Name a 160 fighter in history that could beat GGG?

[Tom Cruise]

"Who beats GGG in history?"

"Well, all these guys actually"

"Those guys are bums!"

"Have you seen them fight?"

"No."

This thread in a nutshell.

[HeadShots]

What excuses am I making? Those are called facts. Try using some instead of calling fighters "bums" etc... instead of calling them "bums" why dont you break it down on why where they bums and why did a GREEN monzon lose? Mind you that monzon BEAT everyone single one of the loses he had in subsequent rematches.

What excuses am i making then goes right onto make excuses saying guys with 20-15 records aren't bums and how he was green etc.


you don't even realize how much of a mangina you are right?

[Madison Boxing]

but you dont said you dont have time to look up old stuff about boxing. How in the world can you compare ggg to atg's and then you go and say you know nothing about monzon hahahahahaha

you are one certified grade A dumbass.



^^^^^

again i never said i know 'nothing' about monzon, stop twisting my words. I have time to look up old stuff, but i dont have time to watch ****ing 15 round fights of every old timer there is

[sunny31]

"Who beats GGG in history?"

"Well, all these guys actually"

"Those guys are bums!"

"Have you seen them fight?"

"No."

This thread in a nutshell.

LOL - pretty much. Two absolute tools making fools of themselves.

[Madison Boxing]

and to all you idiots piping up. I highly highly highly doubt youve watched significant number of fights of these old timers you are bringing up. I can form opinions from reading records. Do i need to watch all 39 fights of someone who was 27-12 to say that he probably isnt going to beat golovkin? Its called logic ffs. Its like me saying oh some guy who was 30-15 from the 60s would beat mayweather, you all laughing, then me saying oh well youve never seen this guy fight, so how the **** do you know?!
Just easy for you all to try and make me look ****** 'oh haha your a noob you never watched (insert some random guy from the 50's here) fight'. Makes me laugh that you say i use boxrec and then you all start quoting some real detailed **** about some obscure fights from 50 years ago, as if thats come fresh from your memory.

[HeadShots]

"Who beats GGG in history?"

"Well, all these guys actually"

"Those guys are bums!"

"Have you seen them fight?"

"No."

This thread in a nutshell.

it's more like

"Who can beat GGG in history?"

"All these guys."

"No all those guys lost to bums."

"but those bums weren't bums even tho they had .500 records and

they um..... green....

they had emotional turmoil from a loss.

they weren't psychologically right

Leave them alone!!!!!!!!!!

They um...."

[HeadShots]

and to all you idiots piping up. I highly highly highly doubt youve watched significant number of fights of these old timers you are bringing up. I can form opinions from reading records. Do i need to watch all 39 fights of someone who was 27-12 to say that he probably isnt going to beat golovkin? Its called logic ffs. Its like me saying oh some guy who was 30-15 from the 60s would beat mayweather, you all laughing, then me saying oh well youve never seen this guy fight, so how the **** do you know?!
Just easy for you all to try and make me look ****** 'oh haha your a noob you never watched (insert some random guy from the 50's here) fight'. Makes me laugh that you say i use boxrec and then you all start quoting some real detailed **** about some obscure fights from 50 years ago, as if thats come fresh from your memory.

no they haven't.


i already exposed a couple of idiots way back. asking me if i saw the monzon vs sheep herder fights. i asked him to post the links or upload the videos.

no response.

then one guy said one of the fights was a robbery due to the announcer saying it. i asked him to prove it.

no response.


the manginas know no bounds.

[Tom Cruise]

and to all you idiots piping up. I highly highly highly doubt youve watched significant number of fights of these old timers you are bringing up. I can form opinions from reading records. Do i need to watch all 39 fights of someone who was 27-12 to say that he probably isnt going to beat golovkin? Its called logic ffs. Its like me saying oh some guy who was 30-15 from the 60s would beat mayweather, you all laughing, then me saying oh well youve never seen this guy fight, so how the **** do you know?!
Just easy for you all to try and make me look ****** 'oh haha your a noob you never watched (insert some random guy from the 50's here) fight'. Makes me laugh that you say i use boxrec and then you all start quoting some real detailed **** about some obscure fights from 50 years ago, as if thats come fresh from your memory.

You lose fights when you fight great fighters. You lose fights when you fight 20+ times a year.

Stop being dense.

No one who knows boxing is impressed with an undefeated record.

[bigjavi973]

What excuses am i making then goes right onto make excuses saying guys with 20-15 records aren't bums and how he was green etc.


you don't even realize how much of a mangina you are right?

you've got to be ****ting me?

One of his losses was he was 8-0 to a 16-0 then he lost to a 37-9 when he was only 13-1 and then a few fights later lost to 2-0.... after that he hasn't lost a fight in almost 100 bouts while stepping up the competition each time. He had 100 fights.... lost 3 before his 20th fight... how in the world he wasn't green is beyond me.

[Madison Boxing]

You lose fights when you fight great fighters. You lose fights when you fight 20+ times a year.

Stop being dense.

No one who knows boxing is impressed with an undefeated record.

the point is its not great fighters some of these guys are losing to, thats the whole point im getting at. and carter only had 40 odd fights so it must have been a busy two years...