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

[Combat Talk Radio]

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.

I won't bore you with all of the various top fighters that Hagler beat. To your question: There's nobody - NOBODY - on Golovkin's resume, win or loss, that comes anywhere close to Tommy 'Hitman' Hearns.

[Uglytoobad]

Charbroiled beating GGG or red!😂🤣🤣😂 what idiot said that!

[Boxing_1013]

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.

I won't bore you with all of the various top fighters that Hagler beat. To your question: There's nobody - NOBODY - on Golovkin's resume, win or loss, that comes anywhere close to Tommy 'Hitman' Hearns.

Why did you quote me? I basically said that in my post lol...I think you are going overboard (as usual about Hearns being BY FAR THE BEST fighter compared to anyone on GGG's list...Nelo would certainly be in that same ballpark...Hagler was great imo...just as GGG is great imo...Hagler has a few more bad performances than GGG, but he has the best win (vs Tommy) compared to GGG, even though I felt GGG beat Nelo both times, those aren't as good as that win vs Hearns imo.

If one is to tout the 'top' fighters that Hagler beat...then I think one has to give GGG a lot of credit for having wins over 'top' fighters as well...as mentioned, Hagler's 2nd best win was over Mugabi...and Mugabi never beat anyone his whole career...Duran was obviously great but not at that weight and that fight was effectively a draw anyway.

But yeah I just don't see how one could really hype up Hagler's wins and try and slight GGG's...doesn't really add up imo.

I like ya man...but maybe try reading a whole post before responding

[Combat Talk Radio]

Why did you quote me? I basically said that in my post lol...I think you are going overboard (as usual about Hearns being BY FAR THE BEST fighter compared to anyone on GGG's list...Nelo would certainly be in that same ballpark...Hagler was great imo...just as GGG is great imo...Hagler has a few more bad performances than GGG, but he has the best win (vs Tommy) compared to GGG, even though I felt GGG beat Nelo both times, those aren't as good as that win vs Hearns imo.

If one is to tout the 'top' fighters that Hagler beat...then I think one has to give GGG a lot of credit for having wins over 'top' fighters as well...as mentioned, Hagler's 2nd best win was over Mugabi...and Mugabi never beat anyone his whole career...Duran was obviously great but not at that weight and that fight was effectively a draw anyway.

But yeah I just don't see how one could really hype up Hagler's wins and try and slight GGG's...doesn't really add up imo.

I like ya man...but maybe try reading a whole post before responding

I read it.


You credited the win. I credit the MAN.

What I'm saying - different than what you said - is that the caliber of fighter that Tommy Hearns was is superior to anyone G has fought.

I think G is a good fighter, but I don't rate him anywhere near as high as some others do for this reason. Carnelo, Derevyanchenko and Jacobs were the only real tests - and he arguably failed all three. And I would rate that version of Hearns - as a fighter, not on resume - higher than I would rate those three in terms of who would get the W. Hagler beating that kind of a fighter rates him similarly higher.

So what's left to credit for G? He hasn't truly passed any test and he's already nearing twilight.

[Boxing_1013]

I read it.


You credited the win. I credit the MAN.

What I'm saying - different than what you said - is that the caliber of fighter that Tommy Hearns was is superior to anyone G has fought.

I think G is a good fighter, but I don't rate him anywhere near as high as some others do for this reason. Carnelo, Derevyanchenko and Jacobs were the only real tests - and he arguably failed all three. And I would rate that version of Hearns - as a fighter, not on resume - higher than I would rate those three in terms of who would get the W. Hagler beating that kind of a fighter rates him similarly higher.

So what's left to credit for G? He hasn't truly passed any test and he's already nearing twilight.

I respectfully disagree...I think G has been great and imo is an ATG...his dominant run at MW running through (Imo) a lot of quality fighters really impressed me...I also saw him as clearly better than Nelo and DJ in those fights...thought SD was better but scoring wise it was a could-go-either way fight on my card.

Hagler 'only' fought Hearns, Leonard, Duran and maybe Mugabi if G only fought those few guys you mentioned...and Hagler beat Hearns, but I feel his performances vs SRL and Duran were worse than anything G has done, certainly in his prime...and quite clearly the SRL and Duran that Hagler fought were not the best (weight, prime etc) versions of themselves, and still gave Hagler very tough fights, and in SRL's case, he pretty much embarrassed him.

So yeah some think Hagler is ahead of GGG, I personally don't really see that as being the case when I evaluate their careers...but others feel differently...all we can do is analyze the situations and try to call it like we see it.

[just the facts]

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.

If you think Monroe Sr and Watts were "not good fighters" that tells me all there is to know about you and this thread.

[just the facts]

I respectfully disagree...I think G has been great and imo is an ATG...his dominant run at MW running through (Imo) a lot of quality fighters really impressed me...I also saw him as clearly better than Nelo and DJ in those fights...thought SD was better but scoring wise it was a could-go-either way fight on my card.

Hagler 'only' fought Hearns, Leonard, Duran and maybe Mugabi if G only fought those few guys you mentioned...and Hagler beat Hearns, but I feel his performances vs SRL and Duran were worse than anything G has done, certainly in his prime...and quite clearly the SRL and Duran that Hagler fought were not the best (weight, prime etc) versions of themselves, and still gave Hagler very tough fights, and in SRL's case, he pretty much embarrassed him.

So yeah some think Hagler is ahead of GGG, I personally don't really see that as being the case when I evaluate their careers...but others feel differently...all we can do is analyze the situations and try to call it like we see it.

Exactly who are these quality fighters ggg ran through?

[NORMNEALON]

I don’t know ,Hagler is def not over rated . He is an all time great . Is he the goat at middle imo ?? Def not . But he is light years beyond ggg especially resume wise . I’ve read in this thread that John Mugabi is a journeyman .... not quite he is a two time world title holder and challenged for titles 4 times . He lacks a signature win and is far from a hof fighter or atg but he isn’t a journeyman . I’ve also read that Hagler lost to all journeymen besides Leonard which also isn’t fully telling . Willie Monroe , bobby watts , and sugar ray seales ( never beat Hagler but drew with him) were def journeymen status but they were good fighters .....however Hagler beat all three of those “journeymen “in rematches ( twice more for Monroe ) and he knocked them out to boot . His loss to Leonard is debatable ( although I had Leonard winning a very close fight ) and his other draw with antuofermo ( who wasn’t a journeyman btw ) was also ended via stoppage . Marvin Hagler has wins over : John Mugabi , Thomas Hearns , Roberto Duran ( still a great win , Duran went on to win a belt at middle although his best days had past and his best weight aswell he was still a notable win ), Alan minter , Vito antuofermo , fulgencio obelmejias , Bennie brisco . There’s 6 world champions and two first ballot hof fighters there .... that’s nothing to scoff at and certainly light years ahead of ANYTHING ggg has done . And iam no ggg hater , I watch all his fights . The logic in this original post and a lot after it is insane. That is all .

-NORMNEALOn

[WhatDisButtonDo]

Why do people act like all of the top guys at 160 didn't duck GGG in his prime? Quillin,Martinez, Lee, and etc. Gennady Golovkin at that time would have destroyed them, fans need to start putting more pressures on fighters to fight the best. You basically ruin peoples careers by ducking. Look at Rigondeaux. Ain't no way I could be under the same banner of a guy thats actively ducking me, i'd have to steal off on them at a press conference or something.

[Boxing_1013]

If you think Monroe Sr and Watts were "not good fighters" that tells me all there is to know about you and this thread.

Exactly who are these quality fighters ggg ran through?

You are kind of making my point though, my friend lol.

My general point is I'm not sure how one can make those two comments that you made simultaneously...how one can hype up the Monroe Srs and Watts of the world, and not give credit for GGG beating about 15 of those guys by KO...Lemieux, Monroe Jr, Brook, Geale, Stevens, Murray to name a few...I would say everyone GGG has fought since Proksa, besides Wade and then including Ouma, has been at least a quality fighter...some a level or 3 above that imo.

I just don't really see the logic that Monroe Sr and Watts were anything more than the 15 or so quality fighters GGG ran through by KO...I guess some disagree but yeah I just don't really see that.