Originally posted by The Big Dunn
View Post
i give ggg credit for beating 12 top 10 guys and i give him credit for trying to fight guys like pirog, quillin, saunders, sturm, etc...i dont put those guys on his resume even though he never fought them. there is nothing artificial there. the same way i give ggg credit for trying to fight the top guys, i criticize tank for not trying to fight the top guys. why dont you understand that? tanks resume is bad for a reason. gggs is good for a reason. yes gggs could have been better but he didnt have control over other fighters. tank has full control and wont make the fights.
i just think martin is unproven. i dont see any reason hes in the top 5 where the guys ggg fought you could make compelling cases as to why they were there for example:murata had 2 top 10 wins, jacobs had just beaten the #2 guy, lemiuex had a top 5 win, macklin got robbed against sturm who was top 5, geale had 2 top 5 wins, murray was robbed against the #1 guy, etc...martin has never even fought a top 10 guy. you see the difference?
Comment