BoxRec

Tuan_Jim wrote: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.

Tuan_Jim wrote: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. . . .

expe wrote: 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.

Counter-puncher wrote: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.

SteveDow wrote: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.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote: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.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote: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.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote: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 wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote: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?