BoxRec

Good morning friends and lovers. The other day in the Gennady Golovkin vs Martin Murray thread I made the observation that the fanatical praise of GGG by fans and the media seemed to be blown out of all proportion in comparison to his achievements. For this the herd turned on me and I was subjected to a violent verbal gang rape from which I am unlikely to ever recover.

The essence of the response was that I was wrong, I was making it up, no one was over selling GGG (“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”, “I don't imagine anyone means he's P4P Top 10 of all time or anything like that”).

And yet in last night’s broadcast of Golovkin/Murray, I learned that Golovkin, a man who’s major world title claim is holding 50% of a WBA belt, is:

“The scariest fighter since Mike Tyson” (undisputed heavyweight champion)

‘Has surpassed Marvin Hagler in world title defences’ (undisputed middleweight champion)

‘Has the highest KO ratio in middleweight title history’ (but defending 50% of the WBA belt, or a duplicate WBA belt if you prefer)

And beating him would be on par with - ‘Turpin beating Robinson’ (undisputed middleweight champion, 128-1, boxing’s all-time greatest fighter)

- Honeyghan beating Curry (undisputed welterweight champion)

- Hatton beating Tszyu (undisputed light-welterweight champion)

And that’s just a small selection of remarks made during the broadcast. And it is atypical of all Golovkin related media coverage.

Again. Golovkin holds half a WBA belt. Now if that’s not an excessive and fanatical amount of hyperbole, I don’t know what is.

My question is, if Golovkin is as great as he’s supposed to be, why do we need misinformation and half truth to prove it? And at what point, and why, did boxing presentation shift from informing the viewer to telling them The thing which is not?

Who cares what broadcasters say? They always go over the top.

Boxerbeetle wrote:Who cares what broadcasters say? They always go over the top.

Exactly. Can't believe he's still going on rather than evaluating the manner of GGG's victory.

I can believe it. He's probably the most miserable poster here and has stated that he's likely done with boxing after Pac and Floyd, which seems fitting given his constant moaning.

Some of the praise GGG gets is excessive, but commentators go over the top very frequently as mentioned and even then none of the commentator quotes you give equate to assertions of him being 'on par with anyone in history' or him being 'P4P Top 10 of all time'. I also think people in the other thread were suggesting that no one in that particular thread made such bold claims, rather than anyone making them at all.

Curious how you conflate asking questions with 'moaning'.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Curious how you conflate asking questions with 'moaning'.

'Golovkin holds 50% of a WBA title'

No, he's the WBA champion you fornicating belm.

I don't know what a belm is, but Golovkin's WBA world middleweight title is not the only WBA world middleweight title.

Tuan_Jim wrote:I don't know what a belm is, but Golovkin's WBA world middleweight title is not the only WBA world middleweight title.

He's the super champion, Jacobs is the regular champion, so Golovkin is the champion. There's no way you'd claim Rigondeaux was only half the WBA champion and Quigg held the other half, you're just doing it to try and slag Golovkin off.

Jim, you may feel unappreciated, but the True Genius and Prophet always is, in his own lifetime. You're doing important work, fella, and its important you keep it up. All of us on this forum are, without exception, continually proclaiming ggg to be the better.of hagler, Robinson and Joe Louis, and pretty much every other fighter ever to draw breath.

you"re a maverick Voice in the Wilderness, and in decades to come, when the lustre of golovkin has disappeared, boxing historians will look back on your brave, individual stance and nod to themselves 'there was a.man who wasn't taken in by the hype', and strive to emulate your example. Thank god for the precious perspective you offer us all, and more fool us if we don't heed your sagelike wisdom.

either that or you're a bit of a pudendum who cant help picking arguments with things people haven't actually said, to make yourself feel all clever and make out to yourself how naive we all are in comparison. What a fookin hero.

You seem to be of the opinion that the millions of people who watch a terrestrial television boxing broadcast are as clued up about the sport as a small group of hardcore forum nerds like us. They aren't. It's a strange hysteria, and to draw attention to it is to be met with more hysteria.

Look, if you wish to indulge Golovkin worship you have all the boxing forums in cyber space to do so. This thread is a small pocket where an alternative point of view is being expressed. The fact you need to turn it into a personal attack on me does answer a lot of my questions however.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Curious how you conflate asking questions with 'moaning'.

Someone can ask questions and moan (which you do ad nauseum -no surprise that you think you'll soon be done with the sport)....maybe that's tough for you to understand?

if Golovkin is as great as he’s supposed to be, why do we need misinformation and half truth to prove it?

Why are you assuming we need that to prove it? His performances show that he's a very good fighter, and to me it seems like you're exaggerating the praise he receives even if it can sometimes be excessive.

And at what point, and why, did boxing presentation shift from informing the viewer to telling them The thing which is not?

That's been fairly common since I started watching 13 years ago.

Golovkins been the best pfp fighter in the sport for the past 2 years.

Your problem OP is that you won't recognise ability until after-the-fact.

Ronaldinho when he won world player the year said he wasn't even the best player at Barcelona. He ofcourse was talking about a long haired Argentinian kid who had recently broke into the first team. Ron knew he was already the best, he just had to show it to the world.

Maybe once Golovkin is near retirement and well past his prime you'll give him his props, but by that point there will be a new king coming through and you'll be behind the game as ever.

Tuan_Jim wrote:You seem to be of the opinion that the millions of people who watch a terrestrial television boxing broadcast are as clued up about the sport as a small group of hardcore forum nerds like us. They aren't. It's a strange hysteria, and to draw attention to it is to be met with more hysteria.

Look, if you wish to indulge Golovkin worship you have all the boxing forums in cyber space to do so. This thread is a small pocket where an alternative point of view is being expressed. The fact you need to turn it into a personal attack on me does answer a lot of my questions however.

The thing is, you're basically preaching to the choir here. The hardcore forum nerds like us aren't generally talking about Golovkin in the way you describe. We're well aware that he's being hyped up a lot, but I don't know what you expect us to do about it.

And personally, I'm actually pleased Channel 5 went so overboard with their praise of GGG. Partly because there's a chance it will get the general public interested in the remainder of his career, and partly because it may have given the casual viewer some perspective on how well Murray did to stay in the fight for so long.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:You seem to be of the opinion that the millions of people who watch a terrestrial television boxing broadcast are as clued up about the sport as a small group of hardcore forum nerds like us. They aren't. It's a strange hysteria, and to draw attention to it is to be met with more hysteria.

Look, if you wish to indulge Golovkin worship you have all the boxing forums in cyber space to do so. This thread is a small pocket where an alternative point of view is being expressed. The fact you need to turn it into a personal attack on me does answer a lot of my questions however.

The thing is, you're basically preaching to the choir here. The hardcore forum nerds like us aren't generally talking about Golovkin in the way you describe. We're well aware that he's being hyped up a lot, but I don't know what you expect us to do about it.

And personally, I'm actually pleased Channel 5 went so overboard with their praise of GGG. Partly because there's a chance it will get the general public interested in the remainder of his career, and partly because it may have given the casual viewer some perspective on how well Murray did to stay in the fight for so long.

for the second paragraph

handsofstone wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:You seem to be of the opinion that the millions of people who watch a terrestrial television boxing broadcast are as clued up about the sport as a small group of hardcore forum nerds like us. They aren't. It's a strange hysteria, and to draw attention to it is to be met with more hysteria.

Look, if you wish to indulge Golovkin worship you have all the boxing forums in cyber space to do so. This thread is a small pocket where an alternative point of view is being expressed. The fact you need to turn it into a personal attack on me does answer a lot of my questions however.

The thing is, you're basically preaching to the choir here. The hardcore forum nerds like us aren't generally talking about Golovkin in the way you describe. We're well aware that he's being hyped up a lot, but I don't know what you expect us to do about it.

And personally, I'm actually pleased Channel 5 went so overboard with their praise of GGG. Partly because there's a chance it will get the general public interested in the remainder of his career, and partly because it may have given the casual viewer some perspective on how well Murray did to stay in the fight for so long.

for the second paragraph

x 2 Well said Mr.Beetle!

expe wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:I don't know what a belm is, but Golovkin's WBA world middleweight title is not the only WBA world middleweight title.

He's the super champion, Jacobs is the regular champion, so Golovkin is the champion. There's no way you'd claim Rigondeaux was only half the WBA champion and Quigg held the other half, you're just doing it to try and slag Golovkin off.

Right, they aren't the same titles and there is a clear hierarchy.

TJ, do you think Wlad has any more of a claim to being the WBA champ than Chagaev does?

Tuan Jim is absolutely right

It was ridiculous. All that was missing was pom poms and pigtails

crusader wrote:Right, they aren't the same titles and there is a clear hierarchy.

TJ, do you think Wlad has any more of a claim to being the WBA champ than Chagaev does?

You tell me mate - didn't Wladimir and Alex Povetkin engage in a WBA world title 'unification' fight for 24 million euros last year? There's two WBA belts, sometimes three, with all three men defending concurrently. Take it up with the WBA.

I should also say Golovkin defends the 'WBC interim' title - a historic belt with a glorious lineage that goes all the way back to Sebastian Zbik and Jorge Sebastian Heiland in 2009. My granddad still speaks of that momentous battle.

No wonder he's defended these belts more than Marvin Hagler - this prestigious silverware never existed in Hagler's day!

But beating him is 'on par with Turpin beating Sugar Ray Robinson' (undisputed middleweight champion, 128-1, boxing’s all-time greatest fighter), according to last night's broadcast. But question this insanity at your peril.

Counter-puncher wrote:Jim, you may feel unappreciated, but the True Genius and Prophet always is, in his own lifetime. You're doing important work, fella, and its important you keep it up. All of us on this forum are, without exception, continually proclaiming ggg to be the better.of hagler, Robinson and Joe Louis, and pretty much every other fighter ever to draw breath.

you"re a maverick Voice in the Wilderness, and in decades to come, when the lustre of golovkin has disappeared, boxing historians will look back on your brave, individual stance and nod to themselves 'there was a.man who wasn't taken in by the hype', and strive to emulate your example. Thank god for the precious perspective you offer us all, and more fool us if we don't heed your sagelike wisdom.

either that or you're a bit of a pudendum who cant help picking arguments with things people haven't actually said, to make yourself feel all clever and make out to yourself how naive we all are in comparison. What a fookin hero.

Early contender for post of the year from Mr Puncher here.

As an example of illiteracy, it's the post of the decade.

jameswilson wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:Jim, you may feel unappreciated, but the True Genius and Prophet always is, in his own lifetime. You're doing important work, fella, and its important you keep it up. All of us on this forum are, without exception, continually proclaiming ggg to be the better.of hagler, Robinson and Joe Louis, and pretty much every other fighter ever to draw breath.

you"re a maverick Voice in the Wilderness, and in decades to come, when the lustre of golovkin has disappeared, boxing historians will look back on your brave, individual stance and nod to themselves 'there was a.man who wasn't taken in by the hype', and strive to emulate your example. Thank god for the precious perspective you offer us all, and more fool us if we don't heed your sagelike wisdom.

either that or you're a bit of a pudendum who cant help picking arguments with things people haven't actually said, to make yourself feel all clever and make out to yourself how naive we all are in comparison. What a fookin hero.

Early contender for post of the year from Mr Puncher here.

Just stumbled across this pearler whilst on nightshift. Well said ole boy

Ricky_ wrote:Golovkins been the best pfp fighter in the sport for the past 2 years.

Your problem OP is that you won't recognise ability until after-the-fact.

Ronaldinho when he won world player the year said he wasn't even the best player at Barcelona. He ofcourse was talking about a long haired Argentinian kid who had recently broke into the first team. Ron knew he was already the best, he just had to show it to the world.

Maybe once Golovkin is near retirement and well past his prime you'll give him his props, but by that point there will be a new king coming through and you'll be behind the game as ever.

Good post

Tuan_Jim wrote:Good morning friends and lovers. The other day in the Gennady Golovkin vs Martin Murray thread I made the observation that the fanatical praise of GGG by fans and the media seemed to be blown out of all proportion in comparison to his achievements. For this the herd turned on me and I was subjected to a violent verbal gang rape from which I am unlikely to ever recover.

The essence of the response was that I was wrong, I was making it up, no one was over selling GGG (“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”, “I don't imagine anyone means he's P4P Top 10 of all time or anything like that”).

And yet in last night’s broadcast of Golovkin/Murray, I learned that Golovkin, a man who’s major world title claim is holding 50% of a WBA belt, is:

“The scariest fighter since Mike Tyson” (undisputed heavyweight champion)

‘Has surpassed Marvin Hagler in world title defences’ (undisputed middleweight champion)

‘Has the highest KO ratio in middleweight title history’ (but defending 50% of the WBA belt, or a duplicate WBA belt if you prefer)

And beating him would be on par with - ‘Turpin beating Robinson’ (undisputed middleweight champion, 128-1, boxing’s all-time greatest fighter)

- Honeyghan beating Curry (undisputed welterweight champion)

- Hatton beating Tszyu (undisputed light-welterweight champion)

And that’s just a small selection of remarks made during the broadcast. And it is atypical of all Golovkin related media coverage.

Again. Golovkin holds half a WBA belt. Now if that’s not an excessive and fanatical amount of hyperbole, I don’t know what is.

My question is, if Golovkin is as great as he’s supposed to be, why do we need misinformation and half truth to prove it? And at what point, and why, did boxing presentation shift from informing the viewer to telling them The thing which is not?

You are right.



Not saying Golovkin is a hype job but comparing him to Robinson and Hagler is - misleading to say the least.

And if folk think hyping up untruths is part of the sport - that is why our sport is in shite state.

NB: Feel free to disagree with the above, some like hype, I personally don't but I understand this is all down to taste.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Good morning friends and lovers.

You said you'd keep quiet about last night.

Joking aside, and yes my joke was hilarious, I think that Tuan_Jim partially has a point. The Channel 5 pundits were a bit OTT.

Obviously, that can be said for a lot of sports commentary. However it's so common in boxing, it's par for the course and we don't notice it as much any more. It's not like GGG is the first person or last person they'll do it about. As annoying as it is, that's what boxing is these days.