What's the Difference Between GGG vs Wade and...

No it's not. Legacies are defined after fighters retire. Your problem is you want to singlehandedly crown GGG today when his career is still a work in process. And Glen Johnson is a puzzle piece on a picture that has Tito Trinidad, Antonio Tarver, Keith Holmes, Kelly Pavlik, William Joppy, Jean Pascal and Winky Wright. If Hopkins never went on to beat those fighters, he would be forgotten and not cared about. Were you alive in 1997? Nobody gave a damn about Hopkins back then. He was seen as a fighter who emerged in a weak division after Roy Jones, Bodysnstcher McCallum, James Toney, Sumbu Kalambay, Julian Jackson and Gerald McClellan left the division. It wasn't until the late 90s/early 2000s until people started to take notice and he got bigger and better fights. In a nutshell, GGG today is on a bigger platform and further into his career than B-Hop was in 1997. That and the fact that no reasonable boxing fan puts Dominic Wade on the same level as Glen Johnson. That's insane. Sorry dude it is what it is but good debate otherwise.

Difference is that GGG is trying to fight all other beltholders and that they are avoiding him like the plague. Wade is his mandatory, he has to fight him, otherwise the IBF could strip him off his title. Also Wade is undefeated, bigger than GGG etc. People hold GGG to such extreme standards that 99% of his possible opponents are trash and 1:100 underdogs. Ward for example tried to fight opponents that were so bad they would get rejected by the commission while GGG keeps calling out the best fighters in his division.

Miles. You said this. Now you can't even come up with justification for this ranking that you mentioned in your opening post to say that Dominic Wade is the same caliber as Glen Johnson. How can he be ranked #3, ahead of Soliman, if Soliman beat him? Glen Johnson is a good win in hindsight because we know he turned out to be a solid fighter. In 1998, they probably did view him as a bum with a padded record. Hindsight is fair game when you handpick a fight from nearly 20 years ago to prove a point that isn't there. For every one Glen Johnson, there is 1000 Joe Lipseys. In Wade's 18 fights, he hasn't shown anything that says he will have such a career. So until proven otherwise, this fight sucks. It's been a good discussion with you PBP. I always enjoy debating with you. If I could send you Green K again right now I would. Take it easy.

Sorry but 7 years and 9 losses later is too far of a time span to say it's a good win. Are we going to give Wade that long too prove he's a good win? But it is what it is. Johnson vs Hopkins = GGG vs Wade. Same circumstances and more than likely the same outcome. Can we atleast agree on that? No it's not. Legacies are defined after fighters retire. Your problem is you want to singlehandedly crown GGG today when his career is still a work in process. And Glen Johnson is a puzzle piece on a picture that has Tito Trinidad, Antonio Tarver, Keith Holmes, Kelly Pavlik, William Joppy, Jean Pascal and Winky Wright. If Hopkins never went on to beat those fighters, he would be forgotten and not cared about. Were you alive in 1997? Nobody gave a damn about Hopkins back then. He was seen as a fighter who emerged in a weak division after Roy Jones, Bodysnstcher McCallum, James Toney, Sumbu Kalambay, Julian Jackson and Gerald McClellan left the division. It wasn't until the late 90s/early 2000s until people started to take notice and he got bigger and better fights. In a nutshell, GGG today is on a bigger platform and further into his career than B-Hop was in 1997. That and the fact that no reasonable boxing fan puts Dominic Wade on the same level as Glen Johnson. That's insane.

It's a crappy mandatory fight like usual from the IBF GGG just needs to handle his business and then it's on to the next!

The difference is one is ATG the other isn't...ask yourself how the ATG became an ATG...there's your answer... Johnson isn't a all time great, he might not even get in the HOF.

Miles. You said this. Now you can't even come up with justification for this ranking that you mentioned in your opening post to say that Dominic Wade is the same caliber as Glen Johnson. How can he be ranked #3, ahead of Soliman, if Soliman beat him? Glen Johnson is a good win in hindsight because we know he turned out to be a solid fighter. In 1998, they probably did view him as a bum with a padded record. Hindsight is fair game when you handpick a fight from nearly 20 years ago to prove a point that isn't there. For every one Glen Johnson, there is 1000 Joe Lipseys. In Wade's 18 fights, he hasn't shown anything that says he will have such a career. So until proven otherwise, this fight sucks. Sorry but 7 years and 9 losses later is too far of a time span to say it's a good win. Are we going to give Wade that long too prove he's a good win? But it is what it is. Johnson vs Hopkins = GGG vs Wade. Same circumstances and more than likely the same outcome. Can we atleast agree on that?

And atleast Wade is rank #3. Johnson was ranked #8. Miles. You said this. Now you can't even come up with justification for this ranking that you mentioned in your opening post to say that Dominic Wade is the same caliber as Glen Johnson. How can he be ranked #3, ahead of Soliman, if Soliman beat him? Glen Johnson is a good win in hindsight because we know he turned out to be a solid fighter. In 1998, they probably did view him as a bum with a padded record. Hindsight is fair game when you handpick a fight from nearly 20 years ago to prove a point that isn't there. For every one Glen Johnson, there is 1000 Joe Lipseys. In Wade's 18 fights, he hasn't shown anything that says he will have such a career. So until proven otherwise, this fight sucks.

Telling the truth isn't hating. Those were all terrible fights and they are too common this day and age. I just don't get how a year ago, Dominic Wade won 2 rounds and didn't deserve to pass Sam Soliman in the Rankings. Then once he signs to face GGG, he's all of the sudden worthy of the #3 ranking and deserves a shot at a top 5 pound for pound fighter. What happened between the Soliman fight and today that made him earn the #3 ranking in your eyes? All he did was drive cars under the influence of alcohol. You still haven't illustrated to me the difference between Hopkins vs Johnson and tonight's main event because there is no difference. and like I said before, I'm not defending GGG vs Wade, because quite frankly there's nothing to defend. But I like to put things into prospective. And when I see people listing Mugabi Eastman, and Johnson as good wins I can't help but laugh at their lack of knowledge when it comes to the history. And there's nothing truthful about calling Jo Jo Dan, Bizier, Wade, Gavin, or Bundu a bum. That's nothing but fan boy hating and whining. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

I never critique Brook vs Bizier or Jo Jo Dan or Frankie Gavin. I can't take part in calling good fighters bum just because they lack special attributes. I can't take part in your blind hate feast. Since you like going through my post history how about you find the one where I defend Thurman vs Bundu or Canelo vs Rhodes or Peterson vs Santana or Kova vs Agnew. Telling the truth isn't hating. Those were all terrible fights and they are too common this day and age. I just don't get how a year ago, Dominic Wade won 2 rounds and didn't deserve to pass Sam Soliman in the Rankings. Then once he signs to face GGG, he's all of the sudden worthy of the #3 ranking and deserves a shot at a top 5 pound for pound fighter. What happened between the Soliman fight and today that made him earn the #3 ranking in your eyes? All he did was drive cars under the influence of alcohol.

That's your problem. We all criticized Kell Brook vs Kevin Bizier too. Nobody is doing this to spite GGG fans. You just feel that way because you are a fan of his. Look. Wade gets props for being a warrior and stepping up to the plate. There is no doubt about that. But he is not ready for this caliber of opponent. You and I both know this so why even try to justify it? Look you're reading into to much. I saw a thread calling this fight criminal yet the same posters are saying Johnson is one of Hopkins best wins. Some of these guys need to be educated and stop living in a revised history world. You can't have it both ways, either you call a spade a spade or stop the revisionist history. Either both fights are criminal or they're both fine.

That's your problem. We all criticized Kell Brook vs Kevin Bizier too. Nobody is doing this to spite GGG fans. You just feel that way because you are a fan of his. Look. Wade gets props for being a warrior and stepping up to the plate. There is no doubt about that. But he is not ready for this caliber of opponent. You and I both know this so why even try to justify it? I never critique Brook vs Bizier or Jo Jo Dan or Frankie Gavin. I can't take part in calling good fighters bum just because they lack special attributes. I can't take part in your blind hate feast. Since you like going through my post history how about you find the one where I defend Thurman vs Bundu or Canelo vs Rhodes or Peterson vs Santana or Kova vs Agnew.

I haven't changed my mind on that, I watched it again and had it a bit closer. But the ref called a knockdown on a clear slip. But Soliman is still heads and shoulders above anyone Johnson fought. He lost several time immediately afterwards to fighters much worst than Soliman and would have lost had he fought a serious contender before Hopkins. And I'm all for better fights, but I'm not down for calling this guy a bum just to spite GGG fans. If that's how yall going about doing it, you can count me out. There's much better ways to accomplish it, like boycotting the fights of Canelo and BJS. That's your problem. We all criticized Kell Brook vs Kevin Bizier too. Nobody is doing this to spite GGG fans. You just feel that way because you are a fan of his. Look. Wade gets props for being a warrior and stepping up to the plate. There is no doubt about that. But he is not ready for this caliber of opponent. You and I both know this so why even try to justify it?

Why are fanboys making excuses there nothing to talk about this is the IBF mandatory fight , GGG is not giving up his belt all the guy talk about in interviews getting all the belts , So why would he just give Wade his IBF belt???

And you know what's crazy Mr. Miles? You're going to play that #3 ranking card like it's meaningful. But you yourself, Mr. Miles hold the opinion that Wade lost his last fight. See Exhibit 1: So Mr. Miles, how do you justify a #3 ranking for a guy that only won 2 rounds in his last fight? How about you call a spade a spade, and support our quest to get better matchups so that boxing doesn't get whitewashed by UFC? I haven't changed my mind on that, I watched it again and had it a bit closer. But the ref called a knockdown on a clear slip. But Soliman is still heads and shoulders above anyone Johnson fought. He lost several time immediately afterwards to fighters much worst than Soliman and would have lost had he fought a serious contender before Hopkins. And I'm all for better fights, but I'm not down for calling this guy a bum just to spite GGG fans. If that's how yall going about doing it, you can count me out. There's much better ways to accomplish it, like boycotting the fights of Canelo and BJS.

And you know what's crazy Mr. Miles? You're going to play that #3 ranking card like it's meaningful. But you yourself, Mr. Miles hold the opinion that Wade lost his last fight. See Exhibit 1: So Mr. Miles, how do you justify a #3 ranking for a guy that only won 2 rounds in his last fight? How about you call a spade a spade, and support our quest to get better matchups so that boxing doesn't get whitewashed by UFC? Owned!!! Are we also going to ignore the fact that GGG is pretty much universally considered a top 3 p4p fighter? That's a pretty ****ty fight for someone ranked that high.

Wade has not fought in a year and looked terrible in his last fight. Johnson looked much better than Wade and was active. Your attempts to compare the two situations to defend this fight are downright pathetic. He looked better against way worst opposition. Guys like Soliman, Vasquez, Bika, and Molina make everyone look like ****. Soliman was still a former champion and much better than anyone Johnson fought.

johnson fought more than once 160 or below :lol1:thread fail Before fighting Hopkins? No he didn't. You should do your homework before making an arse of yourself.

and I take my hat off to Johnson for taking his beating like a man, losing several times afterwards ( sometimes even robbed) and still becoming a world champ. But you can't call this a good win for Hopkins, he fought a green oppponent with no championship pedigree and only went the distance once. You can't change history to benefit your arguement.

Hopkins vs Johnson? Johnson just like Wade never went 12 rounds. He fought at 160 just one previous time in his 32 fights. His 32 fights consisted 90% of fighters with losing records. He didn't start boxing until age 20. He had 3x last amatuer fights than Wade, 10 years less experience than Wade. Was never even considered for Olympic competition. By the way Glen Johnson went on to get the hell beat out him by the vastly superior Hopkins. Losing every single round and stopped in the 11th. And last but not least it was mandated by the IBF. The same organization that has mandated several mismatches over the last 25 years but m'fers acting like GGG vs Wade is the worst of them. And atleast Wade is rank #3. Johnson was ranked #8. Not taking anything away from Johnson, he turned into a very good fighter 7 years and 9 losses later but at the time he fought Hopkins he was green as hell and hadn't even fought a fighter as good Soliman. There's a lot of revisionist historians on this board and no he wouldn't be the best win on GGG's resume. He went on to lose to several fighters severely worst than Lemule, Geale, And Murray before coming into his own. johnson fought more than once 160 or below :lol1: thread fail