Ridiculous things you've heard casuals say

Casuals are the ones putting money into these fighters' pockets. I bet the TS feels no guilt streaming fights for free.

I once heard a guy say: "Canelo would destroy this russian, he destroyed Khan." (russian = Golovkin)

At the Pac Horn fight the guys behind me where saying that the Junior Bantamweight undercard fight was Under 18s.

Yup. I was going to mention something similar myself. Totally agree. So...as always, fans will disagree (at least in some cases) about who was "great." I tend to think to be considered truly great, you have to beat great opponents while they are in their prime. And yes, it helps if those opponents are your own size. GGG has been the best MW in the world for 6 years now. And while he hasn't had a "great" opponent to prove himself against, the way he crushed every top ranked MW who went against him until the Jacobs fight, hardly losing a round and never being hurt by anybody or anything, proved to me that GGG was, and hopefully still is, a very special fighter. I've been watching boxing a long time, and while "greatness" needs great opposition to shine through, I recognise exceptional ability when I see it. And Golovkin was/is an exceptionally good fighter.

Then why not call all good fighters who fight decent fighters "great"? Let's say, Bradley, Khan, Garcia, Porter, are all great fighters. Would you agree? They all also fought much better competition and won against better fighters than Golovkin did. Based on the eye test, as you suggested, I think Davis and Spence are the greatest fighters right now, bar none. Would you agree? I think not. They haven't had their stiffest tests yet. Same goes for Golovkin. He hasn't proven anything. I'm not personally disagreeing with you. We just see it different. All those guys you listed have lost multiple times but more importantly I never thought they were great. They didn't pass my eye ball test. I wouldn't have a huge beef saying Spence is "great". But yeah maybe a bit premature since he is 22 fights into his career, one title and 4 1/2 years boxing. I haven't put Golovkin on the "great" pedestal just yet but again if someone said I think Golovkin is a great fighter, no issue with that from me. If someone said I think Spence is a great fighter no real issue with that either. That doesn't make them a casual. Anyways I think we've made our points.

Whilst watching Rocky 1, mother in law chirps up that its a shame boxing isnt like that anymore:pat: Father in law went on to say that sly was also a professional boxer and could have been a champ.

Most boxing historians list Monzon and Hagler as "great" middleweight champions. The only "greats" either of them ever beat were welterweights who moved up to 160 -Napoles and Hearns - and neither Monzon nor Hagler ever moved up from 160 themselves. Yup. I was going to mention something similar myself. Totally agree. So...as always, fans will disagree (at least in some cases) about who was "great." I tend to think to be considered truly great, you have to beat great opponents while they are in their prime. And yes, it helps if those opponents are your own size.

Well, the ORIGINAL contention was that casuals say ridiculous things. For you, one of these things is that "Golovkin is a great fighter." But many hardcore boxing fans think Golovkin is -- depending on how you define "great" -- awfully good and exciting at least. And great for boxing in general. I don't see too many truly "GREAT" fighters today. Not in the sense of (say) Sugar Ray Leonard. In fact, some posters would say Hagler was not really "GREAT" because he didn't beat any GREAT fighters, lost to a freaking welterweight, and (wait for it) he didn't move up. Welp, there was no incentive to move up in weight. And he beat some badass dudes, though they weren't quite great. I see Golovkin as a lesser Hagler, a sort of "mini-Marvin." In what is essentially a much lesser era, where there are few if any GREAT fighters. Take that as you will. But casuals say way more stupid things than "Golovkin is like really awesome." You have YOUR agenda, which is why you posted your opinion on the topic rather gratuitously. I guess to hijack another thread with a tiresome, repeated notion to dog a successful fighter that you personally dislike. By all means, keep at it. If that's what floats your boat. Most boxing historians list Monzon and Hagler as "great" middleweight champions. The only "greats" either of them ever beat were welterweights who moved up to 160 -Napoles and Hearns - and neither Monzon nor Hagler ever moved up from 160 themselves.

"Mike Tyson would whoop Floyds ass" Technically true..but the casual doesn't tend to realize there are weight classes.

https://youtu.be/2WbTbhdjc40

Well, the ORIGINAL contention was that casuals say ridiculous things. For you, one of these things is that "Golovkin is a great fighter." But many hardcore boxing fans think Golovkin is -- depending on how you define "great" -- awfully good and exciting at least. And great for boxing in general. I don't see too many truly "GREAT" fighters today. Not in the sense of (say) Sugar Ray Leonard. In fact, some posters would say Hagler was not really "GREAT" because he didn't beat any GREAT fighters, lost to a freaking welterweight, and (wait for it) he didn't move up. Welp, there was no incentive to move up in weight. And he beat some badass dudes, though they weren't quite great. I see Golovkin as a lesser Hagler, a sort of "mini-Marvin." In what is essentially a much lesser era, where there are few if any GREAT fighters. Take that as you will. But casuals say way more stupid things than "Golovkin is like really awesome." You have YOUR agenda, which is why you posted your opinion on the topic rather gratuitously. I guess to hijack another thread with a tiresome, repeated notion to dog a successful fighter that you personally dislike. By all means, keep at it. If that's what floats your boat. Good post. I've never hijacked a thread before and have no agenda whatsoever, except that I'm tired of hearing how GREAT this guy is. I don't see all that in the ring, given his competition. He's a good fighter, no doubt. He's no bum. Now, my question is, since he hasn't faced ANY great competition, how do we determine his "greatness"? The eye test? I don't get it. Please enlighten me.

"A boxer has no chance in a street fight" "Floyd Mayweather is the most over rated fighter in history" "Bruce lee would kill a boxer in a fight"

Ridiculous things you've heard casual fans say: Turkish wrestling is a blend of Sumo style wrestling and Ju Jitsu. Ever watch Ju Jitsu?

The contention was, it's ridiculous to call Golovkin a "great" fighter. He's not, because there is no basis for that hype. He's 36 and hasn't fought ONE great or even semi-great fighter. What makes him great? Certainly not his competition. Well, the ORIGINAL contention was that casuals say ridiculous things. For you, one of these things is that "Golovkin is a great fighter." But many hardcore boxing fans think Golovkin is -- depending on how you define "great" -- awfully good and exciting at least. And great for boxing in general. I don't see too many truly "GREAT" fighters today. Not in the sense of (say) Sugar Ray Leonard. In fact, some posters would say Hagler was not really "GREAT" because he didn't beat any GREAT fighters, lost to a freaking welterweight, and (wait for it) he didn't move up. Welp, there was no incentive to move up in weight. And he beat some badass dudes, though they weren't quite great. I see Golovkin as a lesser Hagler, a sort of "mini-Marvin." In what is essentially a much lesser era, where there are few if any GREAT fighters. Take that as you will. But casuals say way more stupid things than "Golovkin is like really awesome." You have YOUR agenda, which is why you posted your opinion on the topic rather gratuitously. I guess to hijack another thread with a tiresome, repeated notion to dog a successful fighter that you personally dislike. By all means, keep at it. If that's what floats your boat.

Nobody thinks GGG is beating "great" fighters. He is beating the best the division has to offer, and beating the hell out of them in an exciting way. He is old school. He's trying to unify the MW division. It's a quaint but admirable (and admirably longterm, for Golovkin) goal. Let's see how the Canelo fight goes. (Golovkin's career isn't over yet.) The contention was, it's ridiculous to call Golovkin a "great" fighter. He's not, because there is no basis for that hype. He's 36 and hasn't fought ONE great or even semi-great fighter. What makes him great? Certainly not his competition.

He's doing all those things against whom? Can you name ONE great, semi-great, or close to P4P fighter he has fought? Nobody thinks GGG is beating "great" fighters. He is beating the best the division has to offer, and beating the hell out of them in an exciting way. He is old school. He's trying to unify the MW division. It's a quaint but admirable (and admirably longterm, for Golovkin) goal. Let's see how the Canelo fight goes. (Golovkin's career isn't over yet.)

"Connors too skilled for mayweather he's gonna knock him out dude"(serious face and all) "Connors left hand reminds me of Tyson" "Roy jones would school mayweather that's why mayweather ducked him" "Mike Tyson could knock out all of today's heavyweights in one night" "Mike Tyson is the best boxer ever" "Fights off Floyd got arrested for beating up he's girlfriend he's a ***** for backing down from Connor this way" ( posting old links from 2011 on social media while everyone agrees in the comments)

mike tyson was top 3 greatest heavy weight all time mike tyson was/is the hardest puncher ever -same guy

So is it crazy for anyone to think Larry Holmes was great (there wasn't one other prime great fighter he faced)? How about Rocky Marciano? How about Tyson, were people crazy to say at any point he was "great". How about Bernard Hopkins prior to the Tito fight? If someone said Hops was a great fighter prior to the Tito fight should they be called a casual? Who's really the casual if someone scoffed at that person and then Hops went and destroyed Tito? Sometimes you can watch an athlete and think they are great and they don't have to be playing against another great player. I can watch Kevin Durant against decent competition and I can tell he is a great player. I don't need him to go against Lebron to tell me that. I know enough about the game to make that determination. I understand your perspective but great is still a subjective term. You want to try and make it based on facts, you can't do that. Then why not call all good fighters who fight decent fighters "great"? Let's say, Bradley, Khan, Garcia, Porter, are all great fighters. Would you agree? They all also fought much better competition and won against better fighters than Golovkin did. Based on the eye test, as you suggested, I think Davis and Spence are the greatest fighters right now, bar none. Would you agree? I think not. They haven't had their stiffest tests yet. Same goes for Golovkin. He hasn't proven anything. I'm not personally disagreeing with you. We just see it different.

Well, that's where I can't agree. Your competition is the greatest criterion upon which you are evaluated in determining your "greatness." His is dismal. Anyone who thinks Golovkin is "great" is either a casual or biased. So is it crazy for anyone to think Larry Holmes was great (there wasn't one other prime great fighter he faced)? How about Rocky Marciano? How about Tyson, were people crazy to say at any point he was "great". How about Bernard Hopkins prior to the Tito fight? If someone said Hops was a great fighter prior to the Tito fight should they be called a casual? Who's really the casual if someone scoffed at that person and then Hops went and destroyed Tito? Sometimes you can watch an athlete and think they are great and they don't have to be playing against another great player. I can watch Kevin Durant against decent competition and I can tell he is a great player. I don't need him to go against Lebron to tell me that. I know enough about the game to make that determination. I understand your perspective but great is still a subjective term. You want to try and make it based on facts, you can't do that.