Examples of "all time greats" exposed worse than GGG

[sunny31]

You are naming accomplishments of those fighters yet ignoring the fact they struggled or lost with opposition worse than jacobs but they get a pass. GGG dosen't.

Thats because GGG doesn't have the depth in his resume that those guys do, very simple. If he had a loaded resume then of course you would look at the Jacobs fight and say "well he had a tough night against a good fighter, but look at everything else he has done in his career."

But you can't really say that with GGG at the moment. People are going to be sceptical until he proves himself at a high level for a significant period of time, encountering different styles and problems in the ring. In those circumstances you can really analyse a fighters career and even if he picks up a loss or two, at least he and we will know where he sits.

The argument you have put forward doesn't really have much solidarity to it for the above reasons, it is a bit of a straw man argument, and picking on fighters of that calibre is not going to elicit a good response from most posters here because like me they know their boxing.

Jacobs was a step in the right direction for GGG, maybe he had an off night, maybe that is his level, time will reveal and it will only be when his career is over that you can really put it into context. But picking a section of a group of HOF and ATG fighters to suit your agenda is not the right way to go about it, and can be picked apart very easily, which has already been done by other posters.

[satiev1]

They loss fights while they were learning their crafts (Trinidad simply bit off too much weight); no one is ignoring losses.

Golovkin is 35 years old, a ten-year pro, a decorated amateur, and he barely edged Daniel Jacobs, a good fighter but not a fighter that anyone has anywhere near the top fighters p4p (BoxRec had Daniel Jacobs rated #30 p4p).

After losing club fights as he was learning, Carlos Monzon defended the world middleweight title 15 friggin times.

why do you refuse to see the difference in the situations?

At 35 fighters start to decline not improve. The above fighters were all worse at 35 than ggg.

[skinrule]

As soon as a guy has a bad round or something guys are falling all over themselves to run to the forums and claim that they were "exposed". I guess the faster you do it the more of a boxing genius you are. If Ali were around today guys would claim he was "exposed" when Frazier knocked him down. I'm sure as soon as Loma has a bad round or two the "exposed" claims will be coming fast and furious

[Scipio2009]

At 35 fighters start to decline not improve. The above fighters were all worse at 35 than ggg.

Are you earnestly trying to argue that Carlos Monzon was a worse fighter at 35 than Golovkin currently is now? gtfoh

[Deletrious]

Also, everyone thinks being really good means never losing, that's the Mayweather model. Which is ****, being great means you take risks and fight the best.