Page 1 of 2
Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 24 Oct 2016, 21:59
by BAD INTENTIONS
I never doubted the guy until last night.
GGG decided to go "street fight" against Brook, why?
HBO has lined up too many guys who stand right in front of GGG or bums.
I'm not saying GGG didn't outbox guys in the amateurs, but that was a long time ago.
You have to keep a fighter sharp against all styles.
Everything can't be about the highlight.
Example, the Chilemba fight was the best thing for Kovalev.
Without it, Ward would have won 12-0.
Thinking about how Donaire (2012/2013)-like GGG looked against Brook,
I'm not as sure about GGG as I was before.
If he was in with Better Charlo, Andrade, Lara, I'm not too sure.
I hope he get Jacobs for variety.
I don't want GGG to get spoiled by bad match making.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 24 Oct 2016, 22:37
by boxing_rocks
The only guy with a defensive style who seems to want GGG (mainly when Gennady is unavailable) is Lara. However, Lara managed to kill any desire HBO could have to televise him. He refused to make an effort and take out guys like Rodriguez or deliver entertainment in general. Runners/spoilers remember that boxing is a show business when it comes to picking opponents and demanding big purses, but forget about that when they are in the ring and need to deliver a show.
... and I strongly doubt that Lara, Andrade or Charlos would give any serious problems to Golovkin. He would only have problems with much bigger guys which is why he is not in a hurry of moving up.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 24 Oct 2016, 22:38
by Covfefe
I don't think we'll ever find out. I don't think he's ever going to get the fight that he needs, there's no one to fight it.
Edit. Unless he moves up, and they don't seem to want to.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 24 Oct 2016, 23:03
by gilgamesh
TheDarkDestroyer wrote:I don't think we'll ever find out. I don't think he's ever going to get the fight that he needs, there's no one to fight it.
Edit. Unless he moves up, and they don't seem to want to.
Nobody at Super Middleweight has a good enough reputation to enhance GGG any further than where he is now. He'd be a 2 weight World Champion, but people would still sh*t on his resume and say he hasn't fought any big names, and they'd be right because there really are no big names at 168 right now.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 24 Oct 2016, 23:06
by Covfefe
gilgamesh wrote:TheDarkDestroyer wrote:I don't think we'll ever find out. I don't think he's ever going to get the fight that he needs, there's no one to fight it.
Edit. Unless he moves up, and they don't seem to want to.
Nobody at Super Middleweight has a good enough reputation to enhance GGG any further than where he is now. He'd be a 2 weight World Champion, but people would still sh*t on his resume and say he hasn't fought any big names, and they'd be right because there really are no big names at 168 right now.
So he should stay at 160 and fight nobodies? No, he should go to 168 and clear that, you seem to think he's capable. A two division champion would be much better than a one weight champion who treated water and fought no one of note.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 01:11
by BroughtonRulesRefuge
BAD INTENTIONS wrote:
I don't want GGG to get spoiled by bad match making.
- More like you being spoiled by a bad batch of acid.
One dimensional fans loving fast running, light tapping marshmallows. Time to form your own Luv League to gush over and leave the fighters to fight real fights as befits the origins of boxing.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 03:47
by dberry
TheDarkDestroyer wrote:gilgamesh wrote:TheDarkDestroyer wrote:I don't think we'll ever find out. I don't think he's ever going to get the fight that he needs, there's no one to fight it.
Edit. Unless he moves up, and they don't seem to want to.
Nobody at Super Middleweight has a good enough reputation to enhance GGG any further than where he is now. He'd be a 2 weight World Champion, but people would still sh*t on his resume and say he hasn't fought any big names, and they'd be right because there really are no big names at 168 right now.
So he should stay at 160 and fight nobodies? No, he should go to 168 and clear that, you seem to think he's capable. A two division champion would be much better than a one weight champion who treated water and fought no one of note.
Move up to fight nobodies in a less prestigious weight division for, most likely, less money when he most likely could move down and fight some great fights!?

Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 03:53
by Syntax Error
BAD INTENTIONS wrote:I never doubted the guy until last night.
GGG decided to go "street fight" against Brook, why?
HBO has lined up too many guys who stand right in front of GGG or bums.
I'm not saying GGG didn't outbox guys in the amateurs, but that was a long time ago.
You have to keep a fighter sharp against all styles.
Everything can't be about the highlight.
Example, the Chilemba fight was the best thing for Kovalev.
Without it, Ward would have won 12-0.
Thinking about how Donaire (2012/2013)-like GGG looked against Brook,
I'm not as sure about GGG as I was before.
If he was in with Better Charlo, Andrade, Lara, I'm not too sure.
I hope he get Jacobs for variety.
I don't want GGG to get spoiled by bad match making.
Golovkin might have adopted that style because he is slowing down?
It could be similar to what Marvin Hagler did in his last 3 fights when he had lost his speed: he lured Mugabi & Hearns into streefights & pulverised them.
He tried all night to do that same to Leonard, but Sugar was far too shrewd & cute to ever slug it out with Hagler.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 08:33
by Deadendgeneration
dberry wrote:TheDarkDestroyer wrote:gilgamesh wrote:
Nobody at Super Middleweight has a good enough reputation to enhance GGG any further than where he is now. He'd be a 2 weight World Champion, but people would still sh*t on his resume and say he hasn't fought any big names, and they'd be right because there really are no big names at 168 right now.
So he should stay at 160 and fight nobodies? No, he should go to 168 and clear that, you seem to think he's capable. A two division champion would be much better than a one weight champion who treated water and fought no one of note.
Move up to fight nobodies in a less prestigious weight division for, most likely, less money when he most likely could move down and fight some great fights!?

Degale, Jack and Ramirez would all equate to his biggest win. Nobody he's beaten would be favourite over them. I'd probably pick Groves and Dirrellx2 and Chudinov over anyone he's beaten. Despite the clamour for it, would anyone pick Canelo over those fighters?
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 10:02
by boxing_rocks
Deadendgeneration wrote:
Degale, Jack and Ramirez would all equate to his biggest win.
Just because of their size. They are pretty mediocre.
Deadendgeneration wrote:
Nobody he's beaten would be favourite over them. I'd probably pick Groves and Dirrellx2 and Chudinov over anyone he's beaten.
That says a lot about your objectivity.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 10:04
by Covfefe
boxing_rocks wrote:Deadendgeneration wrote:
Degale, Jack and Ramirez would all equate to his biggest win.
Just because of their size. They are pretty mediocre.
Deadendgeneration wrote:
Nobody he's beaten would be favourite over them. I'd probably pick Groves and Dirrellx2 and Chudinov over anyone he's beaten.
That says a lot about your objectivity.
He's right though. Honestly, why does anyone want him to stay in a division with no challenges? What's the point? And given he's just fought a welterweight don't start preaching to me about size.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 10:11
by gilgamesh
TheDarkDestroyer wrote:gilgamesh wrote:TheDarkDestroyer wrote:I don't think we'll ever find out. I don't think he's ever going to get the fight that he needs, there's no one to fight it.
Edit. Unless he moves up, and they don't seem to want to.
Nobody at Super Middleweight has a good enough reputation to enhance GGG any further than where he is now. He'd be a 2 weight World Champion, but people would still sh*t on his resume and say he hasn't fought any big names, and they'd be right because there really are no big names at 168 right now.
So he should stay at 160 and fight nobodies? No, he should go to 168 and clear that, you seem to think he's capable. A two division champion would be much better than a one weight champion who treated water and fought no one of note.
I think being the Middleweight Champion who holds the all time record for title defenses would be a more memorable feat than being a 2 weight World Champion considering that every chump who is half decent gets 2 titles handed to them these days from the cracker jack box titles that are floating around out there. Hell Broner is a 3 weight World Champion and he isn't half the talent that Golovkin is.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 10:31
by Deadendgeneration
gilgamesh wrote:TheDarkDestroyer wrote:gilgamesh wrote:
Nobody at Super Middleweight has a good enough reputation to enhance GGG any further than where he is now. He'd be a 2 weight World Champion, but people would still sh*t on his resume and say he hasn't fought any big names, and they'd be right because there really are no big names at 168 right now.
So he should stay at 160 and fight nobodies? No, he should go to 168 and clear that, you seem to think he's capable. A two division champion would be much better than a one weight champion who treated water and fought no one of note.
I think being the Middleweight Champion who holds the all time record for title defenses would be a more memorable feat than being a 2 weight World Champion considering that every chump who is half decent gets 2 titles handed to them these days from the cracker jack box titles that are floating around out there. Hell Broner is a 3 weight World Champion and he isn't half the talent that Golovkin is.
But given the proliferation of titles and the fact that half of said reign was as "regular champion" what would that actually mean? Subjectively, as a fight fan, would you not rather see him challenged at 168? GGG is right up there with my favourite fighters which is exactly why I want him to move up and be challenged. I'd tentatively pick him against all of those bigger men but I'd much rather see those fights than him chasing a money fight with Canelo that's never going to happen. I'm a fan and want to see what I consider competitive fights rather that "records". Nobody at middleweight is going to fight him.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 10:33
by Syntax Error
gilgamesh wrote:TheDarkDestroyer wrote:gilgamesh wrote:
Nobody at Super Middleweight has a good enough reputation to enhance GGG any further than where he is now. He'd be a 2 weight World Champion, but people would still sh*t on his resume and say he hasn't fought any big names, and they'd be right because there really are no big names at 168 right now.
So he should stay at 160 and fight nobodies? No, he should go to 168 and clear that, you seem to think he's capable. A two division champion would be much better than a one weight champion who treated water and fought no one of note.
I think being the Middleweight Champion who holds the all time record for title defenses would be a more memorable feat than being a 2 weight World Champion considering that every chump who is half decent gets 2 titles handed to them these days from the cracker jack box titles that are floating around out there. Hell Broner is a 3 weight World Champion and he isn't half the talent that Golovkin is.
Spot on.
Sometimes being a so-called multiweight world champion is so misleading.
Sometimes, the difference between some weight classes is a good bowel movement!
Couple that with all the Cornflake pacakge trinkets that are on offer these days; it just makes a mockery of some titlists.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 10:33
by littlepug
gilgamesh wrote:TheDarkDestroyer wrote:gilgamesh wrote:
Nobody at Super Middleweight has a good enough reputation to enhance GGG any further than where he is now. He'd be a 2 weight World Champion, but people would still sh*t on his resume and say he hasn't fought any big names, and they'd be right because there really are no big names at 168 right now.
So he should stay at 160 and fight nobodies? No, he should go to 168 and clear that, you seem to think he's capable. A two division champion would be much better than a one weight champion who treated water and fought no one of note.
I think being the Middleweight Champion who holds the all time record for title defenses would be a more memorable feat than being a 2 weight World Champion considering that every chump who is half decent gets 2 titles handed to them these days from the cracker jack box titles that are floating around out there. Hell Broner is a 3 weight World Champion and he isn't half the talent that Golovkin is.
agree with this, defend your castle and take on all challengers, I know the challenges are a bit thin on the ground but would rather see a boxer at his best weight
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 10:55
by Covfefe
Boxing fans don't want to see fighter actually challenged in a tough fight? No wonder this sport is turning into a joke, if the fans don't even want tough fights why should the fighters even bother?
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 11:09
by gilgamesh
TheDarkDestroyer wrote:Boxing fans don't want to see fighter actually challenged in a tough fight? No wonder this sport is turning into a joke, if the fans don't even want tough fights why should the fighters even bother?
I want to see Golovkin and any other fighter competing at their best fighting weight
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 11:11
by Covfefe
gilgamesh wrote:TheDarkDestroyer wrote:Boxing fans don't want to see fighter actually challenged in a tough fight? No wonder this sport is turning into a joke, if the fans don't even want tough fights why should the fighters even bother?
I want to see Golovkin and any other fighter competing at their best fighting weight
So a fighter should stay somewhere regardless of lack of challenges? Ridiculous, dress it up however you like but if Golovkin retires with a career as he's got now he'll be considered a waste of talent.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 11:22
by gilgamesh
TheDarkDestroyer wrote:gilgamesh wrote:TheDarkDestroyer wrote:Boxing fans don't want to see fighter actually challenged in a tough fight? No wonder this sport is turning into a joke, if the fans don't even want tough fights why should the fighters even bother?
I want to see Golovkin and any other fighter competing at their best fighting weight
So a fighter should stay somewhere regardless of lack of challenges? Ridiculous, dress it up however you like but if Golovkin retires with a career as he's got now he'll be considered a waste of talent.
A fighter should fight at their best weight class I'd imagine yes. Unless there's some big multi-million dollar superfight awaiting them at the next weight class up...which in GGG's case there isn't.
Golovkin still has a lot to prove I agree, and he's still got a long ways to go before he seriously gets into any ATG Middleweight type discussions. He certainly can't afford any more wasted years, and from the looks of things, 2017 will be yet another one of them. I think GGG himself wants the Middleweight record. He's said so, but I don't see any reason for him to linger around in the division long once he's set the record if Canelo and Jacobs and Saunders and all those chumps haven't fought him by then.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 16:16
by SaadOffTheDeck
TheDarkDestroyer wrote:boxing_rocks wrote:Deadendgeneration wrote:
Degale, Jack and Ramirez would all equate to his biggest win.
Just because of their size. They are pretty mediocre.
Deadendgeneration wrote:
Nobody he's beaten would be favourite over them. I'd probably pick Groves and Dirrellx2 and Chudinov over anyone he's beaten.
That says a lot about your objectivity.
He's right though. Honestly, why does anyone want him to stay in a division with no challenges? What's the point? And given he's just fought a welterweight don't start preaching to me about size.
I can't recall a fighter that moved up with no financial gain when they weren't struggling to make weight.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 16:59
by Kalan
BAD INTENTIONS wrote:I never doubted the guy until last night.
GGG decided to go "street fight" against Brook, why?
HBO has lined up too many guys who stand right in front of GGG or bums.
I'm not saying GGG didn't outbox guys in the amateurs, but that was a long time ago.
You have to keep a fighter sharp against all styles.
Everything can't be about the highlight.
Example, the Chilemba fight was the best thing for Kovalev.
Without it, Ward would have won 12-0.
Thinking about how Donaire (2012/2013)-like GGG looked against Brook,
I'm not as sure about GGG as I was before.
If he was in with Better Charlo, Andrade, Lara, I'm not too sure.
I hope he get Jacobs for variety.
I don't want GGG to get spoiled by bad match making.
I'm not sure what you expected... Emile Griffith moved up from Welterweight and beat ATG Dick Tiger, did he not??? ... Carmen Basilio moved up from Welterweight and beat Sugar ATG Sugar Ray Robinson... Ray Leonard moved up from Welterweight after a 3-year-layoff and beat ATG Marvin Hagler... And they were all smaller underdogs who had been beaten before---and upsets like that are not unusual in Boxing... Kell Brook, 36-0, had a hard time making 147 and he makes a good sized and powerful Middleweight.. He got stopped in 5 rounds in his own backyard when most people thought he'd make it into the late rounds.
Now, did Brook tag Golovkin with any good punches??? Of course he did. He was expected to because he's a great fighter.. He put a lot of hard shots on Shawn Porter who comes into the ring weighing over 160 and fought Middleweight in the amateurs.. Brook landed a couple of good shots but he got hit a lot harder and more often in return by GGG.. He won 1 of 5 rounds on my card -- the 2nd round with that great uppercut.. He put up a game effort but he was outclassed.. And I also think Golovkin would have done the same thing if those Welterweights had been Carmen Basilio, Ray Leonard, or Emile Griffith -- because he's not just a bigger, stronger, tougher man with a much harder punch. He's a damned good boxer with great weapons, who controls the ring space, distance, and pace -- which is faster and more engaging than just about any opponent likes. That's why guys like world class Middleweights like Jacobs, Saunders, Canelo, and Eubank are not ready to fight him ...
Hagler was more than ready to fight Leonard -- because in his previous fight Leonard was taken a lot of rounds and decked hard by 2nd rate Welterweight plugger Kevin Howard.. SRL was so disgusted with his performance he quit for 3 years.. Leonard was more than ready to fight Hagler -- because in his previous performance Hagler had holes punched in him by the crude swinging tyro, John Mugabi -- to the extent Hag seemed to be growing another head.. Some people act as if GGG is the only boxer who ever gets hit.. Basilio hit Robinson plenty when he beat him -- proof positive that a short, slow, and crude little Welterweight can tag up an ATG Middleweight and it wasn't a massive cause for concern among Robinson backers.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 17:04
by Covfefe
Did most people think he'd make it into the later rounds? I doubt it.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 18:59
by Kalan
If you looked at the predictions on this board they sure expected it... Brook was a 36-0 World Welterweight Championan, and the first opponent who actually deserved to be in there with GGG... Many Brits, and even some Americans, were predicting he'd score the upset, which other top Welterweights have done in beating the world's top Middleweight... In this case, not a chance.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 25 Oct 2016, 19:35
by Covfefe
Kalan wrote:If you looked at the predictions on this board they sure expected it... Brook was a 36-0 World Welterweight Championan, and the first opponent who actually deserved to be in there with GGG... Many Brits, and even some Americans, were predicting he'd score the upset, which other top Welterweights have done in beating the world's top Middleweight... In this case, not a chance.
That's not how I remember it and just looking at the prediction thread in the U.K. Forum 81% went for Golovkin via Knockout, and only 6% by decision. 1% had it a draw so Brook had 12% of the vote.
Re: Are we wrong about GGG?
Posted: 26 Oct 2016, 06:57
by caldo2025
Kalan wrote:BAD INTENTIONS wrote:I never doubted the guy until last night.
GGG decided to go "street fight" against Brook, why?
HBO has lined up too many guys who stand right in front of GGG or bums.
I'm not saying GGG didn't outbox guys in the amateurs, but that was a long time ago.
You have to keep a fighter sharp against all styles.
Everything can't be about the highlight.
Example, the Chilemba fight was the best thing for Kovalev.
Without it, Ward would have won 12-0.
Thinking about how Donaire (2012/2013)-like GGG looked against Brook,
I'm not as sure about GGG as I was before.
If he was in with Better Charlo, Andrade, Lara, I'm not too sure.
I hope he get Jacobs for variety.
I don't want GGG to get spoiled by bad match making.
I'm not sure what you expected... Emile Griffith moved up from Welterweight and beat ATG Dick Tiger, did he not??? ... Carmen Basilio moved up from Welterweight and beat Sugar ATG Sugar Ray Robinson... Ray Leonard moved up from Welterweight after a 3-year-layoff and beat ATG Marvin Hagler... And they were all smaller underdogs who had been beaten before---and upsets like that are not unusual in Boxing... Kell Brook, 36-0, had a hard time making 147 and he makes a good sized and powerful Middleweight.. He got stopped in 5 rounds in his own backyard when most people thought he'd make it into the late rounds.
Now, did Brook tag Golovkin with any good punches??? Of course he did. He was expected to because he's a great fighter.. He put a lot of hard shots on Shawn Porter who comes into the ring weighing over 160 and fought Middleweight in the amateurs.. Brook landed a couple of good shots but he got hit a lot harder and more often in return by GGG.. He won 1 of 5 rounds on my card -- the 2nd round with that great uppercut.. He put up a game effort but he was outclassed.. And I also think Golovkin would have done the same thing if those Welterweights had been Carmen Basilio, Ray Leonard, or Emile Griffith -- because he's not just a bigger, stronger, tougher man with a much harder punch. He's a damned good boxer with great weapons, who controls the ring space, distance, and pace -- which is faster and more engaging than just about any opponent likes. That's why guys like world class Middleweights like Jacobs, Saunders, Canelo, and Eubank are not ready to fight him ...
Hagler was more than ready to fight Leonard -- because in his previous fight Leonard was taken a lot of rounds and decked hard by 2nd rate Welterweight plugger Kevin Howard.. SRL was so disgusted with his performance he quit for 3 years.. Leonard was more than ready to fight Hagler -- because in his previous performance Hagler had holes punched in him by the crude swinging tyro, John Mugabi -- to the extent Hag seemed to be growing another head.. Some people act as if GGG is the only boxer who ever gets hit.. Basilio hit Robinson plenty when he beat him -- proof positive that a short, slow, and crude little Welterweight can tag up an ATG Middleweight and it wasn't a massive cause for concern among Robinson backers.
Great read here. GGG doesn't get credit for the boxing skills he possesses. GGG isn't some one punch, knockout artist. I can't even remember a one punch GGG knockout that wasn't due from an accumulation of punches. It doesn't matter what style is put in front of him, GGG is going to cut off the ring and he's going to do damage. There's no where to hide in the ring with a boxer like GGG. You may be able to stay away for a round or two but there's no way that pace could withstand for 12 rounds especially when a few body shots take away the legs.
GGG is highly skilled and should get more credit for his ability to do more than just bang. And honestly, with the methodical and prodding movement in the ring, he's got a style that won't be drastically affected by aging. I think GGG could fight past age 40 and still be a dominating, dangerous boxer to deal with because he's built for the long haul.