Who handled Dirrell better?

Ummm. Yes. I know. I was alluding to the fact that that prior to the knockout the fight looked fiercely competitive at a casual viewing - as did the Dirrell fight - when actually in both cases Golovkin was comfortably ahead on the cards. Bute did give Golovkin some problems in the fight.

No doubt that this former European lightweight contender Martin Kristjansen handled Dirrell better than both: https://youtu.be/-fJpylQgOHM Scooled. Kayoed. By a small lightweight.

GGG KO'ed Bute in brutal 1 punch fashion Ummm. Yes. I know. I was alluding to the fact that that prior to the knockout the fight looked fiercely competitive at a casual viewing - as did the Dirrell fight - when actually in both cases Golovkin was comfortably ahead on the cards.

Sure. I'll bite. AFAIK GGG - Dirrell 2 (the one in the US which Andre won) has no footage but unless there was some egregious bias in the scoring one has to assume that GGG didn't handle Dirrell very well, nor did he look particularly impressive in beating Dre in the Olympics: first time I watched i certainly saw it closer than the cards indicate (as with GGG - Bute) but subsequent viewings do show that GGG landed significantly more 'clean' shots. Degale vs Dirrell - Dirrell loooked like sh1t (or Degale looked brilliant - matter of perspective I guess) through to about round 6 + the 2 KDs then Degale faded - as usual - and Dre took over in the second half. I can't remember my scores at the time, but the 114 - 112 (which could be looked at as 8 - 6 or 24 - 18 if the scoring systems were remotely comparable) given by 2 judges seems about right. Compare to the 18 - 23 vs Golovkin and I'd say the victories over Dirrelll are of a similar magnitude - maybe with GGG having the edge. But then, of course, GGG has that razor thin loss to Dirrell in the States - I would like to see that one - which has to give the edge to Chunky overall. GGG KO'ed Bute in brutal 1 punch fashion

Sure. I'll bite. AFAIK GGG - Dirrell 2 (the one in the US which Andre won) has no footage but unless there was some egregious bias in the scoring one has to assume that GGG didn't handle Dirrell very well, nor did he look particularly impressive in beating Dre in the Olympics: first time I watched i certainly saw it closer than the cards indicate (as with GGG - Bute) but subsequent viewings do show that GGG landed significantly more 'clean' shots. Degale vs Dirrell - Dirrell loooked like sh1t (or Degale looked brilliant - matter of perspective I guess) through to about round 6 + the 2 KDs then Degale faded - as usual - and Dre took over in the second half. I can't remember my scores at the time, but the 114 - 112 (which could be looked at as 8 - 6 or 24 - 18 if the scoring systems were remotely comparable) given by 2 judges seems about right. Compare to the 18 - 23 vs Golovkin and I'd say the victories over Dirrelll are of a similar magnitude - maybe with GGG having the edge. But then, of course, GGG has that razor thin loss to Dirrell in the States - I would like to see that one - which has to give the edge to Chunky overall. You're a fair man.

Seriously, you Golovkin fanboys are incredible... Why not just admit that DeGale did a better job? I'm not saying he's better than Golovkin or anything. Sure. I'll bite. AFAIK GGG - Dirrell 2 (the one in the US which Andre won) has no footage but unless there was some egregious bias in the scoring one has to assume that GGG didn't handle Dirrell very well, nor did he look particularly impressive in beating Dre in the Olympics: first time I watched i certainly saw it closer than the cards indicate (as with GGG - Bute) but subsequent viewings do show that GGG landed significantly more 'clean' shots. Degale vs Dirrell - Dirrell loooked like sh1t (or Degale looked brilliant - matter of perspective I guess) through to about round 6 + the 2 KDs then Degale faded - as usual - and Dre took over in the second half. I can't remember my scores at the time, but the 114 - 112 (which could be looked at as 8 - 6 or 24 - 18 if the scoring systems were remotely comparable) given by 2 judges seems about right. Compare to the 18 - 23 vs Golovkin and I'd say the victories over Dirrelll are of a similar magnitude - maybe with GGG having the edge. But then, of course, GGG has that razor thin loss to Dirrell in the States - I would like to see that one - which has to give the edge to Chunky overall.

Seriously, you Golovkin fanboys are incredible... Why not just admit that DeGale did a better job? I'm not saying he's better than Golovkin or anything. This has absolutely nothing to do with Golovkin fanboyism or hate. The comparison is silly. Your main argument is that Golovkin lost vs. Dirrell in some random encounter in Mississippi and that Dirrell was knocked down twice by DeGale. The knockdowns tell me absolutely nothing. Amateurs have significantly less KDs due to different gloves and headgear, as well as length of the fight. Your term term 'convincingly' is arguable - as two of the refs scored the fight as a draw less the knockdowns (114-112). And do I care about the fight that Dirrell won? I do not. There's no video of that first fight, and I have no idea what he 'won'. There is a video of their Olympics fight, a video that shows Andre dropping a decision against Golovkin despite being significantly bigger. Per the stats, he's 3 inches taller and has a 5 inch reach advantage. If I was a troll I'd tell you that considering the circumstances Golovin did a better job and that he's the greatest and you all suck. But I'm not. The comparison makes no sense since it's completely different set of rules. When you add the 11 years timegap between the fights, it's ridiculous.

I don't know if you're not understanding me or are refusing to acknowledge it. You're asking me to choose between between Golovkin and DeGale if Golovkin and Andre Dirrell had a cookie bake off, and DeGale and Dirrell dug swimming pools. Seriously, you Golovkin fanboys are incredible... Why not just admit that DeGale did a better job? I'm not saying he's better than Golovkin or anything.

Well, Mr. Definition, who did a better job on Dirrell according to the circumstances, then, in your eyes? I don't know if you're not understanding me or are refusing to acknowledge it. You're asking me to choose between between Golovkin and DeGale if Golovkin and Andre Dirrell had a cookie bake off, and DeGale and Dirrell dug swimming pools.

Nah dude. Your link for this question is the word 'fought'. That word has a multitute of definitions. Point of a comparison is see how similar things stack up against one another. Besides the word "fought', there's very little similarities between the two events. Well, Mr. Definition, who did a better job on Dirrell according to the circumstances, then, in your eyes?

The question does make sense. Golovkin fought Dirrell. DeGale fought Dirrell. Amateur, age, professional, whatever, who handled Dirrell better WHEN they fought him? Nah dude. Your link for this question is the word 'fought'. That word has a multitute of definitions. Point of a comparison is see how similar things stack up against one another. Besides the word "fought', there's very little similarities between the two events.

Lol. This thread is the definition of the triangle theory. As for who's better, the question makes no sense. You're comparing ams vs pros with an 11 year fight gap. You might as well compare the guy who kicked Mike Tyson's ass when he was 13 to Evander Holyfield. The question does make sense. Golovkin fought Dirrell. DeGale fought Dirrell. Amateur, age, professional, whatever, who handled Dirrell better WHEN they fought him?

Triangle theory? Where? Stay away from drugs, kid, they make you halucinate. My question is not about who is better between Golovkin and DeGale. My question is, who handled Dirrell better. Answer or GTFO of my thread. Lol. This thread is the definition of the triangle theory. As for who's better, the question makes no sense. You're comparing ams vs pros with an 11 year fight gap. You might as well compare the guy who kicked Mike Tyson's ass when he was 13 to Evander Holyfield.

Not only are triangle theories usually idiotic, but your triangle theory is separated by different scoring system (Amateur vs. Pros) AND 11 years. This is a fail. Triangle theory? Where? Stay away from drugs, kid, they make you halucinate. My question is not about who is better between Golovkin and DeGale. My question is, who handled Dirrell better. Answer or GTFO of my thread.

Kell Brook is a natural light heavyweight but the haters pretend he's a welterweight just to talk bad about Gennady. They don't know sh*t about boxing. You shouldn't mind about Kell Brook. You should mind about Canelo, Saunders, your american Jacobs.

Not only are triangle theories usually idiotic, but your triangle theory is separated by different scoring system (Amateur vs. Pros) AND 11 years. This is a fail.

The thread is about Dirrell - GGG, so I won't waste much time but Golovkin was well ahead on the cards at the time of the Bute stoppage, despite the fact that it looked pretty competitive. Not entirely sure of the point of the thread but it appears you're trying to work out who's better between GGG and Degale. Would that be a correct assumption? They should fight. Just as an aside this does seem a rather long winded way to express the opinion that you don't rate GGG very highly, I've noticed the same theme in a number of posts and comments you've made and I think everyone gets the point already. This thread has one purpose and that purpose is expressed clearly in the opening post. The question is, who handled Dirrell better? Not "Golovkin vs. DeGale". Just who handled Dirrell better.

Bute was winning before Golovkin knocked him out. Froch was beating Bute from the beginning till the end. But this thread is about Dirrell. Not Bute. The thread is about Dirrell - GGG, so I won't waste much time but Golovkin was well ahead on the cards at the time of the Bute stoppage, despite the fact that it looked pretty competitive. Not entirely sure of the point of the thread but it appears you're trying to work out who's better between GGG and Degale. Would that be a correct assumption? They should fight. Just as an aside this does seem a rather long winded way to express the opinion that you don't rate GGG very highly, I've noticed the same theme in a number of posts and comments you've made and I think everyone gets the point already.

this dude is getting more and more retarded, i didn't think it was possible but there it is. comparing pro and amateur fights now :rofl:

Yup just checked right now. His biggest win is Arthur Abraham. But that does that make him a great fighter? Robert Stieglitz TKOed Abraham and he actually won a major title the WBO. Stieglitz has had a better pro career than Andre Dirrell, that's really sad when you stop and think about it. He was robbed against Froch as well. Wasn't really a close fight, it was a clear decision for Dirrell, where if I recall, he even knocked Froch down.