BoxRec

Murray, Lemieux?

Geale I would say was most accomplished though

Murray.

Geale.

Murray at his best was never more than a gatekeeper. Zero notable wins and he's had plenty of opportunities.

Lemiuex in his physical prime was getting beat by the Marco Antonio Rubios and Joachim Alcines of boxing.

Anyone know much about his amateur career? I just saw a clip of him knocking out Lucian Bute. Also...on another note. He dropped Kovalev with a body shot,Kovs trainer Jackson finally confirmed it. Jackson was trying to spin that Kov just wanted to be friends in there with him and that Kov was out of shape. Come on now.

No wonder he's avoided.

Lemieux, before the fight a few were predicting a risky shoot out affair. Naturally in hindsight "everybody" knew it would be a walkover.

Murray probably his toughest. Don't think he's beat anyone to justify being best name on the resume. DeGeale wins over Sturm, Sylvester, Karmazin better than any W on Murray CV?

Murray is one tough SOB and GGG just struggled to make the type of dent in him he made in others. GGG would probably say he found it more frustrating than tough.

Lemieux imho

Wales wrote:Lemieux, before the fight a few were predicting a risky shoot out affair. Naturally in hindsight "everybody" knew it would be a walkover.

Murray probably his toughest. Don't think he's beat anyone to justify being best name on the resume. DeGeale wins over Sturm, Sylvester, Karmazin better than any W on Murray CV?

Murray is one tough SOB and GGG just struggled to make the type of dent in him he made in others. GGG would probably say he found it more frustrating than tough.

Murray said in a recent interview, he felt as the fight went on, GGG was getting frustrated as he hadn't been able to stop him. Murray nearly took Golovkin the distance even though he was going to lose on points.

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

Wales wrote:Lemieux, before the fight a few were predicting a risky shoot out affair. Naturally in hindsight "everybody" knew it would be a walkover.

Murray probably his toughest. Don't think he's beat anyone to justify being best name on the resume. DeGeale wins over Sturm, Sylvester, Karmazin better than any W on Murray CV?

Murray is one tough SOB and GGG just struggled to make the type of dent in him he made in others. GGG would probably say he found it more frustrating than tough.

Murray said in a recent interview, he felt as the fight went on, GGG was getting frustrated as he hadn't been able to stop him. Murray nearly took Golovkin the distance even though he was going to lose on points.

He didn't win a round though. His only purpose was to survive.

MARTIN MURRAY

Daniel Geale

Wales wrote:Lemieux, before the fight a few were predicting a risky shoot out affair. Naturally in hindsight "everybody" knew it would be a walkover.

Murray probably his toughest. Don't think he's beat anyone to justify being best name on the resume. DeGeale wins over Sturm, Sylvester, Karmazin better than any W on Murray CV?

Murray is one tough SOB and GGG just struggled to make the type of dent in him he made in others. GGG would probably say he found it more frustrating than tough.

What impressed me most about the Lemieux win, was the control he exerted, he knew Lemieux was a danger man, so he completely shut him down, I can't think of a single meaningful shot that Lemieux managed to land flush.

Once he had Lemieux frustrated and negative, he picked him apart - it was a fantastic performance.

Wales wrote:Lemieux, before the fight a few were predicting a risky shoot out affair. Naturally in hindsight "everybody" knew it would be a walkover.

Yeah, you're right. Going into that fight, I figured David Lemieux had a really good chance of winning. By the way, I'm being sarcastic.

It will be brook in a couple days.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It will be brook in a couple days.

And he will be flattened, like the rest. The only question is if Kell does enough to win any rounds. Early rounds he has a good chance that seems the most likely time to bank rounds.

Would be either Geale (who was fading) or Lemuex (who still might not be at his peak). murray's resume is much weaker. A win against Brook might alter things though, if it is an early night then people will say he fought a welter. If it goes past 8 or 9 and there are plenty of exchanges then it Brook will be regarded as a great opponent.

Some fighters can go up in weight classes and take their power and defences with them. Some can't.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Wales wrote:Lemieux, before the fight a few were predicting a risky shoot out affair. Naturally in hindsight "everybody" knew it would be a walkover.

Murray probably his toughest. Don't think he's beat anyone to justify being best name on the resume. DeGeale wins over Sturm, Sylvester, Karmazin better than any W on Murray CV?

Murray is one tough SOB and GGG just struggled to make the type of dent in him he made in others. GGG would probably say he found it more frustrating than tough.

What impressed me most about the Lemieux win, was the control he exerted, he knew Lemieux was a danger man, so he completely shut him down, I can't think of a single meaningful shot that Lemieux managed to land flush.

Once he had Lemieux frustrated and negative, he picked him apart - it was a fantastic performance.

Yeah, it was picture perfect. Fantastic. I din't expect it at all. Golovkin had previously been a little wild in my oppinion. But that convinced me. I want Golovkin vs Ward or Kovalev. To me Kovalev is just a tad one dimensional, mentaly not inteligent enaugh to beat Ward. But he is a big tough guy.

Will soon be Brook.

NateJR wrote:Will soon be Brook.

Not after Golovkin flattens him in 2-3 rounds.

Lackeos wrote:

Wales wrote:Lemieux, before the fight a few were predicting a risky shoot out affair. Naturally in hindsight "everybody" knew it would be a walkover.

Yeah, you're right. Going into that fight, I figured David Lemieux had a really good chance of winning. By the way, I'm being sarcastic.

like I said "a few".

boxing_rocks wrote:

NateJR wrote:Will soon be Brook.

Not after Golovkin flattens him in 2-3 rounds.

Funny how if he beat someone in impressive fashion they were suddenly a poor opponent.

Like a Boss wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

NateJR wrote:Will soon be Brook.

Not after Golovkin flattens him in 2-3 rounds.

Funny how if he beat someone in impressive fashion they were suddenly a poor opponent.

If people were predicting a 2-3 round flattening going into the fight, then it's not one of those situations where people move the goalposts after the defeat. It would be different if people were predicting that Brook was a formidable opponent who might win. People thought David Price would beat Tony Thompson going into their first fight, Thompson squashed him, and people retroactively downgraded the value of a win over Price. This is different. This is like... going into the fight, Golovkin is a 1:5 favorite (and I honestly think it should be more like 1:9 or 1:10). Golovkin is actually a 5:18 favorite to win by knockout. So you would actually get really great odds to just bet that Brook DOESN'T get flattened. If Golovkin did flatten Brook, there would be no retroactive evaluation of Brook's value as an opponent, it would just be like... "yeah, we knew that was going to happen."

Lackeos wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
Not after Golovkin flattens him in 2-3 rounds.

Funny how if he beat someone in impressive fashion they were suddenly a poor opponent.

If people were predicting a 2-3 round flattening going into the fight, then it's not one of those situations where people move the goalposts after the defeat. It would be different if people were predicting that Brook was a formidable opponent who might win. People thought David Price would beat Tony Thompson going into their first fight, Thompson squashed him, and people retroactively downgraded the value of a win over Price. This is different. This is like... going into the fight, Golovkin is a 1:5 favorite (and I honestly think it should be more like 1:9 or 1:10). Golovkin is actually a 5:18 favorite to win by knockout. So you would actually get really great odds to just bet that Brook DOESN'T get flattened. If Golovkin did flatten Brook, there would be no retroactive evaluation of Brook's value as an opponent, it would just be like... "yeah, we knew that was going to happen."

The point I'm making is there are those who refuse to give particular fighters credit no matter who they beat or how impressively they go about beating them.

The fighter in question knocks an opponent out - "oh but that opponent was no good anyway."

The fighter scores a one sided points win - "oh but he wasn't good enough to knock him out."

The fighter wins narrowly on points - "oh but blah, blah, blah."

Nobody is forcing anybody to like every fighter on the planet. But when credit isn't given when it is due it tells people a lot about the poster concerned.

Kell Brook

thomasjkelley wrote:Kell Brook

+1 - 1 for pulling the plug on his opportunity for a tremendous victory or a courageous defeat.

3G should be banned from modern boxing for hurting people

Tanzio wrote:

thomasjkelley wrote:Kell Brook

+1 - 1 for pulling the plug on his opportunity for a tremendous victory or a courageous defeat.

3G should be banned from modern boxing for hurting people

Lol.