Serious question for those who don't like GGG/his resume

[Boxing_1013]

I think I've asked a variation of this question before...but not sure if I asked this directly:

If GGG gets no credit for beating (impressively I might add) guys like Rosado, Proksa, Macklin etc...about 12-15 of those guys I think...

Why does Hagler, who many consider the GOAT at MW, get a pass for losing to guys like that in WM Sr and Watts?

Just seems like two different grading systems to me...and since I know it is coming...I would add that yes Hagler's high of KOing Hearns in that war was better than any win GGG has imo, even if one (as I do) considered GGG the better man vs Nelo in both fights.

But even then Hagler would just have 1 'great' win officially if GGG has none...(as great as Duran was, he was the much smaller man there imo, and Hagler by all accounts basically fought him to a draw)...Hagler also got schooled by the other ATG that he fought, who was 3 years inactive and coming up 2 weight classes...so that is a pretty bad loss imo, based on his performance/all of that....his next best win is a good one imo over Mugabi, but Mugabi himself had 0 good wins in his career.

I honestly just don't see the argument that GGG isn't up there with the ATGs at MW...if someone can list 5 or so other MWs all-time I would be open to changing my opinion...but I have seen film on Monzon for one and would have to give a hard pass on that one.

I think GGG is probably done, his fight vs SD was the first time I saw him be the worse man in a fight (though I had him getting 6 rounds and the official 'W' but feel he kind of lucked into it)...Ouma was his 2nd toughest fight (before the KO) imo btw, not DJ or Nelo...but yeah after SD I don't know what all he has left.

In his prime he still had some flaws, but all fighters do, even the greats...just don't really see the other guys at MW all-time who I would pick above him...I have always thought him vs McClellan would have been a great fight, even though the G-Man wasn't at MW very long...but based on accolades or ability I just don't see a lot of guys all-time I would favor over a prime GGG.

[elfag]

Dumbest question ever.

You already know why.

It was in the 3rd year of his career. Not during his title reign or even approaching his title reign.

Pac was stopped twice, Hopkins lost his first fight, nobody cares about those.

GGG fought cab drivers in his prime.

[CHOWWOKKA]

Because the next weight class was 175.
Because it was the 80's and we are almost 40 years later in a evolving sport.
Hagler > GGG
Adrien Broner > GGG
The MoMo you see at hitting the heavy bag at L.A.Fitness > GGG

[Boxing_1013]

You already know why.

It was in the 3rd year of his career. Not during his title reign or even approaching his title reign.

Pac was stopped twice, Hopkins lost his first fight, nobody cares about those.

GGG fought cab drivers in his prime.

Eh...so what I am gathering from you is some losses vs not good fighters get passes, and some wins against that same level get criticized...just think when evaluating fighters you have to evaluate the whole career, good and bad...losing in a first fight is different than your 30th fight as it was with Hagler, poor comparison there imo.

What did Hagler do in his run that was so exceptional btw? If you give him credit for Mugabi etc, you have to give GGG credit for Lemieux etc...just seems like a little bit of romanticising past fighters and downing current fighters who some don't identify with.

[Boxing_1013]

Because the next weight class was 175.
Because it was the 80's and we are almost 40 years later in a evolving sport.
Hagler > GGG
Adrien Broner > GGG
The MoMo you see at hitting the heavy bag at L.A.Fitness > GGG

Hey why stop there lol

[Real King Kong]

Same reason as any comparison between fighters now and the past. There were no Internet forums full of a bunch of whining trolls back then. Fighters were judged fairly on their merits, as opposed to the emotions of anonymous internet trolls. Also, journalists didn’t base their articles on “clicks” and “likes”. It’s really a toxic environment where there’s no major interest in rational discussion.

[Boxing_1013]

Same reason as any comparison between fighters now and the past. There were no Internet forums full of a bunch of whining trolls back then. Fighters were judged fairly on their merits, as opposed to the emotions of anonymous internet trolls. Also, journalists didn’t base their articles on “clicks” and “likes”. It’s really a toxic environment where there’s no major interest in rational discussion.

Well said my friend...I think that more or less sums it up

[Real King Kong]

Well said my friend...I think that more or less sums it up

I often wonder how the greats of the past who are often almost unanimously revered, would be treated by fans if they were active today.

[Cutthroat]

They had same day weigh ins in Hagler's era & no 168 meaning golovkin would be at 175. Hagler is much smaller than golovkin. No 168 also equals much more talent in the division.

[icha]

They had same day weigh ins in Hagler's era & no 168 meaning golovkin would be at 175. Hagler is much smaller than golovkin. No 168 also equals much more talent in the division.

the gggroupies dont care, they blalantly ignore this. .