GGG has 1 competitive fight now he is "slipping" yea right more like media overhyping

[therealpugilist]

Good post. I also have said that golovkin is a B level fighter at best for a long time. Let's also not forget his loss toward the end of his amateur career was vs Dirrell, who imo is also a B level fighter...golovkin also did beat him, but as you pointed out, the fact remains that the bar was set for golovkin at that point of losing, which is why the mw division was PERFECT for him because it was lacking real talent at that time. There's a very simple and obvious reason they wanted no part of ward, golovkin fans just choose to ignore those reasons and try to make up non existent reasons in an attempt to counter it.

I'll add that while many attempt to pick holes in Mayweathers resume, they have to reach for anything...golovkins is right in front of them.

Wow....ether and many facts with context

[The Big Dunn]

Good post. I also have said that golovkin is a B level fighter at best for a long time. Let's also not forget his loss toward the end of his amateur career was vs Dirrell, who imo is also a B level fighter...golovkin also did beat him, but as you pointed out, the fact remains that the bar was set for golovkin at that point of losing, which is why the mw division was PERFECT for him because it was lacking real talent at that time. There's a very simple and obvious reason they wanted no part of ward, golovkin fans just choose to ignore those reasons and try to make up non existent reasons in an attempt to counter it.

I'll add that while many attempt to pick holes in Mayweathers resume, they have to reach for anything...golovkins is right in front of them.

I voted GGG A- in the poll that asked about him. I see him a little bit better than you do, which is ok.

I think you can make any number of conclusions about GGG coming off the Jacobs fight. I thought Jacobs being bigger presented some problems. I also thought Jacobs did some things that confused and hurt ggg.

However, if you say that GGG dominated jacobs (and that he let him hit him) and then you say he is showing slippage and thats why people want to fight him, well that is just doesn't make any sense to me.

[LetOutTheCage]

Meaning top five middleweights

He is suppose to be a PFP entrant... Never moved up in weight... Only beat a handful of champs n only 3 top guys in his division.... Its pathetic considering how hyped he was/is with his thin accomplishments

Geale was but was clearly past it and cotto finished him off

Lemmy was around 5 or 6 that's it...and that's suppose to prove you ate top 5 PFP bwahahaha

His resume looks like crap beside guys like ward, kov, choco

Even Thurman who is younger with less fights has taken more risks


Whether u like it or not you know its true

By all means attack his resume, its weak but you're whole point of this thread is completely unfounded, you have claimed he has fought competition that is the same level yet you continue to claim he has been found out by stepping up in level. Well which is it? you're contradicting yourself and now are simply attacking GGG's resume with no real justification to you're original point (why you apparently made the thread in the first place). You're now coming across as a GGG hater and you're simply using the premise of this thread to attack GGG. Again if that's what you think of him fair enough but dont try and mask you're intentions

[Bjl12]

When GGG**** loses to Ca$hnelo the haters will have excuses. That's all XD

[Eff Pandas]

You left out the bulk of my post which adds context to the parts you quoted. Its unfair to use others shortcomings as a way to frame my post.

Most of your post was directed at one of those probably alt-acct racial or semi-racial angled guys or at least he sounds like that sorta cat based on how you broke down what he said cuz I'm not really connected on who that guy even is.

you are vastly oversimplifying my point. I am not denigrating his resume just to do so. Maybe I need to word it differently. GGG has amassed his record over a resume of men that were huge underdogs. Jacobs, the best guy he ever fought, was still an 8-1 underdog which is about the closest the odds have been.

Its a point worth oversimplifying cuz it sh^ts on the whole sport of boxing over silly racial stuff probably like 50%+ of the time that sorta is brought up & the rest of the time its based on this guy or that guy fanboying or hating on some top tier boxer.

And Floyd was the underdog maybe once or twice his whole career (maybe vs Genaro, although I don't believe he was & maybe vs Diego, but I'm not even confident of that). I could name a bunch of #1 guys in a division & P4P type guys who were too if I thought about it more I'm sure.

What do betting odds have to do with anything when you are fighting top guys in your division? If you are THAT much better then the #2 or #5 guy in your division that's just how it is. You can't sh^t on a guy for being too good or his opponents, that are the best of this particular time, for not being good enough. Well you can, but its not a fair critique cuz we are all prisoners to the time we live in to some degree.

In the poll I voted him B/B+, which is where most of the votes were. SO my saying he isn't an A level opponet reflects that.

In fairness a lot of fans are f#cking dummies. I don't see how its even arguably that the 2nd or 3rd guy in a division ISN'T a A level boxer regardless of some silly NSB poll that 50 guys probably voted in & 22 of them haven't paid their mom rent for April yet.

[The Big Dunn]

Most of your post was directed at one of those probably alt-acct racial or semi-racial angled guys or at least he sounds like that sorta cat based on how you broke down what he said cuz I'm not really connected on who that guy even is.



Its a point worth oversimplifying cuz it sh^ts on the whole sport of boxing over silly racial stuff probably like 50%+ of the time that sorta is brought up & the rest of the time its based on this guy or that guy fanboying or hating on some top tier boxer.

And Floyd was the underdog maybe once or twice his whole career (maybe vs Genaro, although I don't believe he was & maybe vs Diego, but I'm not even confident of that). I could name a bunch of #1 guys in a division & P4P type guys who were too if I thought about it more I'm sure.

What do betting odds have to do with anything when you are fighting top guys in your division? If you are THAT much better then the #2 or #5 guy in your division that's just how it is. You can't sh^t on a guy for being too good or his opponents, that are the best of this particular time, for not being good enough. Well you can, but its not a fair critique cuz we are all prisoners to the time we live in to some degree.



In fairness a lot of fans are f#cking dummies. I don't see how its even arguably that the 2nd or 3rd guy in a division ISN'T a A level boxer regardless of some silly NSB poll that 50 guys probably voted in & 22 of them haven't paid their mom rent for April yet.

I don't think it craps on the history of the sport because all fighters are developed similar but not equally, particularly in the current era where "stars" are valued more than well rounded complete fighters.

I am not doing either. I was honestly assessing how I view things.

Being that much better than a guy is not just about your skills/talents but that of your opponents. I am not knocking GGG for being better than the guys he faced, (which again I stated so in the poll).

I am saying that you can't cite ggg "slippage" as a reason people want to fight him just because he wasn't that much better than a guy who was considered better than the other guys in the division as well.

It was just a reflection that the gap between him and Jacobs wasn't as wide as many thought.

[therealpugilist]

By all means attack his resume, its weak but you're whole point of this thread is completely unfounded, you have claimed he has fought competition that is the same level yet you continue to claim he has been found out by stepping up in level. Well which is it? you're contradicting yourself and now are simply attacking GGG's resume with no real justification to you're original point (why you apparently made the thread in the first place). You're now coming across as a GGG hater and you're simply using the premise of this thread to attack GGG. Again if that's what you think of him fair enough but dont try and mask you're intentions

thank you for admitting the truth...how will you know how good a fighter is when they fight C level opposition on HBO and PPV?

I COME ACROSS AS A HATER TO THOSE WHO SUCK HIM OFF BUT CRITICIZE OTHER MORE ACCOMPLISHED FIGHTERS RESUME...ENJOY THE PLATE OF CROW...IVE BEEN CONSISTENT ABOUT GGG


you are trying waaaaaaaay to hard

how many top middleweights has he fought.....3...geale was shot and lost to barker prior to losing to GGG and cotto.....Lemmy is good....so is Jacobs

after them his competition is a bunch of C level guys, and a top welterweight

facts=hate to fan boys

[Eff Pandas]

I don't think it craps on the history of the sport because all fighters are developed similar but not equally, particularly in the current era where "stars" are valued more than well rounded complete fighters.

I am not doing either. I was honestly assessing how I view things.

Being that much better than a guy is not just about your skills/talents but that of your opponents. I am not knocking GGG for being better than the guys he faced, (which again I stated so in the poll).

Well the thing is to a lot of these cats no one is any good so no one can ever be good cuz there is no one to even fight to get to good lol. Its some ****** boxing fan talent curve logic that makes no sense.

When do you actually get to "A level" in ****** boxing fan talent curve logic if virtually no one is A level to begin with & there aren't even THAT many B level guys? It makes zero sense if you think about it even a lil bit.

I am saying that you can't cite ggg "slippage" as a reason people want to fight him just because he wasn't that much better than a guy who was considered better than the other guys in the division as well.

It was just a reflection that the gap between him and Jacobs wasn't as wide as many thought.

Eh I mean I do think there are more guys leaning towards fighting GGG now cuz a lot of people & boxers specifically saw the Brook's & Jacobs' fights as moral W's for Brook (for having moments...or whatever, cuz I don't really even get that angle, but I've noticed a trend since that fight) & Jacobs (for making it close or arguably deserving the decision in some fans minds) or perhaps just moral L's for GGG idk which.

Clearly though the paradigm has shifted somewhat at a minimum when you got BJS calling you out after his previous GGG remarks concerning GGG's bada$$ness.

[The Big Dunn]

Well the thing is to a lot of these cats no one is any good so no one can ever be good cuz there is no one to even fight to get to good lol. Its some ****** boxing fan talent curve logic that makes no sense.

When do you actually get to "A level" in ****** boxing fan talent curve logic if virtually no one is A level to begin with & there aren't even THAT many B level guys? It makes zero sense if you think about it even a lil bit.



Eh I mean I do think there are more guys leaning towards fighting GGG now cuz a lot of people & boxers specifically saw the Brook's & Jacobs' fights as moral W's for Brook (for having moments...or whatever, cuz I don't really even get that angle, but I've noticed a trend since that fight) & Jacobs (for making it close or arguably deserving the decision in some fans minds) or perhaps just moral L's for GGG idk which.

Clearly though the paradigm has shifted somewhat at a minimum when you got BJS calling you out after his previous GGG remarks concerning GGG's bada$$ness.

I can't speak to that logic because I don't employ it. Again, I have never said GGG wasn't any good, only that a close fight isn't indicative of slippage but that perhaps that he isn't on the level that many suggest he is.

I think you get to the "a level" or "elite" status by defeating fighters perceived as better than you or on that level. I understand your point, I just don't know why you are bringing it up relative to this discussion.

I don't get that Brook stuff either. As I said then that fight showed me GGG had the ability to adapt and impose his will and pull out a win despite being outboxed a little early in the fight. Now I had Jacobs winning a close fight. I attributed it more to the weight and jump in comp level and not GGG "being exposed" whatever that means. I can't understand why you are bringing this stuff up when I am not a poster that suggested anything like this

[The Gambler1981]

Never really figured out his upper limit to begin with, before Jacobs.

Was it different a couple years ago? Or was Jacobs always the upper limit.

Hard to say a guy slipped when so little was known about certain parameters. He was obviously good and beat some decent fighters so I know what level he was beyond, I can't say he slipped on that because he would have to lose or get in a life or death fight with that sort of guy. Jacobs was the best guy he fought, but most people thought Ward would have his way with him at 168 and Jacobs is obviously a step down from that sort of challenge. He beat Jacobs closer than most thought it would be, but he won fair and square so he is kind of fitting in where is expected in my opinion.

It is more like an unknown becoming more clear than anything else.