Examples of "all time greats" exposed worse than GGG

Also, everyone thinks being really good means never losing, that's the Mayweather model. Which is ****, being great means you take risks and fight the best.

At 35 fighters start to decline not improve. The above fighters were all worse at 35 than ggg. Are you earnestly trying to argue that Carlos Monzon was a worse fighter at 35 than Golovkin currently is now? gtfoh

As soon as a guy has a bad round or something guys are falling all over themselves to run to the forums and claim that they were "exposed". I guess the faster you do it the more of a boxing genius you are. If Ali were around today guys would claim he was "exposed" when Frazier knocked him down. I'm sure as soon as Loma has a bad round or two the "exposed" claims will be coming fast and furious:dance:

They loss fights while they were learning their crafts (Trinidad simply bit off too much weight); no one is ignoring losses. Golovkin is 35 years old, a ten-year pro, a decorated amateur, and he barely edged Daniel Jacobs, a good fighter but not a fighter that anyone has anywhere near the top fighters p4p (BoxRec had Daniel Jacobs rated #30 p4p). After losing club fights as he was learning, Carlos Monzon defended the world middleweight title 15 friggin times. why do you refuse to see the difference in the situations? At 35 fighters start to decline not improve. The above fighters were all worse at 35 than ggg.

You are naming accomplishments of those fighters yet ignoring the fact they struggled or lost with opposition worse than jacobs but they get a pass. GGG dosen't. Thats because GGG doesn't have the depth in his resume that those guys do, very simple. If he had a loaded resume then of course you would look at the Jacobs fight and say "well he had a tough night against a good fighter, but look at everything else he has done in his career." But you can't really say that with GGG at the moment. People are going to be sceptical until he proves himself at a high level for a significant period of time, encountering different styles and problems in the ring. In those circumstances you can really analyse a fighters career and even if he picks up a loss or two, at least he and we will know where he sits. The argument you have put forward doesn't really have much solidarity to it for the above reasons, it is a bit of a straw man argument, and picking on fighters of that calibre is not going to elicit a good response from most posters here because like me they know their boxing. Jacobs was a step in the right direction for GGG, maybe he had an off night, maybe that is his level, time will reveal and it will only be when his career is over that you can really put it into context. But picking a section of a group of HOF and ATG fighters to suit your agenda is not the right way to go about it, and can be picked apart very easily, which has already been done by other posters.

Danny Jacobs did not expose anything, he never once hurt Golovkin! or even backed him up! we all know Golovkin is prone to being slightly confused by movement and fast combinations so? there was nothing new exposed by Danny Jacobs! I still think it will be a very tall order for any 160 pound fighter to beat Golovkin, because his bruit strength and punch resistance just seems too impregnable at this specific weight.... No matter how hard a fighter can bang, or how many KO's he has to his credit, sooner or later he will come against an opponent who takes what he dishes out and fires back. The big question is .. what happens then? Is there a "plan B"? Will a big puncher who is used to stopping everybody as soon as he conects be prepared and willing to dig deep and fight hard to the final bell, if necessary. Danny Jacobs asked those questions of Golovkin and GGG answered them! Nobody got exposed. It was a tough, even, world championship fight, and the champ went down into the trenches and retained his titles. End of story.

Danny Jacobs did not expose anything, he never once hurt Golovkin! or even backed him up! we all know Golovkin is prone to being slightly confused by movement and fast combinations so? there was nothing new exposed by Danny Jacobs! I still think it will be a very tall order for any 160 pound fighter to beat Golovkin, because his bruit strength and punch resistance just seems too impregnable at this specific weight....

No you speak out against the nonsense when it concerns a fighter you like, however you post tons of crap about fighters that you don't like. On what planet does that equate to not having an agenda? ..... definitely not the one we live on right now. The only fighter I post regular criticism of is Canelo. I have no agenda against red haired or Mexican fighters. I just hate diva bull**** and the way he and Oscar are trying to manipulate public opinion after the most blatent duck ever seen in boxing history. I also sometimes post crap about other fighters, usually Andre Ward, to illustrate to the GGG hate trolls how easy it is to turn their constant, moronic attacks on Golovkin against them, if you are prepared to be as stupid and/or biased about a situation as they are.

I don't have any agenda. I'm just a boxing fan who speaks out against agenda driven bullshit posted by fake fans like you. No you speak out against the nonsense when it concerns a fighter you like, however you post tons of crap about fighters that you don't like. On what planet does that equate to not having an agenda? ..... definitely not the one we live on right now.

Stephen Breadman Edwards said that. Look him up on Boxrec. ik who breadman is but I dont care what he wrote. you dont need to check those fights out on boxrec cuz BOTH OF THEM are on youtube. go score them yourself if you'd like. that was pretty much my point.

You are naming accomplishments of those fighters yet ignoring the fact they struggled or lost with opposition worse than jacobs but they get a pass. GGG dosen't. They loss fights while they were learning their crafts (Trinidad simply bit off too much weight); no one is ignoring losses. Golovkin is 35 years old, a ten-year pro, a decorated amateur, and he barely edged Daniel Jacobs, a good fighter but not a fighter that anyone has anywhere near the top fighters p4p (BoxRec had Daniel Jacobs rated #30 p4p). After losing club fights as he was learning, Carlos Monzon defended the world middleweight title 15 friggin times. why do you refuse to see the difference in the situations?

I don't have any agenda. I'm just a boxing fan who speaks out against agenda driven bullshit posted by fake fans like you. Kov alev or Jacobs..whos better?

"Exposed" is another of those boxing terms overused to the point of meaninglessness A guy will outland his opponent 700-50 and people will say he was "exposed" because one of those 50 punches made for a good gif

yes you do when it fits your agenda..point is Ward fought a much better fighter I don't have any agenda. I'm just a boxing fan who speaks out against agenda driven bullshit posted by fake fans like you.

I don't give a **** about p4p lists. yes you do when it fits your agenda..point is Ward fought a much better fighter

... Monzon went 71-0-9 from when he took his last defeat. Hagler went 36-0-1 before he had his next defeat, narrowly to Sugar Ray Leonard. Trinidad was on a dynamite run until he went up too high in weight (38-0 at 154lbs or less; 2-3 above 154lbs). why you continue to willfully ignore context is beyond me. Golovkin is 35 years old, has been basically been fight at the same weight since he was 20 years old, and his opposition as a professional fighter has been the driveling ****s for the most part. Daniel Jacobs was the first opponent that the boxing world could honestly say 1)could box his ass off, 2)had the pop to keep Golovkin serious, 3)was a full-sized middleweight, and 4)walked into the fight with the tools to legitimately beat Golovkin. For the first time likely since he was boxing Andre Dirrell in amateurs, Gennady Golovkin stepped in with a legit fighter ... and edged out a 7-5 fight that could've gon either way. get over yourself You are naming accomplishments of those fighters yet ignoring the fact they struggled or lost with opposition worse than jacobs but they get a pass. GGG dosen't.

another one of those threads... i think is that time of the year where we make a poll to pick the worst fan base of the forum....

This is easily some of the dumbest shyte ever posted on NSB. Everyone of these fighters has high quality wins to go along with some loses and you're trying to make these fighters out to be shyte while claiming g string with his one quality win (barely scraped by) is a great fighter. this. the difference isnt their losses but their great wins outside of that. And hopkins was 40 ****ing years old when he lost to taylor. At this rate, GGG isnt making it to 40 in boxing.

david lemiuex, prime daniel geale, martin murray... B level fighters at best

great thread. peple make out on this site that fighters from the past never had off nights. some of the so called legends struggled against bums. Welcome back