Do you consider Golovkin a slick fighter?

[b00g13man]

I voted very basic to make the OP mad.

[fanofslug]

Sometimes i come here to have a good conversation, and i see people bashing Golovkin's resume which isn't that great (but compared to his personal skill level it is nothing to gloat about), but then some go in and start talking about how he isn't defensively responsible and gets hit a lot etc. I saw these two videos online a few weeks back and liked them a lot. do you agree that Golovkin has a great defense as an extremely offensive fighter. I think it would be even harder to land on him if he was a purely defensive fighter like Floyd.





That's why i also think that no one from 160 and lower can beat GGG. in order to beat him i think you need to be stronger than him. physically try and push him around into close quarters and **** it out.

agree or disagree?

Defensive skills are overrated and often used to justify a boring-ass fight. In fact, I question the idea that Mayweather is a defensive genius. When you exclusively rely on defense it's not hard to become well grounded in that skill. GGG could easily use defensive skills and probably just as good as any other well known defensive fighters, but he's first and foremost a seek and destroy guy like Kovalev. No one really cares if GGG uses defense and counter punching except snobs and they are the last person I would listen to. You'll find them on forums, ruining a great list of boxing fights by adding boring fights to the list. I've lost count of the times they recommended a fight only for me to fall asleep midway through it. They are the worst. They ruin boxing with their mumbo jumbo I-know-boxing crap. A bit like pretentious film reviewers.

[BrometheusBob.]

Depends on your definition of your slick. But probably more slick than many would give him credit for.

[SplitSecond]

I define slick as slipping punches. Blocking like Abraham/Clottey don't count, and neither does just jumping back out of range.

He's pretty slick yea. People see the second portion of the Monroe fight and act like that's his usual style.

[Fury4daWIN]

Being slick isn't primarily about defence. It's about using your skills to land your shots while avoiding your opponent's, i.e. hit and not get hit. Golovkin's great at doing the former and pretty handy at doing the latter. So yeah, he's slick.

[BennyST]

Nope. He's an excellent textbook boxer/puncher that sets all his shots up well and has decent, fundamental defense and footwork. What he does isn't slick though. Slick goes beyond the textbook and into the realm of setting traps with feints and drawing the opponent into shots, slipping, rolling, ducking punches and coming back with counter shots, making the opponent do things he doesn't even know he's doing, creating angles through sneaky footwork, pivots and capitalising on the opponents mistakes.

But that's why he's exciting to watch to some degree. Slick doesn't necessarily mean better, even though slickness tends to need, or show, a very high degree of skill, ring savvy, and high boxing IQ.

What he does is all standard, textbook boxing stuff, but he does it to a very high degree and he does it exceptionally well.

[Nubia]

Put it this way. It's easy to look good against the cans he's been fighting. No, he's not slick.

[Irony123]

I voted very basic to make the OP mad.

not mad at all. by very basic i mean he is very good but very basic by the book. standard stuff. your opinion of GGG doesn't effect me in any way shape or form. thanks for your vote.

[Irony123]

Nope. He's an excellent textbook boxer/puncher that sets all his shots up well and has decent, fundamental defense and footwork. What he does isn't slick though. Slick goes beyond the textbook and into the realm of setting traps with feints and drawing the opponent into shots, slipping, rolling, ducking punches and coming back with counter shots, making the opponent do things he doesn't even know he's doing, creating angles through sneaky footwork, pivots and capitalising on the opponents mistakes.

But that's why he's exciting to watch to some degree. Slick doesn't necessarily mean better, even though slickness tends to need, or show, a very high degree of skill, ring savvy, and high boxing IQ.

What he does is all standard, textbook boxing stuff, but he does it to a very high degree and he does it exceptionally well.

excellent post, i think that there is a level to slickness in his execution but maybe its my definition of slick vs. yours. Either way appreciate the input.

[Irony123]

Put it this way. It's easy to look good against the cans he's been fighting. No, he's not slick.

rigo looks horrible and he has fought worse opponents than GGG recently.

its easy to say that they are cans but if you are beating top 10 middleweights the way GGG beats them then you know he got something special.

no body claims that his competition is all stars, but at the same time no one looks this good consistently fighting top 10 fighters in your own division (except the very few