History Lesson for The Golovkin Haters!

You do a good job living up to your username. The Don doesn't respond to idiots. Take your trolling elsewhere lil bish and get the hell out my thread.

Look...one of GGG's malfunctioning mexicans:lol1::lol1::lol1: I'm not Mexican. :lol1:

Marlon Starling moved straight from Welterweight to Middleweight to challenge Michael Nunn. No tune ups and no fights at 154lbs. Now I know a lot of you hypocrites claim Nunn was a great fighter and would beat Golovkin's ass but he only managed to score a MD over the aging Starling with 4 losses. Brook in the prime of his career and the consensus best welterweight was TKO'd in the 5th round by Golovkin. 1. Why wasn't Nunn able to use his size to stop Starling like Golovkin did Brook. 2. Can we all agree GGG > Nunn? Brook wasn't the consensus best WW. Starling was a much more accomplished fighter and frankly a better one then Brook when he fought Nunn. His record was worse because he fought much better people than Brook has to date. Nunn beat Starling thoroughly the way Floyd defeated Canelo. one judge had it even just like the one judge had it for Canelo. Nunn may struggle with GGG's power but his resume puts GGG's to shame.

You do a good job living up to your username. The OP is a black man, you should agree with him.

:lol1: Nunn doe...

1- Still was a good win, yes, Barkley lost to Duran, by the 12 round of Duran fight against Hagler, Duran was up on the scorecard, in these days, Duran would be the middleweight champion, so no shame in losing to Duran, but more than praising Barkley, i'm making clear that he was far from having a glass chin. 2- I never said Golovkin stopped Brook because his size, you are using the arguments of other people to discredit my argument, Golovkin won because he knows how to cut off the ring, has great punch selection and other assets, but he is that, he is an aggressive fighter, Nunn wasn't, so Nunn win over Starling can't be discredit only because he couldn't take out a fighter that no one take out. 3- You are right on most of the sentence. I guess I just don't rate Barkley that much. I'm more impressed with his performance against Toney and even though he lost it was still pretty impressive to see him befuddle a world-class talent for the majority of the fight.

1- Against Roberto Duran, the fighter who started his career at featherweight who went to give one of the greatest middleweights of all time one of his toughest fights for the title. 2- A man who arguably won in all the fights he lost (including Nunn), i never said that i don't give credit to GGG for beating Brook. 3- It's not fault of Nunn what Kalambay did wrong that night. 1. He was still coming off a lost to a much smaller man and used his face as a defense. I've never been impressed with Barkley, he had Hearns number but was battered by everyone else. 2. I never said Starling wasn't good, but if all Golovkin need was size to stop Brook why couldn't Nunn use his size to stop Starling? And the fact is Starling run at welter was average, many fighters have had similar runs. That's why it is considered average. 3. Read the last sentence of the first post.

Barkley: One of the greatest chins of all time, fought Nunn a year after the greatest win of his career against the atg Tommy Hearns. Starling: Never stopped, fought Nunn after two defenses of his title, one against Lloyd Honeyghan. Kalambay: Stopped once, by Nunn, fought Nunn a year after the greatest win of his career against the atg Mike McCallum. 1. Yeah and after hs loss to a fighter who started his career at featherweight. Crazy how you left that part out. 2. A career welterweight with several loses. If ou give Nunn credit for beating Starlin, you got give Golovkin credit or stopping the Special One Kell Brook. 3. He caught Kalambay slipping. I still don't understand to this day how Kalambay allowed his defense to be so poor that night. Impressive win none the less.

nunn the bum would have been his name if boxingscene was around back then. nunn the bum was exposed! Nunn is ATG HOF great lil G got lucky!

Nunn was a boring mess and would have been stopped by Golovkin like he stole something. He beat a bunch of past prime fighters and overall smaller fighters with glass jaws.If what you said were actually true,then he would still have twice the resume of Golovkin.

The fighters he beat aren't all that important in the history of boxing. none of his wins are noteworthy in the history of boxing. His reign was short lived and not that noteworthy in the history of boxing. His run was average as in multiple fighters have had similar runs. He won some he lost some but he never did it in a spectacular fashion and he's more known for who he lost too rather than who he beat. Does that answer you question?Are you trying to say that any of Brook's wins at welterweight will stand the test of time? You could literally apply everything you said about Starling about Brook. FYI, just because you don't recognize any of the names, or care to do any research,doesn't mean none of the fighters on his resume were not good. His resume is at least two leagues above both Golovkin's and Brook's, just by fighting Curry twice,and challenging Nunn.

Oh mah gawd. 1- Nunn wasn't a power puncher, he carried power, but he was known for outbox his opponents. 2- Starling was one of the best defensive fighters ever. 3- Michael Nunn was past his prime after the Kalambay fight. Answering your questions. 1- Because Starling skills didn't let ANYONE stop him, besides the power puncher in Molinares who knocked him out after the bell. 2- Nunn beat Kalambay, Tate, Curry, Starling, Barkley, 3 of those wins were past his prime, all his losses were in title fights, and was outboxing James Toney in Toney own game before he was stopped, so no, Nunn had a better resume than Golovkin even with such a short prime. Nunn was a boring mess and would have been stopped by Golovkin like he stole something. He beat a bunch of past prime fighters and overall smaller fighters with glass jaws.

What do you mean average at best? The guy had great defense,and an iron chin. The only time he was down, was when he was hit after the bell, and all of his losses are debatable,hit after Bell, both Curry fights,Nunn, and his last fight. I can name five guys off of the top of my head that could beat Brook at junior middle right now. i can name 5 fighters that could beat starling right now but thats because hes 57

What do you mean average at best? The guy had great defense,and an iron chin. The only time he was down, was when he was hit after the bell, and all of his losses are debatable,hit after Bell, both Curry fights,Nunn, and his last fight. I can name five guys off of the top of my head that could beat Brook at junior middle right now. Off the top of my head I can name 5 fighters at 154lbs that could have beaten Starling then, what's your point.

What do you mean average at best? The guy had great defense,and an iron chin. The only time he was down, was when he was hit after the bell, and all of his losses are debatable,hit after Bell, both Curry fights,Nunn, and his last fight. I can name five guys off of the top of my head that could beat Brook at junior middle right now. The fighters he beat aren't all that important in the history of boxing. none of his wins are noteworthy in the history of boxing. His reign was short lived and not that noteworthy in the history of boxing. His run was average as in multiple fighters have had similar runs. He won some he lost some but he never did it in a spectacular fashion and he's more known for who he lost too rather than who he beat. Does that answer you question?

Nope Starling was good but very beatable. Nunn just isn't as good as Golovkin. We gotta keep is honest, Starling's spent his whole career at Welterweight but his run was average at best.What do you mean average at best? The guy had great defense,and an iron chin. The only time he was down, was when he was hit after the bell, and all of his losses are debatable,hit after Bell, both Curry fights,Nunn, and his last fight. I can name five guys off of the top of my head that could beat Brook at junior middle right now.

Brook definitely wasn't the "consensus" best welterweight The Golovkin embellishment will never stop Respect to Brook for taking this fight and congrats to Golovkin for winning it

I'm pretty sure Starling was one of the greatest defensive fighters ever ,not sweet pea Golovkin,(I get hit when I wann)but legitimately one of the greatest and that his last two or three "losses" could have gone either way. He had proven his skill, unlike Kell,who's only legit win was a majority decision wrestling match. Nope Starling was good but very beatable. Nunn just isn't as good as Golovkin. We gotta keep is honest, Starling's spent his whole career at Welterweight but his run was average at best.

I'm pretty sure Starling was one of the greatest defensive fighters ever ,not sweet pea Golovkin,(I get hit when I wann)but legitimately one of the greatest and that his last two or three "losses" could have gone either way. He had proven his skill, unlike Kell,who's only legit win was a majority decision wrestling match.

nunn the bum would have been his name if boxingscene was around back then. nunn the bum was exposed!