Should Dirrell have fought professionally at 160lbs instead of 168lbs like Golovkin?

I don't understand them. He is cool and all. But his resume is worse than Wilder's. Dirk is a GGG troll, not that bright, but not retarded enough to back you up on that, alt

You can't just pick a weight out of the air and fight at that weight. You have to fight at the weight you naturally are. GGG is a small middleweight as shown by his low weight of 165 30 days before his title fight as compared to Lemieux's weight of 176. Dirrell is clearly much too big to fight at 160. He fights at 168 without an ounce of extra weight. He would have to cut off an arm to make 160. Forget about it. Dirrell is a much taller and naturally heavier man than GGG. Mayweather, Pacquiao and Marquez are natural 135 - 140lbs, but they're fighting at 147lbs so don't get what point you're trying to make? Also the point about Dirrell being taller and heavier than GGG, haven't all the guys I mentioned before fought guys bigger and taller than them.

It's funny how you phrase this: He lost to Dirrell at a dual meet with USA vs Kazakhstan, 15-14. Barely, and a year before the 2004 Olympics. ...and in the 2004 Olympics, Golovkin avenged his loss. Dirrell got outboxed by Golovkin, a guy with much less height/reach (4" height, 5"reach). Andre Dirrell is 6'2", he's a much larger fighter. You would usually expect someone of that size in the heavier divisions (hence, why he's at SMW). So if Golovkin outboxed Dirrell and KD Bute all those years ago, why is he fighting boxers of the following caliber currently Curtis Stevens, Murray and Lemieux?

If Dirrell ever fought Martin Murray I'd bet some good money on Murray to beat Dirrell. Do you like being broke or something?

I don't understand them. He is cool and all. But his resume is worse than Wilder's. Why do Golovkin fans try so hard to run down fighters who are much better than anyone on his sh1tty resume? :lol1:If Dirrell ever fought Martin Murray I'd bet some good money on Murray to beat Dirrell.

I don't understand them. He is cool and all. But his resume is worse than Wilder's.You are way wrong about that. GGG has fought many middleweights rated in the 10 best middleweights in the world at time he fought them. Wilder fought the 10th best heavyweight in the world to win his title. EVERYONE ELSE he ever fought was ranked 30th or lower. Wilder's resume is total garbage compared to GGG's resume. No middleweight in the world has fought and knocked out as many top 10 world rated middleweights as GGG. He is clearly the best middleweight in the world. Is Wilder clearly the best heavyweight in the world? Hell no.

It's funny how the careers of both Golovkin and Andre Dirrell have turned out. Both competed in the same division in the amateurs. They fought in the amateurs which saw Dirrell winning. Both competed at middleweight in the '04 Olympics which saw Golovkin win Silver, whilst Dirrell win Bronze. Both turned professional at the same time. Golovkin stayed at 160, whilst Dirrell moved up to 168. Golovkin is labelled a warrior, whilst Dirrell a coward. One has fought mismatches, whilst the other, fighters at his level. One is the next big thing, whilst the other is almost a forgotten memory. Should Dirrell have stayed at 160? Would his career have turned out better if he fought the same people as Golovkin's fought to date? Discuss :boxing: Maybe he couldn't make 160 comfortably anymore?

You can't just pick a weight out of the air and fight at that weight. You have to fight at the weight you naturally are. GGG is a small middleweight as shown by his low weight of 165 30 days before his title fight as compared to Lemieux's weight of 176. Dirrell is clearly much too big to fight at 160. He fights at 168 without an ounce of extra weight. He would have to cut off an arm to make 160. Forget about it. Dirrell is a much taller and naturally heavier man than GGG.

It's funny how the careers of both Golovkin and Andre Dirrell have turned out. Both competed in the same division in the amateurs. They fought in the amateurs which saw Dirrell winning. Both competed at middleweight in the '04 Olympics which saw Golovkin win Silver, whilst Dirrell win Bronze. Both turned professional at the same time. Golovkin stayed at 160, whilst Dirrell moved up to 168. Golovkin is labelled a warrior, whilst Dirrell a coward. One has fought mismatches, whilst the other, fighters at his level. One is the next big thing, whilst the other is almost a forgotten memory. Should Dirrell have stayed at 160? Would his career have turned out better if he fought the same people as Golovkin's fought to date? Discuss :boxing: It's funny how you phrase this: They fought in the amateurs which saw Dirrell winning. He lost to Dirrell at a dual meet with USA vs Kazakhstan, 15-14. Barely, and a year before the 2004 Olympics. ...and in the 2004 Olympics, Golovkin avenged his loss. Dirrell got outboxed by Golovkin, a guy with much less height/reach (4" height, 5"reach). Andre Dirrell is 6'2", he's a much larger fighter. You would usually expect someone of that size in the heavier divisions (hence, why he's at SMW).

Why do Golovkin fans try so hard to run down fighters who are much better than anyone on his sh1tty resume? :lol1:

Dirrel is a mental midget and extremely uncharismatic, unlikeable and is known for running in his fights, look at the horrible Froch and Abraham fights. Also why dont you inform yourself, middleweight at the amateurs is 165 and not 160, no way Dirrel could make 160, he is way bigger than GGG.

It's funny how the careers of both Golovkin and Andre Dirrell have turned out. Both competed in the same division in the amateurs. They fought in the amateurs which saw Dirrell winning. Both competed at middleweight in the '04 Olympics which saw Golovkin win Silver, whilst Dirrell win Bronze. Both turned professional at the same time. Golovkin stayed at 160, whilst Dirrell moved up to 168. Golovkin is labelled a warrior, whilst Dirrell a coward. One has fought mismatches, whilst the other, fighters at his level. One is the next big thing, whilst the other is almost a forgotten memory. Should Dirrell have stayed at 160? Would his career have turned out better if he fought the same people as Golovkin's fought to date? Discuss :boxing: Dirrell won a very close home town decision over GGG in the amateurs that Golovkin avenged in the Olympics by beating Dirrell easily. If Dirrell had fought at 160 as a pro, Golovkin would have already ended his career at that weight and he would have moved up anyways.

Dirrells career would of boosted the way he was beating King Arthur, it was a good fight n he looked great, lol one punch can change everything

Was his lack of drive there due to the types of opponents he was facing though? Would he have been more ambitious if his development was a lot more slower? He was kind of forced into fighting tougher opponents quite quickly with the Super Six. His 21st fight was against Carl Froch whilst he was fighting the likes of Curtis Stevens in his 10th fight. He gave a good account for himself in the Super Six tournament. It's not like he entered the tournament, got spanked, and went on a downwards slope. I thought his fight with Froch was pretty close and he handled Abraham with moderate ease. His problem is that he didn't follow up and I don't think taking his development slowly would have helped matters; he wasn't exactly some 19 year old going into the tournament.

What do you mean move up Dirrell has spent his whole career at SMW he's a bigger guy could never make 160 The same Dirrell that was actually running away from Curtis Stevens for an entire fight (opponent comparison)

Andre Dirrell is one of the biggest underachievers in boxing. He's right up there with Odlanier Solis. The difference is that Solis couldn't stop eating cheeseburgers. With Dirrell it's all been mental. 10 years in the sport and ZERO belts, while basically fighting in one division. Don't give me this crap about him fighting elite guys, he faced Froch and Abraham and after that basically took 4 years off, came back and started fighting total bums. Got another title shot against DeGale and came up short in that one too. Now he's set to face Blake Caparello. So let's not throw around "elite talent" when it comes to Dirrell. He had his two chances and came up short both times. Also, he moved up to 168 because he couldn't make the weight anymore.

Should Dirrell have stayed at 160? I think it's more a question of could Dirrell have stayed at 160, he looked significantly bigger than DeGale when they fought. Would his career have turned out better if he fought the same people as Golovkin's fought to date? He would have the wins but he wouldn't have had the same mass appeal because he doesn't knock opponents out inside 2-3 rounds. Would've avoided a visit to Dr. Shaw-Hi though.

I don't really understand how actual boxing fans can hate on GGG. It would be like hating Pacquiao when he was coming up. NO one hated him when he was coming up. But to each his own I guess.

What makes Golovkin an A-level fighter over Dirrell? Beating no hopers who Dirrell would have handled with absolute ease.

2 different levels of fighters. Golovkin is an A level fighter and Dirrell is a B level fighter. What makes Golovkin an A-level fighter over Dirrell?