Rate from 1-10. GGGs win over (washed up?) Daniel Geale

Le bump. Current Mean - 5.84/10 Current Median - 6.00/10

Erase 10 out of the equation, those are obvious trolls. With enough votes the affect those guys have shouldn't be too bad. But I agree that the votes for 10 are hilariously mislead. There are many big wins I wouldn't consider a 10, and by no means is Geale post Barker a 'big' win. The mean is now 6.21, but without the 10s - and hell, let's remove the 1 as well - it would be 5.19.

Despite obvious trolls pulling the values around, the mean of the 25 votes currently casted is 6.0. Seems like a reasonable assessment. So what do y'all think of this win in the context of his career - is this the best win on his resume? Do you think Lemieux or another fighter was a better win? Erase 10 out of the equation, those are obvious trolls.

Thought about it for a good minute and I went with 4, I see thats the popular opinion as well. Geale, a fighter who can't punch, defend well or move for that matter, not a good combination.

You know the middleweight division sucks when Geale is top 5...

Despite the obvious trolls pulling the values around, the mean of votes casted is currently 6.0. So what do y'all think of this win in the context of his career - is this the best win on his resume? Do you think Lemieux or another fighter was a better win? Murray a case could be made he beat Martinez, and GGG knocked him around without him taking a solitary round in 11 one sided rounds. Lemiuex and Geale were title holders, albeit Geale was on a downward trajectory before they fought Lemiuex was in the ascendency yet he wasnt all that good to begin with a relied heavily on a his huge punching power to bank rounds, dude literally loses evy round he don't knock his opponent down that in itself tells you how poor he is as an actual boxer. I'd say Murray is his best win, Geale and Lemieux his signature wins. I don't really consider the Brook win a great win, it was a good win but all these fights he's expected to win, and in the fashion he usually does I never expected Geale to capitulate like he did though, GGG really impressed me that night even if his defence proved suspect still, I see why he is hesitant to go up to 168 or beyond, Kessler Ward and Froch would have beat him at the full sm limit.

How do you rate this GGG win? Is this a signature win for GGG? Did Daniel Geale's age affect the outcome of this fight? State your reason. 7....he was a former champion....but had recently lost to wholly average Darren Barker...then got blitzed by Cotto after GGG did the trick....without the loss to Barker prior...he'd have gotten an 8 :boxing:

Despite obvious trolls pulling the values around, the mean of the 25 votes currently casted is 6.0. Seems like a reasonable assessment. So what do y'all think of this win in the context of his career - is this the best win on his resume? Do you think Lemieux or another fighter was a better win?

This win ain't sh*t compared to those fantasy wins GGG has under his belt. I give it a 1.

8, nobody handled Danny like that before and he's never been the same since, that punch Geale landed though GGG shouldn't be taking shots like that he doesn't see coming, against elite boxers with one punch KO power he'd be stopped like Kessler and Froch for instance.

"Age" He was 33 yrs old then. His record was 31-2 and was a top ten Middleweight. He had lost two splits to Mundine and Barker prior to fighting GGG! Not sure why you knock the guy he stepped up when the other Middleweights past on the chance. I'm amazed how many "fans" fear this guy when they have no chance of fighting him.........hahahaha.. ................hating is just a wimps way of expressing themselves. Ray Cosign. Geale was rated in the top 5 at MW by Ring. Nor was he getting dropped by fringe contenders prior to fighting Golovkin. For example Austin Trout getting dropped by Daniel Dawson prior to fighting Charlo.

4. Poverty win.

I gave it a 5. Geale wasn't much of a fighter and GGG took him out about as quickly and easily as it is possible to do. He gets a 1 for the quality of his opponent and a 10 for the way he beat him so it averages out about a 5. For some reason Geale was ranked higher than he should have been. Geale was still ranked higher than he should have been when Cotto defended his title against him. Worth mentioning that the average of 1 and 10 is 5.5

I gave it a 5. Geale wasn't much of a fighter and GGG took him out about as quickly and easily as it is possible to do. He gets a 1 for the quality of his opponent and a 10 for the way he beat him so it averages out about a 5. For some reason Geale was ranked higher than he should have been. Geale was still ranked higher than he should have been when Cotto defended his title against him. Daniel Geale was a 1/10 fighter? You expect people to take that seriously? I'd rate it a 7. Strong win over a solid opponent.

"Age" He was 33 yrs old then. His record was 31-2 and was a top ten Middleweight. He had lost two splits to Mundine and Barker prior to fighting GGG! Not sure why you knock the guy he stepped up when the other Middleweights past on the chance. I'm amazed how many "fans" fear this guy when they have no chance of fighting him.........hahahaha.. ................hating is just a wimps way of expressing themselves. Ray Good post Ray. Nice quote, i agree. Its hard to tell exactly where Geales career fell apart, whether it was before or after Golovkin. He had two wins in Germany in Sturm and Sylvester, then lost a split decision to Darren Barker, whom Sturm beat, so he was around the mark, definatelty a top middleweight at some point. Is it coincidence Sturm paid to avoid GG (Golovkin knocked out Geale who beat him in a couple rounds) and Cotto fought GG's leftovers instead of the man himself? I think not...Conela is not the first and looks like he wont be the last to avoid him. F@#K, why do i follow this business (nee sport) again?

"Age" He was 33 yrs old then. His record was 31-2 and was a top ten Middleweight. He had lost two splits to Mundine and Barker prior to fighting GGG! Not sure why you knock the guy he stepped up when the other Middleweights past on the chance. I'm amazed how many "fans" fear this guy when they have no chance of fighting him.........hahahaha.. ................hating is just a wimps way of expressing themselves. Ray

The win itself was fine and I don't think GG did anything wrong. But, I was never sold on Geale being anything special. I don't understand why people speak of him as if he was a legend at some point. I'll give it a 6/10, only because Golovkin looked great. Yea, about the same for me. Won't vote because 'wraps is above bait polls. Like you, I never thought of Geale as anything more than another fighter in the division. That's not hate or criticism though, that's pure ignorance. Like Whyte and most other euro fighters that haven't caught my eye like Tyson Fury did, I just don't know the fighters over there too well. The time difference makes it so that I really need to dig to see those fights, and I don't put forth that kind of effort, with that time lol.

I gave it a 5. Geale wasn't much of a fighter and GGG took him out about as quickly and easily as it is possible to do. He gets a 1 for the quality of his opponent and a 10 for the way he beat him so it averages out about a 5. For some reason Geale was ranked higher than he should have been. Geale was still ranked higher than he should have been when Cotto defended his title against him.

6ish. Geale was legitimately better than most people think of him. He got drained by Cotto, legitimately struggled making weight and got knocked out. After that, as it always happens, he moved up in weight. But he was actually a good fighter, solid B.

The win itself was fine and I don't think GG did anything wrong. But, I was never sold on Geale being anything special. I don't understand why people speak of him as if he was a legend at some point. I'll give it a 6/10, only because Golovkin looked great. Seems fair to me