaves me much less confident over a prime version of Martinez than I was last Friday. GGG is definitely more powerful and has a better chin. Sergio is definitely more mobile and faster. Close all around.

Ricky_ wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

My point is that resume isn't everything, and not every fighter has the pleasure of a great contemporary to prove how good they are. Martinez may have a better resume, but if you believe Golovkin is a better fighter it proves my point, you would have to reach that conclusion not by comparing resumes but being objective in assessing their ability from the performances they've put in.

Picking a fight is picking a fight. Evaluating a career is looking at their resumes. I think Sergio and GGG are pretty close in that regard. Sergio has two greater wins, but he only had a handful of fights at the weight.

But picking a better fighter is different. Golovkin has more ability than Martinez in most areas imo.

Yes , Martinez had his Prime in his mid to late Thirties and when you look at his Fights with Macklin and Murray and compare that to the Fights Golovkin had with both of them , Golovkin is clearly on another Level , Martinez was between Lemieux and Jacobs , a little bit better than Lemieux and a little bit worse than jacobs or on the same Level when it comes to Ability

I think Martinez circa 2011 could have beaten the current version of GGG. Not that he would have done it easily, but I think he could have done it.

GGG is great, but he's fought so much overmatched opposition it's hard to know how great. Jacobs was his toughest opponent ever and he BARELY squeaked by him.

Sergio had the best win between him and GGG, although he had a very short window in which he was really impressive. His Williams, Pavlik, and Dzin wins are sandwiched between the Cintron draw (should've been an 8-4/7-5 win, but not impressive) and tough fights with Barker and Macklin, the latter of which saw him behind for most of the bout. He also scored arguably his most impressive win over a career JMW/WW who did pretty much nothing at MW aside from beating him, but that gets back to the question of how good Martinez was. I'm also not sure if Dzin, one of Sergio's circa 2010 blowouts, was even as good as Proksa at MW....

Overall, I get the impression that GGG was the better fighter, but Martinez was fortunate to have a notable MW like Pavlik around to prove himself against.

crusader wrote:Sergio had the best win between him and GGG, although he had a very short window in which he was really impressive. His Williams, Pavlik, and Dzin wins are sandwiched between the Cintron draw (should've been an 8-4/7-5 win, but not impressive) and tough fights with Barker and Macklin, the latter of which saw him behind for most of the bout. He also scored arguably his most impressive win over someone who did pretty much nothing at 160, and not exactly a whole lot at 154 aside from beating him, but that gets back to the question of how good Martinez was. I'm also not sure if Dzin was even as good as Proksa's at MW....

Overall, I get the impression that GGG was the better fighter, but Martinez was fortunate to have a notable MW like Pavlik around to prove himself against.

I think a lot of people agree with what you just said. To me in a head to head opinion I think GGG would win but Martinez should be considered higher on middleweight list because he beat better guys than GGG.

Ricky_ wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

Do you think Golovkin is a better fighter than Martinez?

What does that have to do with his point? People should try and go a month without missing a prediction before they use their prognosticating genius to make all time lists.

My point is that resume isn't everything, and not every fighter has the pleasure of a great contemporary to prove how good they are. Martinez may have a better resume, but if you believe Golovkin is a better fighter it proves my point, you would have to reach that conclusion not by comparing resumes but being objective in assessing their ability from the performances they've put in.

Resume should be the basis of how good a fighter is.

Horse wrote:

world ranked wrote:Can you be an ATG with just beating the best in your era?

Yes.

Golovkin hasn't done that though.

He has beat the best middleweights in his era though they might not have been that good.