BoxRec

ikorolev wrote:Yes, you are a hater, and you are stupid too. You don't understand that basing p4p standings purely on records which often means 5-10 year old achievements is ridiculous. One has to take most recent achievements, fighters domination of their respective divisions and eye test into consideration. All serious p4p sources use exactly that -- a combination of records and other factors I mentioned.

Klitchko was just humiliated by Fury who is not an exceptional boxer.
Pacquiao was flattened by Marquez and hasn't been the same fighter since then.
Bradley ??? The one who barely passed limited Provodnikov and drew with Chaves ?
Canelo who arguably lost to Trout and Lara and who finds excuses to not fight GGG ?

The only fighter you mentioned who could be put above GGG is Kovalev. Roman is another candidate. There are active fighters like Crawford, Thurman, Spence, Lomachenko, Inoue, Rigo (even though he may be too old) who have potential to be above GGG, but that is just a potential at this time.

No, you're an idiot because apparently a guy who dominates his division for ten years against every top ranked contender can immediately get bumped below a guy who has fought nothing but bums and one decent fighter the minute he loses. Klitscko lost an ugly fight by decision, you're talking as though fury just went in there and beat him from pillar to post. It was actually pretty boring and many people felt fury didn't do enough to take the belt from the champion. That's why they're ordering an immediate rematch you twit. Nobody orders an immediate rematch when the champ gets knocked out or has the crap beat out of them for 12 rounds.

By your logic, let's take the 19 year old Tyson before he won the belt and have him knockout some random bum around the same time Holmes struggled with spinks. According to you the minute Holmes drops the decision p4p rankings should immediately put Tyson (who hadn't beaten anyone of note yet) ahead of the champion who dominated every noteworthy opponent for 19 fights and finally lost for the first time in a controversial fashion. Do you see how stupid this argument sounds now? They don't update the rankings every 5 minutes the instant someone loses, circumstances and performance over a decent length of time are also factors.

As for pacquiao, he redeemed himself by beating Bradley in the rematch (the guy who beat the guy who beat him!).

Bradley absolutely should still be in the rankings. He fought provodnikov that way on purpose, he won both the judges and the fans and didn't he get fighter of the year? Do you even watch boxing or do you just like to argue? This is common knowledge. And if you insist on demanding "recent" performances he won against an undefeated 25 year old vargas and won a belt and as a result he gets a rematch with pac.

The lara and trout fights were close, yes, but he still won. As far as lara goes, I saw the fight and lara really didn't do enough to win he spent too much time just jabbing and moving and didn't do enough to stop canelo body shots. A win is a win. Funny you fail to mention he JUST beat cotto.

I've dealt with posters like you before. You are obsessed with a certain fighter who isn't all that so you need to project your insecurity onto others by calling them a "hater". Your strategy has been to completely tear apart his peer's records in order to prop ggg up because you KNOW deep down his resume isn't that great. Why else would you pretend like he's ahead of canelo who JUST beat the lineal belt holder Cotto (a future HOFamer) along with lara and trout. Ggg has...lemiuex. lol.

Funny how you say thurman has the "potential" to be above ggg...their resumes are almost the same. Then again maybe not, thurman won fighter of the year. Seriously, I want you to logically explain what ggg has done in recent memory that puts him in a league of his own compared to Crawford or thurman or rigondoux?

Wow, so many words. Your hate just needs to get out.

I am not obsessed with a certain fighter. I am obsessed with all fighters who get into the ring to fight versus running, spoiling, clinching, headbutting, etc.

... and yes, former top p4p fighters who lose convincingly to a fighter who wasn't even in the p4p list or fighters who grew old and are not the same anymore, naturally slide down in p4p lists. What they did 5-10 years ago doesn't matter that much anymore.

Cygnus475 wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Yes, you are a hater, and you are stupid too. You don't understand that basing p4p standings purely on records which often means 5-10 year old achievements is ridiculous. One has to take most recent achievements, fighters domination of their respective divisions and eye test into consideration. All serious p4p sources use exactly that -- a combination of records and other factors I mentioned.

Klitchko was just humiliated by Fury who is not an exceptional boxer.
Pacquiao was flattened by Marquez and hasn't been the same fighter since then.
Bradley ??? The one who barely passed limited Provodnikov and drew with Chaves ?
Canelo who arguably lost to Trout and Lara and who finds excuses to not fight GGG ?

The only fighter you mentioned who could be put above GGG is Kovalev. Roman is another candidate. There are active fighters like Crawford, Thurman, Spence, Lomachenko, Inoue, Rigo (even though he may be too old) who have potential to be above GGG, but that is just a potential at this time.

No, you're an idiot because apparently a guy who dominates his division for ten years against every top ranked contender can immediately get bumped below a guy who has fought nothing but bums and one decent fighter the minute he loses. Klitscko lost an ugly fight by decision, you're talking as though fury just went in there and beat him from pillar to post. It was actually pretty boring and many people felt fury didn't do enough to take the belt from the champion. That's why they're ordering an immediate rematch you twit. Nobody orders an immediate rematch when the champ gets knocked out or has the crap beat out of them for 12 rounds.

By your logic, let's take the 19 year old Tyson before he won the belt and have him knockout some random bum around the same time Holmes struggled with spinks. According to you the minute Holmes drops the decision p4p rankings should immediately put Tyson (who hadn't beaten anyone of note yet) ahead of the champion who dominated every noteworthy opponent for 19 fights and finally lost for the first time in a controversial fashion. Do you see how stupid this argument sounds now? They don't update the rankings every 5 minutes the instant someone loses, circumstances and performance over a decent length of time are also factors.

As for pacquiao, he redeemed himself by beating Bradley in the rematch (the guy who beat the guy who beat him!).

Bradley absolutely should still be in the rankings. He fought provodnikov that way on purpose, he won both the judges and the fans and didn't he get fighter of the year? Do you even watch boxing or do you just like to argue? This is common knowledge. And if you insist on demanding "recent" performances he won against an undefeated 25 year old vargas and won a belt and as a result he gets a rematch with pac.

The lara and trout fights were close, yes, but he still won. As far as lara goes, I saw the fight and lara really didn't do enough to win he spent too much time just jabbing and moving and didn't do enough to stop canelo body shots. A win is a win. Funny you fail to mention he JUST beat cotto.

I've dealt with posters like you before. You are obsessed with a certain fighter who isn't all that so you need to project your insecurity onto others by calling them a "hater". Your strategy has been to completely tear apart his peer's records in order to prop ggg up because you KNOW deep down his resume isn't that great. Why else would you pretend like he's ahead of canelo who JUST beat the lineal belt holder Cotto (a future HOFamer) along with lara and trout. Ggg has...lemiuex. lol.

Funny how you say thurman has the "potential" to be above ggg...their resumes are almost the same. Then again maybe not, thurman won fighter of the year. Seriously, I want you to logically explain what ggg has done in recent memory that puts him in a league of his own compared to Crawford or thurman or rigondoux?

Overall, decent post, but the point is that 3G is in a league of his own in the MW division, and GingerHead does not belong ahead of him there, period. P4P lists are all subjective, but if you don't have 3G in your top 5 P4P at the moment, you are in an extreme minority.

Far be it from me to have a problem with the extreme minority position, though, since I still maintain that Ramming Speed squeaked by Pac in the first fight, though it could have gone either way. IOW, it was not a robbery.

I also agree with you that these discussions should strive not to devolve into personal attacks, and I apologize for my post earlier on agreeing with you being coined an "arseclown," though I love the term itself

No harm done sir. I've dealt with far worse.

For the record I AGREE that in terms of ABILITY ggg is the top dog of middleweight. Let me repeat: ggg is one of the best if not the best middleweight right now. But there's a difference between "accomplishments" and head-2-head ability. Ability wise I think ggg would win a thrilling war with canelo and eventually flatten him. The only fighter who I see who has a remote chance of pulling an upset is possibly lara on his best day or andrade and even those two might get knocked out eventually.

The only part where I disagree with you guys is saying a fighter can get a boost in p4p rankings purely based on ability regardless of the quality of their recent opponents. Pound for pound has EVERYTHING to do with WHO you actually beat. It's not about what you "could" do and how pretty your combos are in commercials and sparring.

Cygnus475 wrote:No harm done sir. I've dealt with far worse.

For the record I AGREE that in terms of ABILITY ggg is the top dog of middleweight. Let me repeat: ggg is one of the best if not the best middleweight right now. But there's a difference between "accomplishments" and head-2-head ability. Ability wise I think ggg would win a thrilling war with canelo and eventually flatten him. The only fighter who I see who has a remote chance of pulling an upset is possibly lara on his best day or andrade and even those two might get knocked out eventually.

The only part where I disagree with you guys is saying a fighter can get a boost in p4p rankings purely based on ability regardless of the quality of their recent opponents. Pound for pound has EVERYTHING to do with WHO you actually beat. It's not about what you "could" do and how pretty your combos are in commercials and sparring.

"Head-2-head ability" has plenty to do with it. Especially when those at the top of your division refuse to put their heads at risk.

Cygnus475 wrote:No harm done sir. I've dealt with far worse.

For the record I AGREE that in terms of ABILITY ggg is the top dog of middleweight. Let me repeat: ggg is one of the best if not the best middleweight right now. But there's a difference between "accomplishments" and head-2-head ability. Ability wise I think ggg would win a thrilling war with canelo and eventually flatten him. The only fighter who I see who has a remote chance of pulling an upset is possibly lara on his best day or andrade and even those two might get knocked out eventually.

The only part where I disagree with you guys is saying a fighter can get a boost in p4p rankings purely based on ability regardless of the quality of their recent opponents. Pound for pound has EVERYTHING to do with WHO you actually beat. It's not about what you "could" do and how pretty your combos are in commercials and sparring.

your methodology is exactly how to rank a resume. Most people go off the plank thinking their opinion in a mythical fight should count there. P4P is the exact opposite, Tyson fury is clearly the #1 ranked heavyweight because of whom he beat. Ranking him higher than ggg p4p is laughable. Those rankings are folly.

Tanzio wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:No harm done sir. I've dealt with far worse.

For the record I AGREE that in terms of ABILITY ggg is the top dog of middleweight. Let me repeat: ggg is one of the best if not the best middleweight right now. But there's a difference between "accomplishments" and head-2-head ability. Ability wise I think ggg would win a thrilling war with canelo and eventually flatten him. The only fighter who I see who has a remote chance of pulling an upset is possibly lara on his best day or andrade and even those two might get knocked out eventually.

The only part where I disagree with you guys is saying a fighter can get a boost in p4p rankings purely based on ability regardless of the quality of their recent opponents. Pound for pound has EVERYTHING to do with WHO you actually beat. It's not about what you "could" do and how pretty your combos are in commercials and sparring.

"Head-2-head ability" has plenty to do with it. Especially when those at the top of your division refuse to put their heads at risk.

I don't follow your logic.

Let's say there's bob, tom, and rick.

Bob and Tom are champions. They have beaten the #1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9 th contenders. They have also beaten several other highly rated fighters.

Rick is a powerhouse who flattened 20 tomato cans but the only rated contender he beat was the #4 guy.

Bob and Tom don't defend their title against him and are in negotiations for a unification. The other contenders duck Rick too. Is Rick the "best" in his division because nobody has fought him in the last six months...?

Now I could see if this has been going on for 3-4+ years and in the mean time Rick has destroyed 5-6+ contenders and cleared out the division like a sonny Liston or Hagler situation but that isn't the case for ggg. In listons case there was no question about his status because literally no one was left but Floyd who blatantly ducked him for years and we all saw how that turned out.

With gennady there are several young strong highly ranked contenders whom he could be fighting but hasnt and is chasing canelo begging for a match and squandering his prime. Canelo would probably lose if he fought ggg but right now the facts are he has a better resume than ggg. It's actually quite irrelevant if ggg would destroy him or not until they actually fight or ggg does something amazing to be placed ahead of canelo. That's how combat sports have always been.

Who are the several young contenders he could be fighting, which should NOT include JMWs

Saunders actually called him out
Magomedev
Heiland
Eubank jr.
Tony harrison

That's five, some of them are even undefeated and in the top 20.

He gets props for taking the wade fight tho.

at Saunders.

Cygnus475 wrote:Saunders actually called him out
Magomedev
Heiland
Eubank jr.
Tony harrison

That's five, some of them are even undefeated and in the top 20.

He gets props for taking the wade fight tho.

Nice list. Saunders declined $3.2 mil offered to him when both he and Golovkin were available. Now when Golovkin has a fight scheduled, he "calls him out". That is not a new trick.

Eubank Jr wouldn't fight Jacobs or Saunders. Why do you think he would take on Golovkin who is a level above ??? Because he tweeted something ?

How is Harrison who lost to Willie Nelson better than Wade ? How is Heiland ? Magomedov may be better but he is still not proven.

Golovkin fights Wade in order to not lose his IBF belt. If cowards Canelo and Saunders took his fight, he wouldn't need to do that.

At Saunders

He's ranked 4th, young, undefeated, a southpaw, and he's a belt holder. If he's such a joke ggg should take the fight and prove it. His goal is to unify the belts right? Unless he's changed his tune once again...?

ikorolev wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:Saunders actually called him out
Magomedev
Heiland
Eubank jr.
Tony harrison

That's five, some of them are even undefeated and in the top 20.

He gets props for taking the wade fight tho.

Nice list. Saunders declined $3.2 mil offered to him when both he and Golovkin were available. Now when Golovkin has a fight scheduled, he "calls him out". That is not a new trick.

Eubank Jr wouldn't fight Jacobs or Saunders. Why do you think he would take on Golovkin who is a level above ??? Because he tweeted something ?

How is Harrison who lost to Willie Nelson better than Wade ? How is Heiland ? Magomedov may be better but he is still not proven.

Golovkin fights Wade in order to not lose his IBF belt. If cowards Canelo and Saunders took his fight, he wouldn't need to do that.

1-doesn't matter. He called him out. If ggg gets past wade and canelo gives him the cold shoulder again and Saunders offers the fight, it's a duck. Time will tell.

2-it doesn't matter what I think and it doesnt matter if eubank didnt want to fight Saunders or jacobs thats irrelevant. Bradley declined to fight amir khan but was willing to fight pacquiao. If Eubank offers the fight and he declines when his schedule is free it's a duck.

3-don't put words in my mouth I didn't say Harrison was better than wade. He only has one loss why do people act like the minute you lose you should be dismissed? I actually praised ggg for taking the wade fight but you didn't bother to read my post. Pureist asked me to list the young contenders he isn't fighting so I did.

4-Magomedev is ranked 11th young and unbeaten that would boost his stock and ranking if he took that fight. And it's not like wade had an amazing crazy good resume compared to him.

5-I agree with the last part I never approved of canelo running and delaying the fight.

Now can you be objective and acknowledge there's a difference between what you can do and what you've actually done?

Cygnus475 wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:No harm done sir. I've dealt with far worse.

For the record I AGREE that in terms of ABILITY ggg is the top dog of middleweight. Let me repeat: ggg is one of the best if not the best middleweight right now. But there's a difference between "accomplishments" and head-2-head ability. Ability wise I think ggg would win a thrilling war with canelo and eventually flatten him. The only fighter who I see who has a remote chance of pulling an upset is possibly lara on his best day or andrade and even those two might get knocked out eventually.

The only part where I disagree with you guys is saying a fighter can get a boost in p4p rankings purely based on ability regardless of the quality of their recent opponents. Pound for pound has EVERYTHING to do with WHO you actually beat. It's not about what you "could" do and how pretty your combos are in commercials and sparring.

"Head-2-head ability" has plenty to do with it. Especially when those at the top of your division refuse to put their heads at risk.

I don't follow your logic.

Let's say there's bob, tom, and rick.

Bob and Tom are champions. They have beaten the #1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9 th contenders. They have also beaten several other highly rated fighters.

Rick is a powerhouse who flattened 20 tomato cans but the only rated contender he beat was the #4 guy.

Bob and Tom don't defend their title against him and are in negotiations for a unification. The other contenders duck Rick too. Is Rick the "best" in his division because nobody has fought him in the last six months...?

Now I could see if this has been going on for 3-4+ years and in the mean time Rick has destroyed 5-6+ contenders and cleared out the division like a sonny Liston or Hagler situation but that isn't the case for ggg. In listons case there was no question about his status because literally no one was left but Floyd who blatantly ducked him for years and we all saw how that turned out.

With gennady there are several young strong highly ranked contenders whom he could be fighting but hasnt and is chasing canelo begging for a match and squandering his prime. Canelo would probably lose if he fought ggg but right now the facts are he has a better resume than ggg. It's actually quite irrelevant if ggg would destroy him or not until they actually fight or ggg does something amazing to be placed ahead of canelo. That's how combat sports have always been.

To be fair, that is an outhouse load of crap.

Cygnus475 wrote:Saunders actually called him out
Magomedev
Heiland
Eubank jr.
Tony harrison

That's five, some of them are even undefeated and in the top 20.

He gets props for taking the wade fight tho.

Just on the two brits

Saunders called him out after he had announced his latest fight. Plus, Saunders would, without any shadow of a doubt, get flattened by Golovkin.

Eubank Jnr lost to Saunders already, and whilst 21-1 on paper hasnt actually fought anyone of note at all in his 21 wins. He is fighting Nick Blackwell 19-3-1 (8) for the British title next, yep, thats right, he hasn't proven he's best in UK yet let alone, Europe, or ready for GGG.

Tanzio wrote:

man wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:I get the feeling that Golovkin is going to pass us by & we will never truly know how great he was, because there just isn't anyone who wants to challenge him at 160.

yes.

Largely, it has already taken place.

Indeed, you can only beat whats put in fromt of you, unfortunately for GGG he hasnt had anyone put in front of him that will justify a legacy he quite perhaps deserves.

If I remember correctly there was an article on another forum where Eubanks promoter said a fight with GGG was at least 3 years down the track, so really you have got nothing to offer that hasn't been covered before

You're all missing the point.

We were discussing whether or not he's the best middleweight in the world. He certainly LOOKS like the best and I'm certain he would flatten most of the names we've mentioned so far.

Boxing, just like any other sport, is about who you've actually beaten. This whole narrative that ggg is a monster who has run out of opponents and that he has already proven himself simply isn't true. You said "b-But where are all the good young contenders" and when I mention some here come all the excuses and why they're irrelevant or dont generate enough money or theyre not that good. You want it both ways. The SAME bs excuses fighters make for not wanting to fight ggg in the first place and the cancerous casual fans bring it full circle.

Here's an amazing idea: when ggg has actually cleaned out his division we give him his props. Just like...everybody else? Foreman was 40-0 but dismissed by most writers as a crude untested youngster and a tune up fight for frazier. Nobody was giving him props till he won the tile and beat some major names.

Even Ali wasn't put on a pedastol the way some of you do with ggg until the FOTC and he showed he could come back from getting his are kicked and overcoming adversity. Ggg hasn't overcome major adversity and has had advantages in almost every single one if his fights.

Cygnus475 wrote:You're all missing the point.

We were discussing whether or not he's the best middleweight in the world. He certainly LOOKS like the best and I'm certain he would flatten most of the names we've mentioned so far.

Boxing, just like any other sport, is about who you've actually beaten. This whole narrative that ggg is a monster who has run out of opponents and that he has already proven himself simply isn't true. You said "b-But where are all the good young contenders" and when I mention some here come all the excuses and why they're irrelevant or dont generate enough money or theyre not that good. You want it both ways. The SAME bs excuses fighters make for not wanting to fight ggg in the first place and the cancerous casual fans bring it full circle.

Here's an amazing idea: when ggg has actually cleaned out his division we give him his props. Just like...everybody else? Foreman was 40-0 but dismissed by most writers as a crude untested youngster and a tune up fight for frazier. Nobody was giving him props till he won the tile and beat some major names.

Even Ali wasn't put on a pedastol the way some of you do with ggg until the FOTC and he showed he could come back from getting his are kicked and overcoming adversity. Ggg hasn't overcome major adversity and has had advantages in almost every single one if his fights.

You exhausted the capacity of your baggy pages ago.

What advantages has he had, he hasn't got 4 arms

Name one boxer he fought who had the advantage in any of these categories:

-size
-speed
-ring iq
-power
-chin
-experience
-stamina

He does things the right way, a very good apprenticeship, he worked for all of that, he is a small MW, that's not advantages, that's skill

Cygnus475 wrote:Name one boxer he fought who had the advantage in any of these categories:

-size
-speed
-ring iq
-power
-chin
-experience
-stamina

Stevenson had arguably the power edge, Lemuix a size advantage, Geale had speed to his advantage and doesn't the GGG-Proksa fight exist in your world? Anyhow, forget that, so you're saying that we shouldn't yet consider GGG to be the best current middleweight yet, then are saying that he has all those advantages over the other middleweights!? Wow, just wow.

dberry wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:Name one boxer he fought who had the advantage in any of these categories:

-size
-speed
-ring iq
-power
-chin
-experience
-stamina

Stevenson had arguably the power edge, Lemuix a size advantage, Geale had speed to his advantage and doesn't the GGG-Proksa fight exist in your world? Anyhow, forget that, so you're saying that we shouldn't yet consider GGG to be the best current middleweight yet, then are saying that he has all those advantages over the other middleweights!? Wow, just wow.

Sup Dale, this joint is swarmed with dumb. This is the first I've seen of novel boy.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dberry wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:Name one boxer he fought who had the advantage in any of these categories:

-size
-speed
-ring iq
-power
-chin
-experience
-stamina

Stevenson had arguably the power edge, Lemuix a size advantage, Geale had speed to his advantage and doesn't the GGG-Proksa fight exist in your world? Anyhow, forget that, so you're saying that we shouldn't yet consider GGG to be the best current middleweight yet, then are saying that he has all those advantages over the other middleweights!? Wow, just wow.

Sup Dale, this joint is swarmed with dumb. This is the first I've seen of novel boy.

Novel boy?

How's things Saad, good to se you, how have you been mate, how's your dad? Yeah, it never ceases to amaze me the shite that most plebs post on these boxing forums, my favourite is the young guys who think they know it all, they've never even watched a pro bout pre RJJ Korean Olympics robbery and haven't seen the effects the change in amateur scoring have had over pro scoring but I'm digressing, the dumb displayed in this thread by jokers who've most likely never even had heated words with someone let alone an actual organised, sanctioned ring gift is astounding, as is the fanboy/hater dichotomy, I just don't get it?

dberry wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dberry wrote: Stevenson had arguably the power edge, Lemuix a size advantage, Geale had speed to his advantage and doesn't the GGG-Proksa fight exist in your world? Anyhow, forget that, so you're saying that we shouldn't yet consider GGG to be the best current middleweight yet, then are saying that he has all those advantages over the other middleweights!? Wow, just wow.

Sup Dale, this joint is swarmed with dumb. This is the first I've seen of novel boy.

Novel boy?

How's things Saad, good to se you, how have you been mate, how's your dad? Yeah, it never ceases to amaze me the shite that most plebs post on these boxing forums, my favourite is the young guys who think they know it all, they've never even watched a pro bout pre RJJ Korean Olympics robbery and haven't seen the effects the change in amateur scoring have had over pro scoring but I'm digressing, the dumb displayed in this thread by jokers who've most likely never even had heated words with someone let alone an actual organised, sanctioned ring gift is astounding, as is the fanboy/hater dichotomy, I just don't get it?

Pops is well, moved across the country. I hear ya, it's a sad state of affairs. Lol