Originally posted by aboutfkntime
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
GGG~vs~Hopkins; Who's Run at 160 More Impressive?
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by TonyGe View PostAt Middleweight if he fought Jacobs he would lose. No doubt in my mind. Danny is too big for Tito..
sorry but that seems clueless
you have no idea what would happen in that fight
Trinidad has proven that he is a level above Jacobs
it would take one punch over 12 rounds to prove you wrong
I say the Tito that beat Joppy beats Jacobs
btw..... this is not a head-to-head regarding opponents..... this is about who has the better win, and Trinidad > Jacobs, no question
Comment
-
Originally posted by aboutfkntime View Postsorry but that seems clueless
you have no idea what would happen in that fight
Trinidad has proven that he is a level above Jacobs
it would take one punch over 12 rounds to prove you wrong
I say the Tito that beat Joppy beats Jacobs
btw..... this is not a head-to-head regarding opponents..... this is about who has the better win, and Trinidad > Jacobs, no question
Size Danny is bigger and stronger
Style. Danny isn't considered a mover but he can move enough to give Trinidad problems. Danny can fight left and right handed again getting Trinidad confused because I always considered Trinidad a somewhat robotic fighter.
Power. Hopkins stopped Trinidad with a body shot and Danny hits harder than Hopkins who was a good puncher but not on the level of Jacobs. I'd give the guy Jacobs just beat Sulecki a real shot at embarassing Trinidad because he is a better boxer and his style would be poison for Trinidad.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TonyGe View PostIncorrect again. You didn't start this thread so you don't have a say in how people respond. Again if Trinidad fought as a Middleweight against Daniel Jacobs he would lose.
Size Danny is bigger and stronger
Style. Danny isn't considered a mover but he can move enough to give Trinidad problems. Danny can fight left and right handed again getting Trinidad confused because I always considered Trinidad a somewhat robotic fighter.
Power. Hopkins stopped Trinidad with a body shot and Danny hits harder than Hopkins who was a good puncher but not on the level of Jacobs. I'd give the guy Jacobs just beat Sulecki a real shot at embarassing Trinidad because he is a better boxer and his style would be poison for Trinidad.
FACT: your opinion Jacobs > Trinidad is irrelevant for two reasons
1) it is opinion, and not sure that it is an educated opinion either
2) it is irrelevant when it comes to Golovkin/Hopkins, because comparing their opponents head-to-head is mythical..... and just another opinion..... triangle theories do not work in boxing, mostly because of styles..... so, even if Jacobs could beat Trinidad (and you have NO idea), that does not mean he can beat Hopkins..... just like how if Trinidad beat Jacobs, that does not prove he can beat Golovkin
you are conducting mythical matchups in your head..... when the ONLY relevant facts are right in front of you.....
FACT: historically, Trinidad > Jacobs..... who was a huge underdog vs Golovkin
Comment
-
Originally posted by aboutfkntime View PostFACT: your opinion Jacobs > Trinidad is irrelevant for two reasons
1) it is opinion, and not sure that it is an educated opinion either
2) it is irrelevant when it comes to Golovkin/Hopkins, because comparing their opponents head-to-head is mythical..... and just another opinion..... triangle theories do not work in boxing, mostly because of styles..... so, even if Jacobs could beat Trinidad (and you have NO idea), that does not mean he can beat Hopkins..... just like how if Trinidad beat Jacobs, that does not prove he can beat Golovkin
you are conducting mythical matchups in your head..... when the ONLY relevant facts are right in front of you.....
FACT: historically, Trinidad > Jacobs..... who was a huge underdog vs Golovkin
Comment
-
Originally posted by TonyGe View PostThey had no common opponents so there is no triangle theory. A Triangle theory involves a common opponent. Who is better or who isn't without acommondenominator is based on observation.
you are attempting to argue..... that Golovkin's best opponent, could beat Hopkin's best opponent..... therefore making Golovkin's best-win, better than Hopkins best-win..... which is not only WORSE than a triangle-theory, it is flawed logic at best
dude, Trinidad..... was a GREAT fighter
Originally posted by TonyGe View PostYou seem to agree that Trinidad was and should have been the favorite because you keep bringing it up. I thought the opposite. I was right you were wrong. Those are the facts.
this is the only fact that matters.....
historically, Trinidad > Jacobs..... /story
Trinidad was great, AND he was the favorite..... Jacobs, was neither of those things
that stuff you made up was not facts, it was opinion..... and yea, I highly doubt that Jacobs could beat Trinidad based on his last two performances
1) how many right hands did Sulecki land on Jacobs ?
2) can I search your post-history (and I am an expert lol) and find you making references to Danny Jacobs having a glass-jaw?
Comment
-
Originally posted by TonyGe View PostThey had no common opponents so there is no triangle theory. A Triangle theory involves a common opponent. Who is better or who isn't without acommondenominator is based on observation. You seem to agree that Trinidad was and should have been the favorite because you keep bringing it up. I thought the opposite. I was right you were wrong. Those are the facts.
doh !
03-17-2017.....
Originally posted by TonyGe View PostI'm a GGG fan and Jacobs is chinney.
He's not a bum but talk about Jacobs being the best fighter Golovkin ever fought is baffling.
looool
tell me again how " chinny " Jacobs..... a guy who..... is not quite a bum..... could beat Trinidad ?
or..... hoppit, either is fine
Comment
Comment