-
-
marv......
when Golovkin was running around knocking out tomato-cans..... clowns were comparing him to Hopkins/Hagler lol
forget Hopkins/Hagler..... I am not convinced that the limited Golovkin could have beaten ANY of those killers you mentioned
dudes need to slow down their roll lolComment
-
How? Boxing is physical effort no? You are in your physical prime between say, 23 and 33 years old. Very few sportsmen are able to compete at a top level past 35 including boxing.
Golovkin's issue was a, he was over hyped, b, he started too late c, he has fought in a weak mw era and d, he was avoided by Sturm and MartinezComment
-
two words..... Bernard, Hopkins
and it does not matter that Hopkins is the exception
he (and others) have already proven that boxing prime is not related to age
some guys did not start fighting until they were 20..... some guys had no amateur career whatsoever..... some guys turned pro when they were 15..... some guys are just freaks
there is no template for that..... and nor should there be
there is some truth in what you say, but there are PLENTY of examples to the contrary..... way too many examples to ignore, and way too many examples to start throwing around a definitive age limit defining where fighters slump
it is hilarious to me that Golovkin's " slide " started at the exact same time that he stepped up in competition
just like Pacquiao's " slide " started when he finally stopped feasting on sub-par in-house guys and started to fight guys like Marquez Bradley Mayweather
some opponents can make you look good, others can make you look old..... and I know exactly why Golovkin has avoided mover/spoilers for the last 6 yearsComment
-
Why make the rules based on the exceptions? I don't know what your reputation is like in this town, but I got two words for you in this situation. Majority. Rules.
Why are you giving examples of young fighters starting at 15 or 20 when debating the point of when age dictates a slump? Where's the fighters who had great careers after they got their start at 33?
The Pacquaio example is ridiculous, he had a huge string of great wins after Marquez.Comment
-
lil g is HBO's failed attempt at a eastern european takeover of American boxing!Comment
-
it is not about making rules, especially if those rules do not accommodate EVERYONE
you probably have no idea why Hopkins was so successful over 40, and why some fighters look shot at 28..... and often that can be difficult to define..... but it is impossible to define that by age because there is a huge difference between 28 and 48
and when you mentioned Marquez, you KNEW I was talking about KTFO6
Marquez was MUCH better than the mid-level Top Rank jww's that Pac had been kicking aroundComment
-
Many rules are for the majority but not everyone. For those rules there are always exceptions. Boxers look shot because they have taken too much career punishment or their training regime is so far from what they need that it has a direct and obvious impact on their in-ring performance leading to more punishment and losses.it is not about making rules, especially if those rules do not accommodate EVERYONE
you probably have no idea why Hopkins was so successful over 40, and why some fighters look shot at 28..... and often that can be difficult to define..... but it is impossible to define that by age because there is a huge difference between 28 and 48
and when you mentioned Marquez, you KNEW I was talking about KTFO6
Marquez was MUCH better than the mid-level Top Rank jww's that Pac had been kicking around
You have good points regards Golovkin. I for one never suggested he was as good as Hagler - he had to prove it and he hasn't and he couldn't. But as per the original post you have to look at the intricacies.
You can say whatever you like and you do - fair enough - but you have an axe to grind and you imo you weaken your point by being overly negative and stretching to make points.
Pointing out exceptions to people being in their prime such as Bhop is ludicrous. It's just willfully ignoring the evidence all around you to justify your assertion that Golovkin is mediocre. In your own mind you might feel that it is helpful but if you are trying to convince the majority of other posters then forget it.
Boxing like many sports is part physical and part experience. When your physicality starts to wane then experience and wilyness can, to some extent, start to compensate.
Breadman nailed it as to why Bhop was a champion in his forties. But this is undoubtedly the exception. I can't mail down when a man's physical prime is but I can guarantee you that for most men it is not at 35 years old!
As for Pac struggling against JMM and Mayweather - you have to realise two things. In JMM he was fighting against a guaranteed HOF and in Mayweather he fought against an ATG. No shame. The second thing is look where he started at weight-wise.
So Golovkin is no ATG like Hagler. But he should be a lock HOF and he is not yet. Why? Because he started late and he he doesn't have the scalps on his resume that he should have had (Sturm and Martinez) because he was avoided [ Froch:- "..swerve him like the plague"].Last edited by SteveM; 07-01-2018, 03:26 AM.Comment
-
I regularly watch old middleweight fights for fun and those 80s and 90s guys were so far beyond GGG's peers it's frightening. His hands are way slower and I feel certain Jones Jr, McClellan etc would KILL Macklin, Lemieux, Ishida etc in less time it took 3G. It's the difference between the B and C class opponents of Golovkin and true elite killers of two decase ago. If he dispatches Canelo in wow! style then his HoF prospects are back on. Seems fair to me.Comment
Tweet
Comment