Ridiculous things you've heard casuals say

[Johnny Steele]

"Connors too skilled for mayweather he's gonna knock him out dude"(serious face and all)

"Connors left hand reminds me of Tyson"

"Roy jones would school mayweather that's why mayweather ducked him"

"Mike Tyson could knock out all of today's heavyweights in one night"

"Mike Tyson is the best boxer ever"

"Fights off Floyd got arrested for beating up he's girlfriend he's a ***** for backing down from Connor this way" ( posting old links from 2011 on social media while everyone agrees in the comments)

The bolded one is 100% true.
Sadly...

[Joe Beamish]

He's doing all those things against whom? Can you name ONE great, semi-great, or close to P4P fighter he has fought?

Nobody thinks GGG is beating "great" fighters. He is beating the best the division has to offer, and beating the hell out of them in an exciting way. He is old school. He's trying to unify the MW division. It's a quaint but admirable (and admirably longterm, for Golovkin) goal.

Let's see how the Canelo fight goes. (Golovkin's career isn't over yet.)

[BoxingIsGreat]

Nobody thinks GGG is beating "great" fighters. He is beating the best the division has to offer, and beating the hell out of them in an exciting way. He is old school. He's trying to unify the MW division. It's a quaint but admirable (and admirably longterm, for Golovkin) goal.

Let's see how the Canelo fight goes. (Golovkin's career isn't over yet.)

The contention was, it's ridiculous to call Golovkin a "great" fighter. He's not, because there is no basis for that hype. He's 36 and hasn't fought ONE great or even semi-great fighter. What makes him great? Certainly not his competition.

[Joe Beamish]

The contention was, it's ridiculous to call Golovkin a "great" fighter. He's not, because there is no basis for that hype. He's 36 and hasn't fought ONE great or even semi-great fighter. What makes him great? Certainly not his competition.

Well, the ORIGINAL contention was that casuals say ridiculous things. For you, one of these things is that "Golovkin is a great fighter." But many hardcore boxing fans think Golovkin is -- depending on how you define "great" -- awfully good and exciting at least. And great for boxing in general.

I don't see too many truly "GREAT" fighters today. Not in the sense of (say) Sugar Ray Leonard.

In fact, some posters would say Hagler was not really "GREAT" because he didn't beat any GREAT fighters, lost to a freaking welterweight, and (wait for it) he didn't move up.

Welp, there was no incentive to move up in weight. And he beat some badass dudes, though they weren't quite great.

I see Golovkin as a lesser Hagler, a sort of "mini-Marvin." In what is essentially a much lesser era, where there are few if any GREAT fighters.

Take that as you will. But casuals say way more ****** things than "Golovkin is like really awesome." You have YOUR agenda, which is why you posted your opinion on the topic rather gratuitously. I guess to hijack another thread with a tiresome, repeated notion to dog a successful fighter that you personally dislike.

By all means, keep at it. If that's what floats your boat.

[kafkod]

Ridiculous things you've heard casual fans say:

Turkish wrestling is a blend of Sumo style wrestling and Ju Jitsu. Ever watch Ju Jitsu?

[N!Ck F.]

"A boxer has no chance in a street fight"

"Floyd Mayweather is the most over rated fighter in history"

"Bruce lee would kill a boxer in a fight"

[BoxingIsGreat]

Well, the ORIGINAL contention was that casuals say ridiculous things. For you, one of these things is that "Golovkin is a great fighter." But many hardcore boxing fans think Golovkin is -- depending on how you define "great" -- awfully good and exciting at least. And great for boxing in general.

I don't see too many truly "GREAT" fighters today. Not in the sense of (say) Sugar Ray Leonard.

In fact, some posters would say Hagler was not really "GREAT" because he didn't beat any GREAT fighters, lost to a freaking welterweight, and (wait for it) he didn't move up.

Welp, there was no incentive to move up in weight. And he beat some badass dudes, though they weren't quite great.

I see Golovkin as a lesser Hagler, a sort of "mini-Marvin." In what is essentially a much lesser era, where there are few if any GREAT fighters.

Take that as you will. But casuals say way more ****** things than "Golovkin is like really awesome." You have YOUR agenda, which is why you posted your opinion on the topic rather gratuitously. I guess to hijack another thread with a tiresome, repeated notion to dog a successful fighter that you personally dislike.

By all means, keep at it. If that's what floats your boat.

Good post. I've never hijacked a thread before and have no agenda whatsoever, except that I'm tired of hearing how GREAT this guy is. I don't see all that in the ring, given his competition. He's a good fighter, no doubt. He's no bum.

Now, my question is, since he hasn't faced ANY great competition, how do we determine his "greatness"? The eye test? I don't get it. Please enlighten me.

[Richard Hamilton]

https://********/2WbTbhdjc40

[WhatDisButtonDo]

"Mike Tyson would whoop Floyds ass"
Technically true..but the casual doesn't tend to realize there are weight classes.

[kafkod]

Well, the ORIGINAL contention was that casuals say ridiculous things. For you, one of these things is that "Golovkin is a great fighter." But many hardcore boxing fans think Golovkin is -- depending on how you define "great" -- awfully good and exciting at least. And great for boxing in general.

I don't see too many truly "GREAT" fighters today. Not in the sense of (say) Sugar Ray Leonard.

In fact, some posters would say Hagler was not really "GREAT" because he didn't beat any GREAT fighters, lost to a freaking welterweight, and (wait for it) he didn't move up.

Welp, there was no incentive to move up in weight. And he beat some badass dudes, though they weren't quite great.

I see Golovkin as a lesser Hagler, a sort of "mini-Marvin." In what is essentially a much lesser era, where there are few if any GREAT fighters.

Take that as you will. But casuals say way more ****** things than "Golovkin is like really awesome." You have YOUR agenda, which is why you posted your opinion on the topic rather gratuitously. I guess to hijack another thread with a tiresome, repeated notion to dog a successful fighter that you personally dislike.

By all means, keep at it. If that's what floats your boat.

Most boxing historians list Monzon and Hagler as "great" middleweight champions.

The only "greats" either of them ever beat were welterweights who moved up to 160 -Napoles and Hearns - and neither Monzon nor Hagler ever moved up from 160 themselves.