Golovkin vs Kamil Szeremeta

[DreamFighter]

Eubank? the one that couldn't find his pen and pulled out after they had an agreement in 2016?

Andre Ward? the one he tried to fight in 2013 and Ward said no? and then wanted to fight Golovkin in 2016 when Golovkin was Canelo's mandatory and Canelo had signed a paper stating he would fight Golovkin after Khan and then vacated?

Froch? the one that suddenly couldn't make 168 again and wanted 172?

Groves could have been a good fight as other 168ers, but in 2016 he was already stablished as the 160 champion.

Golovkin was only moving up or down for big money fights... he's an average MW. He tried to fight ALL the MWs, including Pirog who had to retire before they fought.

Remember not even Jacobs wanted to fight Golovkin in 2016. Saunders said I need 12-18 months. Everyone waited for him to turn 34-35 to finally call him out.

GGG has only ever shown interest inone division, MW, if he had wanted SMW he'd have moved up to take a warm up there.

[DreamFighter]

I mean if we're comparing different eras, I don't know of too many guys from the past who could have even competed today, it's just a different level of athlete and fighter these days. But even in modern terms Jacobs is a great puncher, great boxer (good amateur experience is usually a tell here), great size for MW, great heart. Only issue with him is his chin, I think everyone would say besides that he is a great fighter.

And his chin usually holds up well enough when he is focused as he was for that fight. Jacobs has Ishe Smith, Quillin, Truax, Fletcher, Mora (2), Sulecki and Dervy. Pretty solid and most of those by KO. I would say Dervy or Sulecki is his best win right now but hard to say with those guys still having a lot of fights left and we aren't exactly sure how good they are, but anyone agrees they are really good.

GGG's performances against Canelo alone should engender a lot of respect from boxing fans. GGG pretty clearly was the better man over those two fights with a prime Canelo. If you give GGG no respect then Canelo deserves very little, whatever you think happened in those fights. Canelo did not dominate at all and while I gave Canelo 4 rounds in each fight, there wasn't one round in the 2 fights where I came away saying - that is definitely Canelo's round. That's how good GGG is, always scoring with the jab and his workrate is incredible. Just a hell of a boxer and he should be appreciated much more.

Jacobs is 1-3 in title fights, and the win is a bare scrape for a vacant title against a middling contender. He is a borderline precarious titlist waiting to be knocked off. You have no business talking about him being better than greats of the past.

Still, at least hes SOLID world class.

[Citizen Koba]

GGG had had so many opportunities to fight a lot of good fighters between 154 and 168. Stop the excuses.

Lara and Ward... I think that's about it. And the window in between him becoming big enough (and offering a big enough payday of course) for anyone to care and finding himself lined up for the Canelo sweepstakes was maybe a year - how many fight could he have realistically made in that time, bearing in mind that many guys go 2 or 3 years in between decent fights.

Golovkin's resume is piss poor in comparison to a few elite dudes who started young with major promotional backing and were able to fight the top guys across several weightclasses as they grew through the weights (I'm thinking Floyd, Manny, Canelo) against everyone else it stacks up pretty well... and against other guys whose career was stymied and mired in promotional difficulties until 30 years old I'd say it's probably pretty good. You start using pejoratives like 'shit' then of course you gonna get folk 'defending' GGGs resume, even if they ain't claiming it's anything close to great, much as you would use an argument of context if someone used the same terms with regards to a fighter you like.

What I'd take issue with was this idea that GGGs career and resume include few top fighters 'by design' as I think you put it elsewhere... gonna be a difficult one to prove that, I would think. We see over and over how the good fights can take years to come together even without promotional roadblocks in the way and with the backing of the most powerful movers in the sport.

[BoxingIsGreat]

Lara and Ward... I think that's about it. And the window in between him becoming big enough (and offering a big enough payday of course) for anyone to care and finding himself lined up for the Canelo sweepstakes was maybe a year - how many fight could he have realistically made in that time, bearing in mind that many guys go 2 or 3 years in between decent fights.

Golovkin's resume is piss poor in comparison to a few elite dudes who started young with major promotional backing and were able to fight the top guys across several weightclasses as they grew through the weights (I'm thinking Floyd, Manny, Canelo) against everyone else it stacks up pretty well... and against other guys whose career was stymied and mired in promotional difficulties until 30 years old I'd say it's probably pretty good. You start using pejoratives like 'shit' then of course you gonna get folk 'defending' GGGs resume, even if they ain't claiming it's anything close to great, much as you would use an argument of context if someone used the same terms with regards to a fighter you like.

What I'd take issue with was this idea that GGGs career and resume include few top fighters 'by design' as I think you put it elsewhere... gonna be a difficult one to prove that, I would think. We see over and over how the good fights can take years to come together even without promotional roadblocks in the way and with the backing of the most powerful movers in the sport.

Thank for the reply. However, answer me this: If GGG wasn't calculating and it wasn't by design, then why not fight Canelo at 155 (Remember, they said, everyone from 154 to 168), while he was licking his chops to fight an old Floyd at 154? Money?

Also, remember, this was the period when GGG said he wasn't a businessman and all he cared about was the integrity of boxing. If he fought and beat Canelo back then at 155, I doubt we would be having this conversation.

He could fight Ward, as well at 168, since he was OK to do that against Froch and Chavez. Why not? Less money and higher risk? Isn't this by design?

[Citizen Koba]

Thank for the reply. However, answer me this: If GGG wasn't calculating and it wasn't by design, then why not fight Canelo at 155 (Remember, they said, everyone from 154 to 168), while he was licking his chops to fight an old Floyd at 154? Money?

Also, remember, this was the period when GGG said he wasn't a businessman and all he cared about was the integrity of boxing. If he fought and beat Canelo back then at 155, I doubt we would be having this conversation.

He could fight Ward, as well at 168, since he was OK to do that against Froch and Chavez. Why not? Less money and higher risk? Isn't this by design?

I can't... and I think you're right... the 154 thing was aimed specifically at Floyd. I don't believe it's the business of fighters to disadvantage themselves in negotiations and I personally think that the Canelo fight ultimately happened exactly when GBP wanted it to regardless of whether Golovkin had offered to come down or not. Nonetheless as I said at the time he should probably have offered to make it at 157 for the sake of PR if nothing else (and there are some suggestions around the time that Loeffler was willing to move on the weight issue regardless of the insistence in public on 160... ultimately we'll never know if that was simply playing hardball).

As to GGG claiming to be the boxer of integrity - well I don't follow fighters because they ain't hypocrites - people have a way of changing their opinions to suit their circumstances in my experience, and there's always a rationalisation. The number of times in this sport (as in the rest of life) when the up-and-comer shouts all about the cowardice and corruption that prevents them from getting their shot only to change their tune when they're the guy with the target on their back and the money in their pocket are beyond counting. I personally never championed Golovkin as being any kind of champion of integrity, nor is that the reason I follow fighters (though egregiously bad behaviour can turn me off a guy)... if that kinda thing turns you off a fighter though, fair enough.

Pointing to the negotiations of one particular fight do not invalidate the known efforts Golovkin made to get better fights earlier (Sturm, Pirog, Barker, Froch, hell even Chavez Jr) nor do they give any reason to ignore the fact that his career almost might as well have not started til he was 30 years old. Course - if you choose you can say it's all smoke and mirrors - that it's all been a masterful PR exercise that I and many other have been taken in by, and I can't prove you're wrong, merely ask if you apply the same level of cynicism to every other fighter.

Is estimating risk and reward by design? Well I suppose technically yes, but if so you have to say that every fight and every fighter are made by design assuming we're ignoring those occasions where a better fight is unavailable. Once again you might want to think about how that observation reflects on the fighters you like more than GGG. As long as you use that criticism every time a fighter elects to take an easier fight for more money - or, hell, just an easier fight - I suppose no one can fault you for leveling such a criticism at Golovkin. Certainly few people outside of a hardcore of GGG fans criticised Cotto for electing to fight Canelo instead of Golovkin, or Martinez for choosing to fight Cotto.

[Boxing_1013]

Jacobs is 1-3 in title fights, and the win is a bare scrape for a vacant title against a middling contender. He is a borderline precarious titlist waiting to be knocked off. You have no business talking about him being better than greats of the past.

Still, at least hes SOLID world class.

He only has 2 losses. So he can't be 1-3. His losses are also to guys who have essentially never lost so can't really knock him there. Unfortunately for you his wins as the regular champ count so he is actually like 6-2 in title fights. Just how it is. He is a great fighter with a somewhat suspect chin. That's his only real issue, but a lot of great fighters have an issue. All of those wins Jacobs had as regular champ were actually pretty good too so I can't really knock him for those.

And I believe we had a discussion about this before, maybe it was someone else. But a lot of people look back on past eras in sports and it's clear some guys from the past could not really compete in the modern era.

There are guys from the past who I would never overlook - SRR comes to mind. And of course Hagler was great and still recent enough to deserve mentioning and to give a solid chance against any current fighter around his weight.

But even Hagler looks like he is a 154 pounder compared to Jacobs 168. I don't really think that's a fair fight. Just different era these days.

I have watched videos of guys like Monzon and I just think it is clear that as far as actual fighting ability he and many others like him are not really in the same class as the top fighters at those weights today.

These guys were the 'greats' 50 years ago but they look like amateurs compared to the guys today. Just how it is. Again, if someone wanted to compare eras by what guys did in their respective era, you could certainly make a strong case that Monzon did more than someone like Jacobs. But as far as a prime Monzon fighting a prime Jacobs, it's just a one-way fight for Jacobs all the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhUGbzsx0S8

[blue_dolphin]

Bumlovkin going back to his roots.

[BoxingIsGreat]

I can't... and I think you're right... the 154 thing was aimed specifically at Floyd. I don't believe it's the business of fighters to disadvantage themselves in negotiations and I personally think that the Canelo fight ultimately happened exactly when GBP wanted it to regardless of whether Golovkin had offered to come down or not. Nonetheless as I said at the time he should probably have offered to make it at 157 for the sake of PR if nothing else (and there are some suggestions around the time that Loeffler was willing to move on the weight issue regardless of the insistence in public on 160... ultimately we'll never know if that was simply playing hardball).

As to GGG claiming to be the boxer of integrity - well I don't follow fighters because they ain't hypocrites - people have a way of changing their opinions to suit their circumstances in my experience, and there's always a rationalisation. The number of times in this sport (as in the rest of life) when the up-and-comer shouts all about the cowardice and corruption that prevents them from getting their shot only to change their tune when they're the guy with the target on their back and the money in their pocket are beyond counting. I personally never championed Golovkin as being any kind of champion of integrity, nor is that the reason I follow fighters (though egregiously bad behaviour can turn me off a guy)... if that kinda thing turns you off a fighter though, fair enough.

Pointing to the negotiations of one particular fight do not invalidate the known efforts Golovkin made to get better fights earlier (Sturm, Pirog, Barker, Froch, hell even Chavez Jr) nor do they give any reason to ignore the fact that his career almost might as well have not started til he was 30 years old. Course - if you choose you can say it's all smoke and mirrors - that it's all been a masterful PR exercise that I and many other have been taken in by, and I can't prove you're wrong, merely ask if you apply the same level of cynicism to every other fighter.

Is estimating risk and reward by design? Well I suppose technically yes, but if so you have to say that every fight and every fighter are made by design assuming we're ignoring those occasions where a better fight is unavailable. Once again you might want to think about how that observation reflects on the fighters you like more than GGG. As long as you use that criticism every time a fighter elects to take an easier fight for more money - or, hell, just an easier fight - I suppose no one can fault you for leveling such a criticism at Golovkin. Certainly few people outside of a hardcore of GGG fans criticised Cotto for electing to fight Canelo instead of Golovkin, or Martinez for choosing to fight Cotto.

I'd always apply the criticisms across the board, including the guy in my avatar. If he becomes a hypocrite, I'd say so loudly. I'm a boxing fan, not a fighter fan.

[Citizen Koba]

I'd always apply the criticisms across the board, including the guy in my avatar. If he becomes a hypocrite, I'd say so loudly. I'm a boxing fan, not a fighter fan.

I appreciate that, man. TBH even though I'll freely admit GGG is one of my favourite fighters you'd find through my post history that I've actually levelled more criticism at him than any other fighter - precisely because he is one of my favourites, if that makes sense.

In the main though I'm not in the business of criticising fighters or their resumes, cos frankly most of the time we ain't got a clue what's gone on behind the scenes to make or break a fight - besides this place has an overabundance of guys shitting on good fighters already, so I try to take a more balanced path. Anyways I genuinely do respect pretty much all fighters - specially when I look into their stories - so it ain't really much of a chore.

Oh yeah. And why not get your ass on the Pick 'Em - my (or rather the CREWs) little contribution to peace and harmony amongst our fractured boxing fraternity..

[BoxingIsGreat]

I appreciate that, man. TBH even though I'll freely admit GGG is one of my favourite fighters you'd find through my post history that I've actually levelled more criticism at him than any other fighter - precisely because he is one of my favourites, if that makes sense.

In the main though I'm not in the business of criticising fighters or their resumes, cos frankly most of the time we ain't got a clue what's gone on behind the scenes to make or break a fight - besides this place has an overabundance of guys shitting on good fighters already, so I try to take a more balanced path. Anyways I genuinely do respect pretty much all fighters - specially when I look into their stories - so it ain't really much of a chore.

Oh yeah. And why not get your ass on the Pick 'Em - my (or rather the CREWs) little contribution to peace and harmony amongst our fractured boxing fraternity..

Koba, you are one of the guys I respect the most on this forum, and we need more fans like you. Your post makes a perfect sense.

I don't "hate" GGG at all as a person. I really dislike the hypocrisy of SOME of his fans. It's like the guy is God and can't do wrong. They don't admit to one fault of his. That's what makes me and some other boxing fans go completely on the opposite spectrum.

For example, ducking Derevyanchenko was clear as day to me and other fans, despite the reason. Their go to when GGG's resume is criticized is usually all the middles ducked him earlier in his career. The guy brought nothing to the table for some of the good fighters at time. His bogus WBA "regular" trinket meant nothing. It still means nothing now as well.

They don't accept that, but when GGG ducks a C fighter like Derevyanchenko and fights a semi-retired superwelter bum in Vanes, they say it's OK, to preserve the Canelo payday. I don't give a shit, fight your mandatory. GGG's whole earlier career was based on justifications that those guys were mandatories. That's hypocrisy at its worst and turns off some people like me.

Say it like it is and you won't hear a peep from me (I mean his fanboys, not you).

(Maybe you read how I trashed Mares when he was suggested as a Davis opponent? I didn't want that at all. There was nothing to say about Ruiz because he was even worse. If GGG had fought the middleweight equivalent of Mares when he was 23/24, he would be the greatest fighter to ever live, according to those same fanboys.)