History Lesson for The Golovkin Haters!

[The Comic DON]

1- Still was a good win, yes, Barkley lost to Duran, by the 12 round of Duran fight against Hagler, Duran was up on the scorecard, in these days, Duran would be the middleweight champion, so no shame in losing to Duran, but more than praising Barkley, i'm making clear that he was far from having a glass chin.
2- I never said Golovkin stopped Brook because his size, you are using the arguments of other people to discredit my argument, Golovkin won because he knows how to cut off the ring, has great punch selection and other assets, but he is that, he is an aggressive fighter, Nunn wasn't, so Nunn win over Starling can't be discredit only because he couldn't take out a fighter that no one take out.
3- You are right on most of the sentence.

I guess I just don't rate Barkley that much. I'm more impressed with his performance against Toney and even though he lost it was still pretty impressive to see him befuddle a world-class talent for the majority of the fight.

[yngwie]

I guess I just don't rate Barkley that much. I'm more impressed with his performance against Toney and even though he lost it was still pretty impressive to see him befuddle a world-class talent for the majority of the fight.

I don't rate Barkley high either, only his chin and toughness (and his wins over Hearns who is one of my top 3 favorites).
But yeah, his loss over Toney was a really good showcase of inside fighting for a tall fighter against a hell of infighter in Toney, still he was past his best nights by then.

[b00g13man]

Nunn doe...

[Kigali]

Nope Starling was good but very beatable. Nunn just isn't as good as Golovkin.

We gotta keep is honest, Starling's spent his whole career at Welterweight but his run was average at best.

You do a good job living up to your username.

[Kigali]

Are you trying to say that any of Brook's wins at welterweight will stand the test of time? You could literally apply everything you said about Starling about Brook. FYI, just because you don't recognize any of the names, or care to do any research,doesn't mean none of the fighters on his resume were not good. His resume is at least two leagues above both Golovkin's and Brook's, just by fighting Curry twice,and challenging Nunn.

You are schooling a moron....

[Sup]

You do a good job living up to your username.

The OP is a black man, you should agree with him.

[The Big Dunn]

Marlon Starling moved straight from Welterweight to Middleweight to challenge Michael Nunn. No tune ups and no fights at 154lbs.

Now I know a lot of you hypocrites claim Nunn was a great fighter and would beat Golovkin's ass but he only managed to score a MD over the aging Starling with 4 losses.

Brook in the prime of his career and the consensus best welterweight was TKO'd in the 5th round by Golovkin.

1. Why wasn't Nunn able to use his size to stop Starling like Golovkin did Brook.

2. Can we all agree GGG > Nunn?

Brook wasn't the consensus best WW.

Starling was a much more accomplished fighter and frankly a better one then Brook when he fought Nunn. His record was worse because he fought much better people than Brook has to date.

Nunn beat Starling thoroughly the way Floyd defeated Canelo. one judge had it even just like the one judge had it for Canelo.

Nunn may struggle with GGG's power but his resume puts GGG's to shame.

[Kigali]

The OP is a black man, you should agree with him.

Look...one of GGG's malfunctioning mexicans

[Sup]

Look...one of GGG's malfunctioning mexicans

I'm not Mexican.

[The Comic DON]

You do a good job living up to your username.

The Don doesn't respond to idiots. Take your trolling elsewhere lil bish and get the hell out my thread.