Tweet
You didn't even quote me brah lol. Didn't even see this.
He fought all of his fights away from home though, that's challenging yourself. He didn't need to, and didn't have the luxury of, fighting all of his fights in Karaganda Kazhakstan and grinding out decisions. Instead he took on all comers for his whole career and went to their place/a neutral site, and knocked them out. He should get much more credit for that than he does.
Also, if you don't know about Martin Murray's level at that time, I don't know what to tell you. He had just beaten Sergio in Argentina but had gotten robbed and the same thing had previously happened with Sturm in Germany where he won but only got a draw. GGG destroyed him over 11 rounds and I don't think Martin got one round in the whole fight.
I put Brook in A because I think he is naturally only maybe one weight class lower than GGG, and he was in his prime, and I think his style could have been one to trouble GGG. He was slick, athletic, fast, could take a punch, and has skills. And even he could only last 5 rounds and got his face broken. I think Brook's level combined with GGG's performance were A quality.
About avoiding fighters/picking fights...I mean I don't even really know what to say man...anyone who looks at the evidence, it is clear GGG was one of the most avoided fighters in any one division in recent history. I am not a complete boxing historian but I can't really recall anyone being ducked as much as he was for as long as he was...Sergio, Cotto, Canelo, Jacobs (didn't want that fight until it was forced...) Quillin, Saunders, Froch, Sturm, Ndam. He was the boogeyman at 160 for about 10 years. Just the way it was.
I agree in general a fighter can enhance his legacy by taking on risks. But I would argue someone like Floyd Mayweather could have gone to 160 and fought GGG in a neutral site. In that extreme example, had Floyd legit won the fight, who could hate on him for that? Doing something like that enhances your legacy, yes. I bring up that example because I would argue that many of the guys who you probably champion over GGG, have almost all of them taken safer fights as the home fighter...GGG was just some nobody from BFE who barely spoke English.
He had to fight anyone he could, in their house or a neutral site, and had to keep getting KOs to win. I think anyone should respect that, vs a guy who grinds out unconvincing decisions in his own backyard against guys who he more or less handpicks. There is some element of every fighter choosing the highest reward/lowest risk fight every time, but GGG didn't have that luxury as much as many other fighters in this era have had.
For the record I like Floyd and think he was the greatest promoter/moneymaker in boxing ever. But I don't think he ever really challenged himself, certainly not in his money Mayweather days...but he made max money so I have to give him credit there. But there is a difference between legacy and money - and to be the greatest you have to do things like Ali did - take on George Foreman in Zaire when no one thought you had a chance, and knock him out! That's what greatness is.
For most of his career GGG had no one really for him to fight to enhance his legacy. He said he would meet Pac or Mayweather at 154 but neither of those guys wanted the fight because for them it was high risk low reward. No sour g****s just the way life is. Now in his mid 30s GGG was gunning for the Canelo fight which was a money fight first, and also a legacy fight as well. He looks like he will get 3 of those fights now and maybe bank 100 million personally from those. That is a pretty good end to a great career (especially when you incorporate his amateur career which I think you have to do for great AMs like Rigo, Loma, Floyd, Ali, GGG etc).
A lot of people just don't like GGG because he doesn't look like them and they can't relate to him, so they want to try to knock him down a peg. Maybe some people overhype him on here, but when you have people hating on him so overboard, I think it is kind of a catch-22 where the haters keep ratcheting up the hatred and the supporters keep ratcheting up the accolades and eventually there is no consensus to be had. But when you look at the resume, especially the amateur career, it is really impressive overall. Is it the best ever resume? No, but it is better than 99% of current fighters.
And as far as currently testing himself - I don't see any real legacy fights for GGG that he didn't try to get or that he could get right now. Ward, to be put it plainly, is a half-way crook...anyone who has followed his career at all knows he is a shady bastard. And I don't say that with any ill-will. He seems like a decent guy. But when you objectively analyze the situation earlier with him and GGG it was clear that Ward never really wanted the fight, unless he had it 100% on his terms...that is just how Ward operates. Always is, we all know this.
So that fight was just never really likely to happen since it was a low reward high risk (of losing) fight for both guys. I don't think either particularly wanted it but I think GGG would have done it in a heartbeat...I don't think Ward would have done it unless he had nearly every advantage (weight, location, ref, judges etc)....look at his fights in the super 6 where he had them all at home, or against Dawson where he forced him to come to 168 and not meet him at 172 or 175...or when he dropped a belt rather than face Dirrell because there 'wasn't enough money.'
Legacy wise I just don't see where GGG could go. Jacobs is a good fighter but he made his name because he went 12 rounds with GGG. That fight wasn't really close at all. I don't think it even warrants a rematch for legacy purposes. And Jacobs is not keen on giving the rematch now since he has a belt and GGG doesn't. Maybe GGG could fight a champ at 168 and then also fight a couple top guys at 175. That is the only scenario where I could see it enhancing his legacy at this point.
He fought all of his fights away from home though, that's challenging yourself. He didn't need to, and didn't have the luxury of, fighting all of his fights in Karaganda Kazhakstan and grinding out decisions. Instead he took on all comers for his whole career and went to their place/a neutral site, and knocked them out. He should get much more credit for that than he does.
Also, if you don't know about Martin Murray's level at that time, I don't know what to tell you. He had just beaten Sergio in Argentina but had gotten robbed and the same thing had previously happened with Sturm in Germany where he won but only got a draw. GGG destroyed him over 11 rounds and I don't think Martin got one round in the whole fight.
I put Brook in A because I think he is naturally only maybe one weight class lower than GGG, and he was in his prime, and I think his style could have been one to trouble GGG. He was slick, athletic, fast, could take a punch, and has skills. And even he could only last 5 rounds and got his face broken. I think Brook's level combined with GGG's performance were A quality.
About avoiding fighters/picking fights...I mean I don't even really know what to say man...anyone who looks at the evidence, it is clear GGG was one of the most avoided fighters in any one division in recent history. I am not a complete boxing historian but I can't really recall anyone being ducked as much as he was for as long as he was...Sergio, Cotto, Canelo, Jacobs (didn't want that fight until it was forced...) Quillin, Saunders, Froch, Sturm, Ndam. He was the boogeyman at 160 for about 10 years. Just the way it was.
I agree in general a fighter can enhance his legacy by taking on risks. But I would argue someone like Floyd Mayweather could have gone to 160 and fought GGG in a neutral site. In that extreme example, had Floyd legit won the fight, who could hate on him for that? Doing something like that enhances your legacy, yes. I bring up that example because I would argue that many of the guys who you probably champion over GGG, have almost all of them taken safer fights as the home fighter...GGG was just some nobody from BFE who barely spoke English.
He had to fight anyone he could, in their house or a neutral site, and had to keep getting KOs to win. I think anyone should respect that, vs a guy who grinds out unconvincing decisions in his own backyard against guys who he more or less handpicks. There is some element of every fighter choosing the highest reward/lowest risk fight every time, but GGG didn't have that luxury as much as many other fighters in this era have had.
For the record I like Floyd and think he was the greatest promoter/moneymaker in boxing ever. But I don't think he ever really challenged himself, certainly not in his money Mayweather days...but he made max money so I have to give him credit there. But there is a difference between legacy and money - and to be the greatest you have to do things like Ali did - take on George Foreman in Zaire when no one thought you had a chance, and knock him out! That's what greatness is.
For most of his career GGG had no one really for him to fight to enhance his legacy. He said he would meet Pac or Mayweather at 154 but neither of those guys wanted the fight because for them it was high risk low reward. No sour g****s just the way life is. Now in his mid 30s GGG was gunning for the Canelo fight which was a money fight first, and also a legacy fight as well. He looks like he will get 3 of those fights now and maybe bank 100 million personally from those. That is a pretty good end to a great career (especially when you incorporate his amateur career which I think you have to do for great AMs like Rigo, Loma, Floyd, Ali, GGG etc).
A lot of people just don't like GGG because he doesn't look like them and they can't relate to him, so they want to try to knock him down a peg. Maybe some people overhype him on here, but when you have people hating on him so overboard, I think it is kind of a catch-22 where the haters keep ratcheting up the hatred and the supporters keep ratcheting up the accolades and eventually there is no consensus to be had. But when you look at the resume, especially the amateur career, it is really impressive overall. Is it the best ever resume? No, but it is better than 99% of current fighters.
And as far as currently testing himself - I don't see any real legacy fights for GGG that he didn't try to get or that he could get right now. Ward, to be put it plainly, is a half-way crook...anyone who has followed his career at all knows he is a shady bastard. And I don't say that with any ill-will. He seems like a decent guy. But when you objectively analyze the situation earlier with him and GGG it was clear that Ward never really wanted the fight, unless he had it 100% on his terms...that is just how Ward operates. Always is, we all know this.
So that fight was just never really likely to happen since it was a low reward high risk (of losing) fight for both guys. I don't think either particularly wanted it but I think GGG would have done it in a heartbeat...I don't think Ward would have done it unless he had nearly every advantage (weight, location, ref, judges etc)....look at his fights in the super 6 where he had them all at home, or against Dawson where he forced him to come to 168 and not meet him at 172 or 175...or when he dropped a belt rather than face Dirrell because there 'wasn't enough money.'
Legacy wise I just don't see where GGG could go. Jacobs is a good fighter but he made his name because he went 12 rounds with GGG. That fight wasn't really close at all. I don't think it even warrants a rematch for legacy purposes. And Jacobs is not keen on giving the rematch now since he has a belt and GGG doesn't. Maybe GGG could fight a champ at 168 and then also fight a couple top guys at 175. That is the only scenario where I could see it enhancing his legacy at this point.
Whoa! This is perhaps the longest post in NSB history. I like GGG too. However, in your defense of Gennady Golovkin, your post reads more like a magazine article or a book.
Comment