Comments Thread For: Golovkin, Hopkins, Monzon: The Record at Middleweight

[Citizen Koba]

good post, but its not about what i agree, my opinion is worth diddly. sturms belt was THE belt. which means GGG's wasnt, until he won sturms old belt that geale had dumped (by promo in 2014)

Who says that Sturms was 'The Belt', though? It's the WBAs title and they say BOTH belts were THE belt... if we take their word for anything we're fucked, or we have to accept their claim that Golovkin does indeed have 19 or whatever defenses .. Our purpose here is to make some kind of sense out of the impossible mess they made, so any reasonable argument should be examined - clinging rigidly to one belt or the other when BOTH are of questionable legitimacy may not give us the best solution, which is what we should be looking for, surely?

Ultimately it will be taken out of our hands, and the decision of what goes in the record books probably ain't gonna be effected by what is said in this thread (and the record books will probably say Golovkin had 20 or whatever defenses), so we're free to examine not just what we think will happen, but what we think should happen in an ideal world. To answer that question I think we need to look at the legitimacy of each strand of the WBA title, which kind of begs the broader question... 'what gives a title (any title) legitimacy in the first place?'

[markther]

wiki isnt always right, but its right here, its backed up by lots of sources.

Wiki isn’t a source most people with some former eductation use, or at least a high school level education. And if you are going to be on a boxing blog like this, you need to step up your game and use more credible sources such as boxing’s official record keeper...www.boxrec.com...still using Wiki-LOL!!!..you are the Undisputed Dummy-LOL!!!

[aboutfkntime]

Amusingly, yes. That is one of the possible conclusions you can draw from the whole sad affair, which just goes to show the level of BS the WBA created here.

A touch of common sense is probably required here though. People trying to stick absolutely to one title or the other being the 'real' title are trying to reconcile an impossible situation because the WBA treats both as real and it's their nomenclature and rules we're dealing with. To favour one over the other really has no logical justification, yet for the (fairly pointless IMO) purpose of counting title defenses we somehow need there to be just one.

The answer? Whatever you want it to be, man. I favour the 14 defenses argument personally, but honestly? Take your pick. The history books will record what they record. The question we probably need to ask ourselves is 'what gives a title legitimacy?'

EDIT: And just for the record one could make the case that if one doesn't consider WBA rules change that elevated Sturm to super champ legitimate, Golovkin himself should only have been elevated to that status when he unified with Lemieux in Oct 15, not that it would matter because he would have been the only champ up til that time.

how about.....

being the only one sanctioned by a particular ABC org lol ?

when the WBA created their junior/interim bullshht, everyone laughed

now..... everyone is happily crediting Golovkin for breaking Hopkins record

what constitutes a genuine fan is more the question to ask

that junior-interim bullshht..... was bullshht when it started..... and it is still bullshht now

honest/knowledgeable fans, will not be confused with current proceedings

[aboutfkntime]

Who says that Sturms was 'The Belt', though? It's the WBAs title and they say BOTH belts were THE belt... if we take their word for anything we're fucked, or we have to accept their claim that Golovkin does indeed have 19 or whatever defenses .. Our purpose here is to make some kind of sense out of the impossible mess they made, so any reasonable argument should be examined - clinging rigidly to one belt or the other when BOTH are of questionable legitimacy may not give us the best solution, which is what we should be looking for, surely?

Ultimately it will be taken out of our hands, and the decision of what goes in the record books probably ain't gonna be effected by what is said in this thread (and the record books will probably say Golovkin had 20 or whatever defenses), so we're free to examine not just what we think will happen, but what we think should happen in an ideal world. To answer that question I think we need to look at the legitimacy of each strand of the WBA title, which kind of begs the broader question... 'what gives a title (any title) legitimacy in the first place?'

the WBA did

super > regular > interim

come on man

how the fk can three WBA " champions " be making simultaneous defences?

[TonyGe]

They might fool the casuals, but boxing fans know many of Golovkins defences shouldn't/don't count. He's a media created hype job.

I think your brain is a hypejob..

[Dr Rumack]

I'd say about 5 people in this thread have actually watched a Monzon fight.

[DreamFighter]

Wiki isn’t a source most people with some former eductation use, or at least a high school level education..still using Wiki-LOL!!!..you are the Undisputed Dummy-LOL!!!!!

too much sugar? impressive that you would write that, given you were specfically told the 100% credible link is cited in wiki -

http://www.wbaboxing.com/boxing-news/gennady-golovkin-is-appointed-to-super-champion

but hey no worries, mate, you appear to be more interested in pretending you are right so that you can chant childish insults. Please keep writing "undisputed dummy" a few more times to make yourself feel better, by all means, it wont change the truth of the link that the rest of the world can see.

[Joime]

So many emotional men in this thread. Geeez. Relax.

[DreamFighter]

Who says that Sturms was 'The Belt', though? It's the WBAs title and they say BOTH belts were THE belt.

they have never said this. You've said it though, several times, sadly that alone doesnt make it true.

[DreamFighter]

Its just wrong to compare resumes between active and retired, especially since Golovkin hasnt reached half of Hopkins title defences yet.


The real question is "Is Golovkins resume now half as good as Bernard hopkins".
And the answer is, nearly.

Then at some point in the future hypothetically speaking when 3G has 20 defences we can re-ask the question.