GGG's Narrative Changes: "I am boxer. I am not killer."

[champion4ever]

The irony of all of this so comical. Before the fight, everyone on this forum was calling Daniel Jacobs a bum with a glass chin. Now since he's gone the distance and may have arguably defeated Golovkin, he is now regarded as the #2 middleweight in the world as opposed to being knockout victim #34; As so many on here were predicting before the fight.

[billeau2]

What is an elite fighter, in your terms, if the #2 or #3 guy in a division isn't considered elite?

Who are all the elite fighters in boxing right now? I assume its a short list if a top 3 spot in a division doesn't classify you as elite.

Maybe I just got a looser definition than some of you cats cuz to me elite & world class are virtually interchangable terms & basically anyone top ten (& probably top 20ish in most divisions) at a minimum are world class or elite caliber fighters to me.

First off, you are doing something that others neglected to do: you gave an indication of what you are using to define "elite." There is no right or wrong, or discrepancy if people would do this when using this, or any term.

This debate is either a case of people moving the goal posts..."well GGG did this but it was not against_____" or a semantic distinction regarding "elite." I suspect its a bit of both, but that is a casual opinion more based on human nature than the fight per se!

Whether "looser" or not...you have a definition and thats where this debate should start and not end imo. Elite can mean a great fighter, it can mean a fighter who is as you say "world class", or even a list where a fighter at the top is considered elite.

[Ray*]

Now Jacobs is elite?

Got to say that was funny.

[Combat Talk Radio]

I'll tell you what I saw last night: the Middleweight version of Garcia/Peterson.

[SweetPbfAli]

I'll tell you what I saw last night: the Middleweight version of Garcia/Peterson.

Care to elaborate? I thought Danny was more assertive much earlier than Lamont.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Care to elaborate? I thought Danny was more assertive much earlier than Lamont.

Danny didn't do jack for 6 rounds. Peterson didn't do jack for 4 rounds.

The outcome was clearly a gift in favor of Danny due to the perception that Lamont "ran".


Golovkin/Jacobs, they punished Jacobs for not taking risks over 12 and holding back for counters. They didn't punish Golovkin for eating combos in 4 of the rounds and literally doing nothing for 2 of them. Those two rounds were the swing - to me, if you don't show up and do SOMETHING, you don't get the round. Had they scored those properly, Jacobs would have won 115-112, which is the score I had.

G was clearly frustrated at Jacobs outboxing him after round 9 and started following him into jabs. They ignored that and scored it for G anyway despite the fact he never had Jacobs in any real trouble after the knockdown, which while it was a legit knockdown, it was a half slip due to Jacobs backing into the ropes like a dumbass.

They gave Golovkin rounds where he walked forward despite not doing anything but eating jabs from Jacobs.

Then post fight, G makes excuses that he's "a boxer and not a killer" - sure didn't seem like that against Geale, or Monroe, or Wade, or Ishida, or Rubio. What's different with Jacobs?

I feel it was a robbery, not because it was a wide decision or anything, but because Golovkin was scored rounds where he did NOTHING.

[SweetPbfAli]

Danny didn't do jack for 6 rounds. Peterson didn't do jack for 4 rounds.

The outcome was clearly a gift in favor of Danny due to the perception that Lamont "ran".


Golovkin/Jacobs, they punished Jacobs for not taking risks over 12 and holding back for counters. They didn't punish Golovkin for eating combos in 4 of the rounds and literally doing nothing for 2 of them. Those two rounds were the swing - to me, if you don't show up and do SOMETHING, you don't get the round. Had they scored those properly, Jacobs would have won 115-112, which is the score I had.

G was clearly frustrated at Jacobs outboxing him after round 9 and started following him into jabs. They ignored that and scored it for G anyway despite the fact he never had Jacobs in any real trouble after the knockdown, which while it was a legit knockdown, it was a half slip due to Jacobs backing into the ropes like a dumbass.

They gave Golovkin rounds where he walked forward despite not doing anything but eating jabs from Jacobs.

Then post fight, G makes excuses that he's "a boxer and not a killer" - sure didn't seem like that against Geale, or Monroe, or Wade, or Ishida, or Rubio. What's different with Jacobs?

I feel it was a robbery, not because it was a wide decision or anything, but because Golovkin was scored rounds where he did NOTHING.

Thanks for the explanation. I agree with your assessment.

[travestyny]

And more towards the 1st post why do people put so much on fighters post-fight interviews or interviews in general. Probably the worst time to take someone seriously is after they've been hit in the head for 30 odd minutes. Not to mention there is always going to be spin control by anyone smarter than a gnat cuz thats kinda human nature to explain away things to make yourself look better or less bad.

With all due respect (as you are one of my favorite posters here because, though I may not always agree with you, your posts always seem unbiased and well thought out), I'm not sure that I understand your point. We can throw out the interview and just look at what happened in the fight. It was clearly moving toward a decision, and GGG did nothing (at least in my eyes) to make it a "big drama show." Again, I'm not blaming him...I actually think that was the smart move. Maybe you're saying (and maybe you're right) that he was just explaining it away because he simply couldn't make it his type of fight. Perhaps Jacob's skill set prevented him from properly imposing himself, and he responded the way he did during the interview because of that.

And again, that's all good. However, it does seem clear that he was very happy to jab his way to a decision.

[Eff Pandas]

With all due respect (as you are one of my favorite posters here because, though I may not always agree with you, your posts always seem unbiased and well thought out)

It was clearly moving toward a decision, and GGG did nothing (at least in my eyes) to make it a "big drama show." Again, I'm not blaming him...I actually think that was the smart move. Maybe you're saying (and maybe you're right) that he was just explaining it away because he simply couldn't make it his type of fight. Perhaps Jacob's skill set prevented him from properly imposing himself, and he responded the way he did during the interview because of that.

And again, that's all good. However, it does seem clear that he was very happy to jab his way to a decision.

Yea more or less this. I don't think the skill level difference &/or style issues &/or size issues conformed to GGG letting loose like he's done vs guys previously. If you recall he took a much more cautious approach with Lemieux as well & Lemieux was probably his best opponent until last night + a guy with some nice power just like Jacobs has. So standing toe to toe & making a fun fight with Brook & Monroe isn't anything like standing toe to toe & making a fun fight with Jacobs & Lemieux.

And mainly I was just speaking on the words spoken in the aftermath of the outcome which to me are things I think fans take as biblical & as legit opinions or stances when its often heat of the moment type stuff & not very well thought out answers cuz you haven't had much of a chance to reflect on what you just went through & why things did or didn't work necessarily.

[travestyny]

Yea more or less this. I don't think the skill level difference &/or style issues &/or size issues conformed to GGG letting loose like he's done vs guys previously. If you recall he took a much more cautious approach with Lemieux as well & Lemieux was probably his best opponent until last night + a guy with some nice power just like Jacobs has. So standing toe to toe & making a fun fight with Brook & Monroe isn't anything like standing toe to toe & making a fun fight with Jacobs & Lemieux.

And mainly I was just speaking on the words spoken in the aftermath of the outcome which to me are things I think fans take as biblical & as legit opinions or stances when its often heat of the moment type stuff & not very well thought out answers cuz you haven't had much of a chance to reflect on what you just went through & why things did or didn't work necessarily.

Ahh, ok. Got it. Much respect, as always!