Gennady Golovkin vs Martin Murray

[Deserter]

I feel like I'm serving myself up here for a shellacking (a bit like Martin Murray), but what exactly is it that boxing fans are seeing in Golovkin that leads them to think he is "great", or the "real deal"?

We can all see that he's a puncher. But why is there a fanatical desire to believe he's some indomitable monster, on par with anyone in history?

Let's look at him objectively. He hasn't had one single great win, hasn't entered into any 50/50 fight, is defending a devalued WBA belt in a mostly impotent division - and he's already 32 years old!

I appreciate his KOs have breathed life into the dull middleweight scene, and can understand why he is popular, but the raving over his ability, which has so far only been demonstrated on second class opponents, is mystifying to me.

It's not remotely mystifying to me. In simple terms, it's not simply the fact he's winning, it's the way he's winning - you're dismissing him as a 'puncher', but what many of us are witnessing are a fighter who is way more than a puncher. His offensive skills are seriously impressive - the way he cuts the ring off and brings the heat is something I haven't seen since the days of JCC and he's wiped out durable world-class opponents like Geale and Macklin without seemingly having to get out of first gear.
I haven't seen anyone say he's on a par with anyone in history so I don't know where you're getting that from, but on the flip-side you're doing him a great disservice by dismissing him as purely a puncher... he's way more than that in terms of his technical ability.

[Tuan_Jim]

Interesting. But if everyone is seeing this remarkable technical ability, why are they not able to see the quality of opposition?

To cite Macklin and Geale as significant wins is concerning. Geale lost to Darren Barker, and Macklin is no great shakes. I don't mean to be disrespectful of these fellows, I admire them as fighting men, but in historical terms they aren't in consideration. That might sound insulting, but to compare this body of work to that of Chavez is a terrible insult.

For the record, GGG frequently figures in Boxers of the Past conversations. One fellow picked him over the entirety of the 1993 middleweight top 10. That's Golovkin beating Roy Jones, Gerald McClellan, James Toney, Michael Nunn, Julian Jackson. . . .

[Counter-puncher]

Comparing ggg to Chavez' BODY OF WORK is exactly what deserter wasnt- wasnt- doing.

if you weren't so quick to climb on your hobbyhorse of Historical Perspective you might have seen that.

[expe]

Interesting. But if everyone is seeing this remarkable technical ability, why are they not able to see the quality of opposition?

To cite Macklin and Geale as significant wins is concerning. Geale lost to Darren Barker, and Macklin is no great shakes. I don't mean to be disrespectful of these fellows, I admire them as fighting men, but in historical terms they aren't in consideration. That might sound insulting, but to compare this body of work to that of Chavez is a terrible insult.

For the record, GGG frequently figures in Boxers of the Past conversations. One fellow picked him over the entirety of the 1993 middleweight top 10. That's Golovkin beating Roy Jones, Gerald McClellan, James Toney, Michael Nunn, Julian Jackson. . . .

Macklin, Geale and Rubio were top 10 middleweights, possibly top 5 in Geale's case and he crushed them while barely breaking sweat. Deserter didn't compare them to the opponents Chavez beat, just that the way Golovkin fights, cutting the ring off and breaking opponents up, is reminiscent of Chavez. The only reason he hasn't fought better opposition is because they won't fight him, there are no 50/50 fights for him at middleweight, he'd have to move up and even there, Froch isn't interested, realistically there's only Andre Ward that he could fight and it be called a 50/50.

[Tuan_Jim]

Macklin, Geale and Rubio were top 10 middleweights, possibly top 5 in Geale's case and he crushed them while barely breaking sweat. Deserter didn't compare them to the opponents Chavez beat, just that the way Golovkin fights, cutting the ring off and breaking opponents up, is reminiscent of Chavez. The only reason he hasn't fought better opposition is because they won't fight him, there are no 50/50 fights for him at middleweight, he'd have to move up and even there, Froch isn't interested, realistically there's only Andre Ward that he could fight and it be called a 50/50.

They might be top 10 ranked but they are not, in genuine world class terms, top 10 quality. I agree with you though, there isn't much out there. Cotto is the man who beat the man who beat the man, but he's admittedly old, shopworn and north of home.

I suppose we can take from this that in the absence of dangerous, high quality opposition, the fighter merrily splashing along through the shallow end is elevated to 'Greatness by default'. The Wladimir Klitschko Effect, as it were.

[ajwesty13]

hate to put a downer on this fight... but GGG is an elite fighter and Murray is a good fighter but IMHO he alas is not even at world level.. however that said i hope he can do an Andy Lee.. id be surprised if he can last more than 6 rounds..

[Counter-puncher]

Nobody on this entire thread has called golovkin great, tuan_jim. Another straw man

but don't let that stop you bemoaning the current era of boxing blah blah blah change the fvcking record

[Tuan_Jim]

There are innumerable threads on boxrec that see GGG bashing the best ever, my foul mouthed friend. I'm asking a genuine question, would be interested to hear your response to my initial post.

[Counter-puncher]

Go bash your strawmen in those threads then.

i am not quite as enamoured of ggg as deserter but he pretty much covered my views. Nobody is saying geale or macklin are super wins. But beating them like children is quite impressive.

[crusader]

TJ/LG is one of the most miserable posters here. Moan, moan, moan........

[Tuan_Jim]

Go bash your strawmen in those threads then.

i am not quite as enamoured of ggg as deserter but he pretty much covered my views. Nobody is saying geale or macklin are super wins. But beating them like children is quite impressive.

Who are these strawmen? Your colloquialisms are lost on me.

I thought this was a boxing forum where we critiqued boxers. Apparently it's fan club type discussion only.

[SteveDow]

I can't speak for others but what most impresses me about Golovkin is that, apart from the propensity to take the odd shot he should'nt, he does everything else exceptionally well. Footwork, power, great chin, good inside game, good outside game, amazing temprament.

[ajwesty13]

I can't speak for others but what most impresses me about Golovkin is that, apart from the propensity to take the odd shot he should'nt, he does everything else exceptionally well. Footwork, power, great chin, good inside game, good outside game, amazing temprament.

he is great at cutting off the ring to ...

btw His KO of Geale was outrageous he didnt even hit probably as he caught one going in ...

[Boxerbeetle]

Go bash your strawmen in those threads then.

i am not quite as enamoured of ggg as deserter but he pretty much covered my views. Nobody is saying geale or macklin are super wins. But beating them like children is quite impressive.

Who are these strawmen? Your colloquialisms are lost on me.

I thought this was a boxing forum where we critiqued boxers. Apparently it's fan club type discussion only.

I do think you're being unnecessarily negative here mate. Perhaps it's the terminology which has confused things - when people (including myself) have said in this thread that GGG is 'the real deal', I don't imagine anyone means he's P4P Top 10 of all time or anything like that; we're just saying he's clearly not a hype job.

I agree there's some ridiculous hyperbole being thrown around about GGG on CS, but that's hardly a shock - every active fighter is either a 'bum' or an 'ATG' over there.

[Counter-puncher]

Go bash your strawmen in those threads then.

i am not quite as enamoured of ggg as deserter but he pretty much covered my views. Nobody is saying geale or macklin are super wins. But beating them like children is quite impressive.

Who are these strawmen? Your colloquialisms are lost on me.

I thought this was a boxing forum where we critiqued boxers. Apparently it's fan club type discussion only.

hang about, i think i just realised, you're the fella who once claimed on botp that your opinion was to be respected, or a word to that effect, because, umm, you were a copper for about 30 years, and you once interviewed Gary Mason, that was you wasn't it?

[Tuan_Jim]

Go bash your strawmen in those threads then.

i am not quite as enamoured of ggg as deserter but he pretty much covered my views. Nobody is saying geale or macklin are super wins. But beating them like children is quite impressive.

Who are these strawmen? Your colloquialisms are lost on me.

I thought this was a boxing forum where we critiqued boxers. Apparently it's fan club type discussion only.

I do think you're being unnecessarily negative here mate. Perhaps it's the terminology which has confused things - when people (including myself) have said in this thread that GGG is 'the real deal', I don't imagine anyone means he's P4P Top 10 of all time or anything like that; we're just saying he's clearly not a hype job.

I agree there's some ridiculous hyperbole being thrown around about GGG on CS, but that's hardly a shock - every active fighter is either a 'bum' or an 'ATG' over there.

Fair enough. I'm interested to see where GGG goes, and am exasperated that boxing has splintered to such an extent the true quality of the top fighters remains a mystery for years.

I'll be enjoying the fight with the rest of you tomorrow eve.

[Counter-puncher]

That's more like it

[Tuan_Jim]

Go bash your strawmen in those threads then.

i am not quite as enamoured of ggg as deserter but he pretty much covered my views. Nobody is saying geale or macklin are super wins. But beating them like children is quite impressive.

Who are these strawmen? Your colloquialisms are lost on me.

I thought this was a boxing forum where we critiqued boxers. Apparently it's fan club type discussion only.

hang about, i think i just realised, you're the fella who once claimed on botp that your opinion was to be respected, or a word to that effect, because, umm, you were a copper for about 30 years, and you once interviewed Gary Mason, that was you wasn't it?

Your memory fails you.

The copper sounds like the berserk WildcatEddie or whatever his name is, the man who thinks Carl Thompson is 'an improved version of Rocky Marciano'.

The bloke who interviewed Gary Mason might be HomicideHenry, I don't know?

[Counter-puncher]

Ah that's right it was polecateddy my apologies. No idea why i would confuse you

[Tuan_Jim]

It's the most insulting thing that has ever been said to me on Boxrec.

[Counter-puncher]

I rather hoped you might take it as a complement

[Counter-puncher]

Its the closest you are getting to one anyway

[wesshaw1985]

Hughie Fury has a tough opponent here after his lay off.
Hughie, Whyte and Cornish are looking to start leaving a mark on the division...

[Deserter]

CP/Expe, thanks for saving me the trouble guys
Just to be clear, I don't think GGG is the second coming and if he moved up I'd favour Ward to beat him - I could even someone like Andre Dirrell giving him big problems with his style. However, some on here are dismissing him as a hype job, which is clearly nonsense. Geale may not have been anything special in this era of diluted 'world champions', but no-one has come remotely close to handling him like that.

[thepocketrocket]

When discussing what real boxing people think of GGG, just look at the list of 'elite' guys who only consider fighting him.