-
-
you really don't know ???
the WBA have three " champions " lol
FACT: you cannot have three (or two) WBA "champions" making simultaneous defences..... obviously
Golovkin was not the genuine champion..... just like Ryota Murata is not the genuine WBA champion now
Golovkin's " defences " were about as legit as Ryota Murata's defences are now
saying " close enough "..... is a disgusting drop in standards..... is disrespectful to the sport..... and is disrespectful to all of the fighters who did not receive a whopping gilt-edged free-pass
only ****head casual-fans would support that rubbish, which is why we would like to see them all exterminatedComment
-
the wee f4ggots who are defending Golovkin's "defences" are amusingComment
-
He was the genuine WBC MW champ doe. The WBA super title, which the WBA were bribed to bring back and give to Felix Sturm, to save him from a mandatory defence against GGG, was a paper title until they elevated GGG in 2014.
Golovkin has been the WBA middleweight champion since 2010.
Comment
-
Wasn’t justifying it. I wrote, “For those who see Golovkin as heavily avoided and the real best in class for many years, they might not. The title situation of boxing in the 21st century is often so chaotic that trying to split hairs even between beltholders of the same sanctioning body is just too much work for some fight followers.
Golovkin would have defended something 20 times and that would be good enough.”
I was referring to people who would give credit to Golovkin, thus all the qualifiers throughout (might, could etc). Point of the piece, and maybe I missed the boat, was that each of the three men referenced is likely to have some claim to the record and the arguments for and against that could be made. Note at the end, I came to:
“Even Monzon, his reign coming early in the alphabet era as we know it now (and there were plenty of title splits prior to that), has the caveat of the Valdez reign and a portion of his run where he was ‘disputed’ on paper.
That dispute was only on paper.
Monzon beat the man who beat the man in the line that produced Benvenuti (and that lineage at middleweight only traced to earlier in the 1960s), beat Valdez, and was the recognized true king of the class by pretty much everyone but the WBC from defense one to defense fourteen.
It’s still the cleanest mark to look at. Neither Golovkin or Hopkins has the wire to wire control of class he did. The man who came closest to matching him might well still be Marvelous Marvin Hagler.”
I’m really glad it sparked so much conversation here but I wasn’t trying to make a case for GGG but just look at what case could be made for each (for/against). Does point to how whack all these belts make it to even try to dig into this.Last edited by crold1; 05-03-2018, 05:19 PM.Comment
-
FACT: Golovkin was not the WBA champion you ****stain
"only becoming their full titlist when then-IBF titlist Daniel Geale defeated Sturm in a unification match. Geale opted to keep on with only the IBF belt and only then was Golovkin elevated to top WBA titlist"
as usual..... you happily support anything that is disrespectful/negative for the sport..... like a good little fanboy lol
grow up clown, nobody is going to listen to your spin and bullshhtComment
-
aaah true, fair point
apologies
I wasn't throwing you under a bus..... I have heard you and Jake both allude to the fact that Golovkin was not the full champion
the situation regarding three WBA " champions " making simultaneous title defences..... how is that permitted/allowed?
surely NSAC/CSAC/etc can see whats up..... surely the other ABC organisations can see whats up..... why would they sit idly while the WBA turn every man and his dog into a champion just to rake in additional sanctioning fee's?..... while boxing/fighters like Hopkins, pay the real price?
why are the standards in boxing diminishing, not increasing ?
if Murata's current defences don't count simply because Golovkin is the real champion..... then why should the rules be any different for Golovkin?Comment
-
Hopkins was fortunate that Tito stepped up to fight him because prior to that, his record was against mostly mediocre competition. Hopkins even though tito would skip his fight with him after beating joppy and go straight to Roy Jones but instead, tito dared to be great. It didn't work out for him but he didn't duck Hopkins, make him wait, or pull mw catchweight games for yrs. Ggg can only fight who is available at mw as fat as this record goes and hes fought every mw that was available to him. Not his fault Canelo chose to wait 2 yrs and then got help with the judges.Comment
-
1) Hopkins beat champions for his titles, Golovkin did not
2) Hopkins did not defend lower/junior titles, like Golovkin did
3) Hopkins did not duck his mando to break Monzon's record..... like Golovkin ducked his mando to break Hopkins record
4) Hopkins did not avoid mover/spoilers, like Golovkin did
5) I think that Golovkin is a total fkn hypejob, who has tip-toed through the tulips for his entire career..... relying on hype and bullshht excuses..... dude, he just ducked a 10-fight rookie because the guy was "too risky"
those guys are clearly not cut from the same cloth man
there is light and day between Hopkins and Golovkin..... both at 160, and as a fighter..... not even close
edit: when I say, total hypejob..... I mean that Golovkin is a very good fighter..... but he is a protected network darling who has benefited from some very soft matchmaking, and has avoided anything even close to a risk (especially mover/spoilers) while tip-toeing through the tulips refusing to life a finger to make HUGE fights with guys like Cotto/Ward/Saunders/etcLast edited by aboutfkntime; 05-03-2018, 05:40 PM.Comment
Tweet
Comment