You guys put ggg on a pedestal don't you...

[Vasyl’s dad]

Thats not what I have written at all is it? My post isn't written in code, if you actually read the words champ.

GGG's best win by a mile is a highly controversial decision over Jacobs. Any respectable boxing fan/historian will not put him in the same breath as those guys.

GGG is racking up good numbers in terms of defences but the quality is sorely lacking, and they all fought duds in their title reigns and they all had tough fights, difference is GGG doesn't yet have the quality yet. But based on last night he won't get them, he is just not in that league. Nothing wrong with that. As I said plenty of times before he is a B level fighter with A+ power.

Unless Canelo runs into something - he will take that guy apart, mark my words. Will that make Canelo one of the best middleweights ever? Not at all - just an elite well rounded fighter - I have never felt Golovkin is special, even before last night.

But you are implying those guys never had tough fights. So which is it? They had tough fights against lesser competition or not?

[Ray*]

you make it sound like he lost lol. he just beat the second best guy at middleweight who hadnt lost in 7 years.

"You guys put GGG on a pedestal" and then you try to accuse me of "making it sound like he lost", please compare my post to your headline thread and see who made it sound like "he lost"

[sunny31]

But you are implying those guys never had tough fights. So which is it? They had tough fights against lesser competition or not?

You shouldn't presume - especially when we are two sides of a computer. Actually read the words and to be honest I am quite literal, no hidden agendas, no tongue in cheek with me. Even in that last message I literally wrote "They have all fought duds, and all had tough fights".

Hopkins vs Mercado I, a good example of a tough fight against lesser competition .

Difference is the other 3 have deep resumes, which is the main point I have been making in all my posts, even if you want to make it about something else. I obviously wrote something which has rubbed you up the wrong way, but I am not getting dragged into something because you are literally not making a point, so I am not interested.

Have a nice day.

[PensionKiller]

Jacobs could win 7-5 and win by 1 or with the kd. I had him winning. It was very close and I am not claiming a robbery or anything like that. If you have ggg winning (based on the fight not race and nationality) I can understand that.

I gave it for Jacobs at the time (didn't do a round by round though) However the close rounds I gave it to Jacobs early on. In hindsight I may have given those rounds due to expecting ggg to win more decisively. I'll need to rewatch but can I think of 7 clear rounds for jacobs? Not really tbh.

Usually I would not give a draw round and am old school in you must take the round from the Champ. I saw ggg as the champ since he had more than the regular wba

I definitely do not feel it was a robbery. If there were clear 7 rounds to clear 4 then yes.however when some rounds are razor thin, it can go either way

[MPX309]

All this coming from the guy who cried Ward / Kovalev was a robbery. lol

[Vasyl’s dad]

You shouldn't presume - especially when we are two sides of a computer. Actually read the words and to be honest I am quite literal, no hidden agendas, no tongue in cheek with me. Even in that last message I literally wrote "They have all fought duds, and all had tough fights".

Hopkins vs Mercado I, a good example of a tough fight against lesser competition .

Difference is the other 3 have deep resumes, which is the main point I have been making in all my posts, even if you want to make it about something else. I obviously wrote something which has rubbed you up the wrong way, but I am not getting dragged into something because you are literally not making a point, so I am not interested.

Have a nice day.

Deep resume doesn't matter when talking about one fight. The number 1 vs number 2 is rarely an easy fight for the number 1 guy. So again, why is it ok for the past guys to struggle and win against lesser comp, but not ok last night?

[PensionKiller]

No he doesn't, he needs 7 rounds. They were both champions as well, even if GGG is seen as THE man I don't agree with your theory, a boxing round is scored on its own merit...PERIOD.

Everyone keeps talking about compubox as well, which I never pay too much attention too, its been totally inaccurate on far too many occasions to hold much water, but if you want to look at the numbers, people are putting the emphasis on total connects, but ignoring the fact that Jacobs landed significantly more power shots overall, and broken down by round.

I don't have a problem with the decision - to me it could have been 7-5 either way, but you have to look at everything impartially to get a true picture.

I saw ggg as the champ. Jacobs had the regular wba while ggg had the other titles...

I'll concede the take it from the Champ is old school. I'm from the 90's era to now so may need to adjust.

I dont look at Compubox myself.

Some rounds were close for me. Ggg successful with his jab and a hard shot here and there.

Jacobs with flurries and some jabs here and there.

Ggg blocked and made Jacobs miss.

Jacobs made ggg miss a lot of hard shots.

Very few of the rounds were clear wins for each and landing 1 or 2 hard shots would be enough to win a round.

I didn't do a round by round on paper so will look at it. I did have a feeling Jacobs won after the 12th but since reading about robberies, I will argue that it's not.

There were no 100 percent clear 7 rounds to 4 for me. Maybe 2 rounds each were very clear rounds to score however.

[stuff jones]

wasnt it cho ass who literally said that jacobs would have no chance (0% to win this fight,,,,u literally said that lmao

sitchu ass down with that clown talk nerd

WTF do you type with random commas?

[GhostofDempsey]

There are two sides to this; the haters who hate him because he is white, and posing a threat to Hopkins title defense streak--and those who wrongfully assess him as the second coming of Robinson or Greb, likely because he is white. From what I see, there is a lot of bias in boxing and most of it is hinge on race.

Look at all the blacks who dumped on him and insist he lost. Even if he KO'd Jacobs they would discredit him saying Danny was overrated. They launch a twitter attack and invade the forums with racist nonsense. White fans have him tagged as the P4P greatest even though he hasn't fought elite level fighters yet, at least not full fledged MWs.

Somewhere in between we split the difference with a minority of real boxing fans, regardless of their race, who can look at a fighter objectively and judge him strictly on skills, ability, willingness and heart. Unfortunately there are less of those fans on forums and more of the angry haters and fanboys.

[Robbie Barrett]

There are two sides to this; the haters who hate him because he is white, and posing a threat to Hopkins title defense streak--and those who wrongfully assess him as the second coming of Robinson or Greb, likely because he is white. From what I see, there is a lot of bias in boxing and most of it is hinge on race.

Look at all the blacks who dumped on him and insist he lost. Even if he KO'd Jacobs they would discredit him saying Danny was overrated. They launch a twitter attack and invade the forums with racist nonsense. White fans have him tagged as the P4P greatest even though he hasn't fought elite level fighters yet, at least not full fledged MWs.

Somewhere in between we split the difference with a minority of real boxing fans, regardless of their race, who can look at a fighter objectively and judge him strictly on skills, ability, willingness and heart. Unfortunately there are less of those fans on forums and more of the angry haters and fanboys.

It's you that's just invaded this thread with racist nonsense. GTFO you turd.