Ward vs Kovalev - Who've you got?

First topic message reminder :

I can’t let a fight as big as this weekend pass without a thread asking for folks thoughts. For me this is one of those odd fights that I am looking forward to enormously but suspect might well fail to ignite. I suspect intriguing rather than exciting may accurately describe it. Got to say since this has been announced I have been picking Ward. I rate both of them highly but just think Ward is a special talent, a lot more rounded and like Mayweather one with an exceptional ability to shut opponents down and neutralise them.
 
That being said Kovalev is no underdog or no hoper, this is a genuinely close fight, and one in which you can make an argument either way. Whilst people rightly wax lyrical about Kovalev’s power his boxing ability should not be underplayed, few since Jones have solved the numerous riddles Hopkins poses so effectively. Also he is a natural big hitting light heavy, something Ward has never faced, whilst his defence has always looked solid at super middle he is not completely unhittable. Froch had his moments where he was able to land, so one would assume Sergey will be able to do likewise. How Ward stands up to that is one of the big questions in this one.
 
Also whilst Ward is hardly an old man his career post Super six has had more stops and starts than me attempting to run a marathon. Being in the ring with Kovalev would not be a place I would want to be blowing off a dose of ring rust. Despite that, I still think Ward will be victorious, he is smart at tying up/holding on the inside and fast enough that he will score with plenty when the fight is at range. If the ref is pretty easy going when it comes to his holding inside, and thus far he has tended to get away with it, I think he will secure the win on points.
 
All of this almost certainly guarantees you can put your house on Kovalev, but irrespective of the outcome I cannot wait for this fight. A genuine talent moving up to take on the best the division above him has to offer, this is the sort of fight the sport needs more of.

Nailed it fellas. Steve Frank, Bo James, Morrade Hakkar, Andrew Council, Robert Allen....Robert Allen....Robert Allen...

Bounced out of the division by Jermain frickin' Taylor...

Yeh Bhop fought some dross. The first Allen fight was a no contest ended after a few rounds, so really the '3' fights were only 2. Bit like Marv with Hamsho and obelmeijas.

So sh1t on Hopkins to make GGG look good?

Can't wait to Canelo ends the hype September.

milkyboy wrote:Yeh Bhop fought some dross. The first Allen fight was a no contest ended after a few rounds, so really the '3' fights were only 2. Bit like Marv with Hamsho and obelmeijas.

You'll always find a way to have a pop at Hagler won't you Milky?

Will say that fighters were held more accountable for their mandatories back in Hagler's day. If he didn't fight them, then he would have been stripped. I'll just add that whatever Hamsho's limitations were, he earned his second title fight. I can't remember much about Fully Obel.

AdamT wrote:So sh1t on Hopkins to make GGG look good?

Yes.

Im guessing these guys didnt witness the turgidness of Hopkins first 6/7 years middleweight defences firsthand. Allen, Echols, Allen, Echols again, Vanderpool.....Did I mention Allen?

Tarver, pavlik, De la Hoya, Taylor, Trinidad, Dawson, Pascal, Kovalev, Jones Jr.

Macklin, Stevens, Lemuix, Geale, Brook, Murray Jacobs

Granted Hopkins has losses, but compare the resumes of these guys.

No, compare the situations they were in. The point is lost on you because you never witnessed it firsthand and comparing a 30 year career in boxing to a fighter who is in his tenth year.

Hopkins didnt land his big fight until well after a decade in pro boxing. He struggled along in the same division fighting dud fights for ages until he eventually landed the marquee names.

Golovkin has unified more titles and faced more divisional ranked fighters than Hopkins had at a compartive stage.

If Hopkins had followed your mantra of leaving the division because he couldnt get a big fight he would never have carved out any middleweight reign of note whatsoever.

milkyboy wrote:Yeh Bhop fought some dross. The first Allen fight was a no contest ended after a few rounds, so really the '3' fights were only 2. Bit like Marv with Hamsho and obelmeijas.

Is that when Hopkins jumped through the ropes? Hamsho and Obel fought their way into top contender status for Marv. Different scenario to Allen (especially in Hamsho's case).

AdamT wrote:Tarver, pavlik, De la Hoya, Taylor, Trinidad, Dawson, Pascal, Kovalev, Jones Jr.

Macklin, Stevens, Lemuix, Geale, Brook, Murray Jacobs

Granted Hopkins has losses, but compare the resumes of these guys.

The only fighters he fought at middle from that list were Oscar, Taylor, Trinidad and Jones. He lost to the two middleweights.

A more accurate comparison would be: Oscar, Tito, Taylor and Jones (2-2) vs Ouma, Brook, Jacobs and Lemieux (4-0).

catchweight wrote:No, compare the situations they were in. The point is lost on you because you never witnessed it firsthand and comparing a 30 year career in boxing to a fighter who is in his tenth year.

Hopkins didnt land his big fight until well after a decade in pro boxing. He struggled along in the same division fighting dud fights for ages until he eventually landed the marquee names.

Golovkin has unified more titles and faced more divisional ranked fighters than Hopkins had at a compartive stage.

If Hopkins had followed your mantra of leaving the division because he couldnt get a big fight he would never have carved out any middleweight reign of note whatsoever.

Amen brother.

It would have been in or around this stage in Hopkins middleweight career that he landed the Trinidaed fight. Golovkin might land a Canelo fight at a similar juncture.

I think the clock is starting to tick more loudly for Golovkin now. He hasnt looked the same fighter this year when compared to a couple of years back. I thought he looked tired physically and mentally in his last couple of fights. The same spark isnt there inside or outside the ring. The goofy, grinning enthusiastic guy who looked like he enjoyed nothing more than getting in there and flattening someone seems to have been replaced by a more detached, disengaged individual who is just going through the motions. Maybe he needs a bit of a break to get his mojo back. But possibly we have seen the best of Golovkin has to offer now.

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Yeh Bhop fought some dross. The first Allen fight was a no contest ended after a few rounds, so really the '3' fights were only 2. Bit like Marv with Hamsho and obelmeijas.

You'll always find a way to have a pop at Hagler won't you Milky?

Will say that fighters were held more accountable for their mandatories back in Hagler's day. If he didn't fight them, then he would have been stripped. I'll just add that whatever Hamsho's limitations were, he earned his second title fight. I can't remember much about Fully Obel.

Obel went something like 30-0 (28) to earn his crack at Hagler. After losing, he then went 8-0 (8) - with a really nice win over Chong-Pal Park - to become number one contender at 160 with the WBA (and one of the top ten contenders at 160).

After Hopkins beat Tito for all the marbles, he was fed a string of ABC mandos that included the likes of Hakker and Allen (neither of whom were genuine top ten material).

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Yeh Bhop fought some dross. The first Allen fight was a no contest ended after a few rounds, so really the '3' fights were only 2. Bit like Marv with Hamsho and obelmeijas.

You'll always find a way to have a pop at Hagler won't you Milky?

Will say that fighters were held more accountable for their mandatories back in Hagler's day. If he didn't fight them, then he would have been stripped. I'll just add that whatever Hamsho's limitations were, he earned his second title fight. I can't remember much about Fully Obel.

Haha, that post was for your benefit Atila!

Allen had actually got himself back as ibf number 1 contender. I was just pointing out some double standards in the appraisal of Hopkins that goes on, and I'm no bhop luvvy.

Hamsho got himself back to no 1 contender (says a lot about the division, as he was a bang average bar room brawler...I watched an aging Alan minter outbox the guy and get shafted... He beat Benitez who was a shell and never a middle and the equally limited czyz to get his ranking up) and I believe Marv didn't want to fight him again as he'd butchered him the first time.

As for obelmeijas, haz has been checking out boxrec to defend him but the truth is he was a crude game banger... but a well connected one. How he got his rankings was a mystery to all at the time, you won't find many top 10 contenders on his resume, but he was Venezuelan, home of the WBA.  I'm pretty sure hagler didn't want to fight him twice either. But there you go.

In addition hagler had caveman lee, scypion and his best wins and biggest fights were also against guys moving up, like Hopkins.

It is what it is, we've done the relative merits of haglers and Hopkins reigns countless times before, and I've no appetite to do it again. Hagler's career as a middle is superior, I'm just pointing out to those slagging bhop that there are some similarities.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Tarver, pavlik, De la Hoya, Taylor, Trinidad, Dawson, Pascal, Kovalev, Jones Jr.

Macklin, Stevens, Lemuix, Geale, Brook, Murray Jacobs

Granted Hopkins has losses, but compare the resumes of these guys.

The only fighters he fought at middle from that list were Oscar, Taylor, Trinidad and Jones. He lost to the two middleweights.

A more accurate comparison would be: Oscar, Tito, Taylor and Jones (2-2) vs Ouma, Brook, Jacobs and Lemieux (4-0).

I don't care about wins at one division. Fact is, GGG has fought one decent fighter.

Different times, different era's etc heck even 10 years ago boxing was a bit different.

If GGG wants a great legacy then surely he needs to move up and win the belts at the higher rate, it's looking more and more likely that Canelo is swerving him so does he really want to hang around for something that might not happen.

Tough one but as with any boxer you can't really judge him completely yet until his career is over (but then we couldn't slag anyone off really ;-)

Canelo was swerving him, past tense. I think they want the fight, now that they have seen chinks. I pick Canelo. GGG is on his way down.

AdamT wrote:Canelo was swerving him, past tense. I think they want the fight, now that they have seen chinks. I pick Canelo. GGG is on his way down.

Racist.

I am

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Tarver, pavlik, De la Hoya, Taylor, Trinidad, Dawson, Pascal, Kovalev, Jones Jr.

Macklin, Stevens, Lemuix, Geale, Brook, Murray Jacobs

Granted Hopkins has losses, but compare the resumes of these guys.

The only fighters he fought at middle from that list were Oscar, Taylor, Trinidad and Jones. He lost to the two middleweights.

A more accurate comparison would be: Oscar, Tito, Taylor and Jones (2-2) vs Ouma, Brook, Jacobs and Lemieux (4-0).

I don't care about wins at one division. Fact is, GGG has fought one decent fighter.

His resume isn't great but much of that is down to the fact the top fighters have swerved him. Sign of the times. No-one wants to fight Rigondeaux either. The marketable guys can fight who they like - so they pick easier opponents. The kids who want the big fights are deemed too dangerous to bother with.

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Yeh Bhop fought some dross. The first Allen fight was a no contest ended after a few rounds, so really the '3' fights were only 2. Bit like Marv with Hamsho and obelmeijas.

You'll always find a way to have a pop at Hagler won't you Milky?

Will say that fighters were held more accountable for their mandatories back in Hagler's day. If he didn't fight them, then he would have been stripped. I'll just add that whatever Hamsho's limitations were, he earned his second title fight. I can't remember much about Fully Obel.

Haha, that post was for your benefit Atila!

Allen had actually got himself back as ibf number 1 contender. I was just pointing out some double standards in the appraisal of Hopkins that goes on, and I'm no bhop luvvy.

Hamsho got himself back to no 1 contender (says a lot about the division, as he was a bang average bar room brawler...I watched an aging Alan minter outbox the guy and get shafted... He beat Benitez who was a shell and never a middle and the equally limited czyz to get his ranking up) and I believe Marv didn't want to fight him again as he'd butchered him the first time.

As for obelmeijas, haz has been checking out boxrec to defend him but the truth is he was a crude game banger... but a well connected one. How he got his rankings was a mystery to all at the time, you won't find many top 10 contenders on his resume, but he was Venezuelan, home of the WBA.  I'm pretty sure hagler didn't want to fight him twice either. But there you go.

In addition hagler had caveman lee, scypion and his best wins and biggest fights were also against guys moving up, like Hopkins.

It is what it is, we've done the relative merits of haglers and Hopkins reigns countless times before, and I've no appetite to do it again. Hagler's career as a middle is superior, I'm just pointing out to those slagging bhop that there are some similarities.

Difference being, the guys Hagler fought were legends.

Obel was crude, but surely a better fighter than the likes of Allen. When you wipe out a division, you're going to end up going over old ground.

Hopkins had just become a star and was roundly criticised for facing Hakkar - possibly the worst fighter ever to fight for the real middleweight crown (Ok, it was a mandatory but Hopkins had the Ring belt by this point). Larry Merchant famously took him to task: "Aren't you embarrassed?" before Hopkins called out the junior middleweight champs in the post-fight interview. I'm sure if some of the Team Hopkins posters had been around at the time, they'd have been tearing strips off him back then.

Some of the guys on here praising Hopkins for his middleweight run while rubbishing Golovkin's are having a laugh. The difference is that Golovkin was repeatedly swerved whereas Hopkins caused his own problems by being difficult with promoters. I'm sure by the time GGG is finished at 160, both men's middleweight ledgers won't look a million miles apart.

Saying that, I have a lot of time for any fighter who sticks with the issues they faced to clean house in a division. They're not Hagler but then again, who is?

Atila wrote:I'll forgive GGG for fighting Dominic Wade as he's only fought him once. How many times did Hopkins fight Robert Allen...3 times I think? 3 title defences against the same man. That's got to be some type of record.

Unless your Manny Pacquiao....

Marquez 9 times
Morales 17 times

Etc Etc

Hopkins overall Middleweight record is far better than Golovkins, you're so one eyed with boxers you like it's unreal.

Say for instance GGG finally beats Alvarez, he's not on the same level as Trinidad or De La Hoya and it's unlikely he'll ever have a win to match the Tito one

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Yeh Bhop fought some dross. The first Allen fight was a no contest ended after a few rounds, so really the '3' fights were only 2. Bit like Marv with Hamsho and obelmeijas.

You'll always find a way to have a pop at Hagler won't you Milky?

Will say that fighters were held more accountable for their mandatories back in Hagler's day. If he didn't fight them, then he would have been stripped. I'll just add that whatever Hamsho's limitations were, he earned his second title fight. I can't remember much about Fully Obel.

Haha, that post was for your benefit Atila!

Allen had actually got himself back as ibf number 1 contender. I was just pointing out some double standards in the appraisal of Hopkins that goes on, and I'm no bhop luvvy.

Hamsho got himself back to no 1 contender (says a lot about the division, as he was a bang average bar room brawler...I watched an aging Alan minter outbox the guy and get shafted... He beat Benitez who was a shell and never a middle and the equally limited czyz to get his ranking up) and I believe Marv didn't want to fight him again as he'd butchered him the first time.

As for obelmeijas, haz has been checking out boxrec to defend him but the truth is he was a crude game banger... but a well connected one. How he got his rankings was a mystery to all at the time, you won't find many top 10 contenders on his resume, but he was Venezuelan, home of the WBA.  I'm pretty sure hagler didn't want to fight him twice either. But there you go.

In addition hagler had caveman lee, scypion and his best wins and biggest fights were also against guys moving up, like Hopkins.

It is what it is, we've done the relative merits of haglers and Hopkins reigns countless times before, and I've no appetite to do it again. Hagler's career as a middle is superior, I'm just pointing out to those slagging bhop that there are some similarities.

Difference being, the guys Hagler fought were legends.

Obel was crude, but surely a better fighter than the likes of Allen. When you wipe out a division, you're going to end up going over old ground.

Hopkins had just become a star and was roundly criticised for facing Hakkar - possibly the worst fighter ever to fight for the real middleweight crown (Ok, it was a mandatory but Hopkins had the Ring belt by this point). Larry Merchant famously took him to task: "Aren't you embarrassed?" before Hopkins called out the junior middleweight champs in the post-fight interview. I'm sure if some of the Team Hopkins posters had been around at the time, they'd have been tearing strips off him back then.

Some of the guys on here praising Hopkins for his middleweight run while rubbishing Golovkin's are having a laugh. The difference is that Golovkin was repeatedly swerved whereas Hopkins caused his own problems by being difficult with promoters. I'm sure by the time GGG is finished at 160, both men's middleweight ledgers won't look a million miles apart.

Saying that, I have a lot of time for any fighter who sticks with the issues they faced to clean house in a division. They're not Hagler but then again, who is?

GGG has fought nobody and Hopkins has fought very good competition. Hopkins also has a set of testicles, that allowed him to move up and challenge himself.

GGG hasn't even got a resume close to Joe Calzaghe.

You guys might think I'm harsh on him, but his resume is pi$$ poor and he looked very average in his last fight.

Will he go down as an atg? If Wlad does, then he should too. Though imo, he is miles behind Jones jr, Floyd, Manny etc.

Ward and Lomachenko will go down as great fighters. GGG a very good one.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hopkins overall Middleweight record is far better than Golovkins, you're so one eyed with boxers you like it's unreal.

Say for instance GGG finally beats Alvarez, he's not on the same level as Trinidad or De La Hoya and it's unlikely he'll ever have a win to match the Tito one

Agree with what your saying Hammer but its soooooooo difficult, as it is with any other sports, to compare eras.

The 160lbs division today compared to yesteryear is pants.

The Heavyweight division is crap.

The fighters can only beat what there is. GGG has beaten nearly everyone in his division and is actively chasing unifications with champs. Undefeated. Longest KO streak or something. Yes Hopkins has the better "resume" but does that make him the better fighter?

Whats not to say GGG couldnt compete?

Whats to say Lewis couldnt compete with a prime Tyson or Ali?

Could Pacquiao handle Duran?

If GGG beats Hopkins record....then proof is in the pudding....whether the opposition is crap or good, its not down to GGG.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Yeh Bhop fought some dross. The first Allen fight was a no contest ended after a few rounds, so really the '3' fights were only 2. Bit like Marv with Hamsho and obelmeijas.

You'll always find a way to have a pop at Hagler won't you Milky?

Will say that fighters were held more accountable for their mandatories back in Hagler's day. If he didn't fight them, then he would have been stripped. I'll just add that whatever Hamsho's limitations were, he earned his second title fight. I can't remember much about Fully Obel.

Haha, that post was for your benefit Atila!

Allen had actually got himself back as ibf number 1 contender. I was just pointing out some double standards in the appraisal of Hopkins that goes on, and I'm no bhop luvvy.

Hamsho got himself back to no 1 contender (says a lot about the division, as he was a bang average bar room brawler...I watched an aging Alan minter outbox the guy and get shafted... He beat Benitez who was a shell and never a middle and the equally limited czyz to get his ranking up) and I believe Marv didn't want to fight him again as he'd butchered him the first time.

As for obelmeijas, haz has been checking out boxrec to defend him but the truth is he was a crude game banger... but a well connected one. How he got his rankings was a mystery to all at the time, you won't find many top 10 contenders on his resume, but he was Venezuelan, home of the WBA.  I'm pretty sure hagler didn't want to fight him twice either. But there you go.

In addition hagler had caveman lee, scypion and his best wins and biggest fights were also against guys moving up, like Hopkins.

It is what it is, we've done the relative merits of haglers and Hopkins reigns countless times before, and I've no appetite to do it again. Hagler's career as a middle is superior, I'm just pointing out to those slagging bhop that there are some similarities.

Difference being, the guys Hagler fought were legends.

Obel was crude, but surely a better fighter than the likes of Allen. When you wipe out a division, you're going to end up going over old ground.

Hopkins had just become a star and was roundly criticised for facing Hakkar - possibly the worst fighter ever to fight for the real middleweight crown (Ok, it was a mandatory but Hopkins had the Ring belt by this point). Larry Merchant famously took him to task: "Aren't you embarrassed?" before Hopkins called out the junior middleweight champs in the post-fight interview. I'm sure if some of the Team Hopkins posters had been around at the time, they'd have been tearing strips off him back then.

Some of the guys on here praising Hopkins for his middleweight run while rubbishing Golovkin's are having a laugh. The difference is that Golovkin was repeatedly swerved whereas Hopkins caused his own problems by being difficult with promoters. I'm sure by the time GGG is finished at 160, both men's middleweight ledgers won't look a million miles apart.

Saying that, I have a lot of time for any fighter who sticks with the issues they faced to clean house in a division. They're not Hagler but then again, who is?

fair points fella. Hopkins was difficult to deal with and often difficult to watch... Except against tito, the irony of which is never lost on me when we end up discussing this lot! He pretty much dismantled glen johnson an excellent win which seems to slip under the radar too, but a lot of filler certainly.

For all I point out the calibre of his championship opposition at times, Hagler didn't make up the rankings, he fought who was put in front him, and duran apart, he took them all to the cleaners looking the all time great he is up until the SRL fight.

I think by the time he became champ he was juggling his desire to build a legacy at middleweight, keep his belt and his desire to make the money he (rightly) felt he was worth....

just dug out petronelli's view on obelmejias, quite funny

http://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/06/15/Luis-Batista-Salas-head-of-the-World-Boxing-Association/3532392961600/

Not sure about the monkey reference....

This is good, also:

http://thecruelestsport.com/2014/06/04/kind-wonderful-title-reign-marvelous-marvin-hagler/

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Yeh Bhop fought some dross. The first Allen fight was a no contest ended after a few rounds, so really the '3' fights were only 2. Bit like Marv with Hamsho and obelmeijas.

You'll always find a way to have a pop at Hagler won't you Milky?

Will say that fighters were held more accountable for their mandatories back in Hagler's day. If he didn't fight them, then he would have been stripped. I'll just add that whatever Hamsho's limitations were, he earned his second title fight. I can't remember much about Fully Obel.

Haha, that post was for your benefit Atila!

Allen had actually got himself back as ibf number 1 contender. I was just pointing out some double standards in the appraisal of Hopkins that goes on, and I'm no bhop luvvy.

Hamsho got himself back to no 1 contender (says a lot about the division, as he was a bang average bar room brawler...I watched an aging Alan minter outbox the guy and get shafted... He beat Benitez who was a shell and never a middle and the equally limited czyz to get his ranking up) and I believe Marv didn't want to fight him again as he'd butchered him the first time.

As for obelmeijas, haz has been checking out boxrec to defend him but the truth is he was a crude game banger... but a well connected one. How he got his rankings was a mystery to all at the time, you won't find many top 10 contenders on his resume, but he was Venezuelan, home of the WBA.  I'm pretty sure hagler didn't want to fight him twice either. But there you go.

In addition hagler had caveman lee, scypion and his best wins and biggest fights were also against guys moving up, like Hopkins.

It is what it is, we've done the relative merits of haglers and Hopkins reigns countless times before, and I've no appetite to do it again. Hagler's career as a middle is superior, I'm just pointing out to those slagging bhop that there are some similarities.

Difference being, the guys Hagler fought were legends.

Obel was crude, but surely a better fighter than the likes of Allen. When you wipe out a division, you're going to end up going over old ground.

Hopkins had just become a star and was roundly criticised for facing Hakkar - possibly the worst fighter ever to fight for the real middleweight crown (Ok, it was a mandatory but Hopkins had the Ring belt by this point). Larry Merchant famously took him to task: "Aren't you embarrassed?" before Hopkins called out the junior middleweight champs in the post-fight interview. I'm sure if some of the Team Hopkins posters had been around at the time, they'd have been tearing strips off him back then.

Some of the guys on here praising Hopkins for his middleweight run while rubbishing Golovkin's are having a laugh. The difference is that Golovkin was repeatedly swerved whereas Hopkins caused his own problems by being difficult with promoters. I'm sure by the time GGG is finished at 160, both men's middleweight ledgers won't look a million miles apart.

Saying that, I have a lot of time for any fighter who sticks with the issues they faced to clean house in a division. They're not Hagler but then again, who is?

GGG has fought nobody and Hopkins has fought very good competition. Hopkins also has a set of testicles, that allowed him to move up and challenge himself.

GGG hasn't even got a resume close to Joe Calzaghe.

You guys might think I'm harsh on him, but his resume is pi$$ poor and he looked very average in his last fight.

Will he go down as an atg? If Wlad does, then he should too. Though imo, he is miles behind Jones jr, Floyd, Manny etc.

Ward and Lomachenko will go down as great fighters. GGG a very good one.

Ward great? Not for what he's achieved so far, at least not for me, and Lomachenko, the fighter with 8 wins and a loss will go down as a great? Let's wait and see shall we.

Well if Ward isn't great what chance has Gennady I have fought nobody Golovkin?

AdamT wrote:Well if Ward isn't great what chance has Gennady I have fought nobody Golovkin?

I've never called GGG great. Great is a very over used term these days. The way people talk about certain fighters you would think we were in a golden age of boxing.

That's true.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Yeh Bhop fought some dross. The first Allen fight was a no contest ended after a few rounds, so really the '3' fights were only 2. Bit like Marv with Hamsho and obelmeijas.

You'll always find a way to have a pop at Hagler won't you Milky?

Will say that fighters were held more accountable for their mandatories back in Hagler's day. If he didn't fight them, then he would have been stripped. I'll just add that whatever Hamsho's limitations were, he earned his second title fight. I can't remember much about Fully Obel.

Haha, that post was for your benefit Atila!

Allen had actually got himself back as ibf number 1 contender. I was just pointing out some double standards in the appraisal of Hopkins that goes on, and I'm no bhop luvvy.

Hamsho got himself back to no 1 contender (says a lot about the division, as he was a bang average bar room brawler...I watched an aging Alan minter outbox the guy and get shafted... He beat Benitez who was a shell and never a middle and the equally limited czyz to get his ranking up) and I believe Marv didn't want to fight him again as he'd butchered him the first time.

As for obelmeijas, haz has been checking out boxrec to defend him but the truth is he was a crude game banger... but a well connected one. How he got his rankings was a mystery to all at the time, you won't find many top 10 contenders on his resume, but he was Venezuelan, home of the WBA.  I'm pretty sure hagler didn't want to fight him twice either. But there you go.

In addition hagler had caveman lee, scypion and his best wins and biggest fights were also against guys moving up, like Hopkins.

It is what it is, we've done the relative merits of haglers and Hopkins reigns countless times before, and I've no appetite to do it again. Hagler's career as a middle is superior, I'm just pointing out to those slagging bhop that there are some similarities.

Difference being, the guys Hagler fought were legends.

Obel was crude, but surely a better fighter than the likes of Allen. When you wipe out a division, you're going to end up going over old ground.

Hopkins had just become a star and was roundly criticised for facing Hakkar - possibly the worst fighter ever to fight for the real middleweight crown (Ok, it was a mandatory but Hopkins had the Ring belt by this point). Larry Merchant famously took him to task: "Aren't you embarrassed?" before Hopkins called out the junior middleweight champs in the post-fight interview. I'm sure if some of the Team Hopkins posters had been around at the time, they'd have been tearing strips off him back then.

Some of the guys on here praising Hopkins for his middleweight run while rubbishing Golovkin's are having a laugh. The difference is that Golovkin was repeatedly swerved whereas Hopkins caused his own problems by being difficult with promoters. I'm sure by the time GGG is finished at 160, both men's middleweight ledgers won't look a million miles apart.

Saying that, I have a lot of time for any fighter who sticks with the issues they faced to clean house in a division. They're not Hagler but then again, who is?

GGG has fought nobody and Hopkins has fought very good competition. Hopkins also has a set of testicles, that allowed him to move up and challenge himself.

GGG hasn't even got a resume close to Joe Calzaghe.

You guys might think I'm harsh on him, but his resume is pi$$ poor and he looked very average in his last fight.

Will he go down as an atg? If Wlad does, then he should too. Though imo, he is miles behind Jones jr, Floyd, Manny etc.

Ward and Lomachenko will go down as great fighters. GGG a very good one.

Catchweight already put you right on Hopkins "moving up to challenge himself." He moved up because Taylor beat him twice. No-one is questioning his balls but if GGG got beaten twice by Jacobs and then moved up, you wouldn't be waxing lyrical about his testicles.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hopkins overall Middleweight record is far better than Golovkins, you're so one eyed with boxers you like it's unreal.

Say for instance GGG finally beats Alvarez, he's not on the same level as Trinidad or De La Hoya and it's unlikely he'll ever have a win to match the Tito one

It's better but I don't think Golovkin's will be a million miles away by the time he's done. Alvarez isn't a patch on Oscar or Tito as a fighter but he may just be a better middleweight than the pair of them (Oscar certainly wasn't much good at 160). That's if our ginger friend ever dares to fight at 160.

Do you think GGG looked good against Jacobs Haz?

Floyd and Manny struggled at times, but GGG looked clueless at times. If Jacobs showed a little less respect, I think he would of won.

I pick Canelo or Jacobs to beat GGG.

I can't get behind the overrated hype job.

I don't see the brilliance of a Lomachenko. A bully with a good stalking style and scary power. That's it. He is like a poor, slow Mike Tyson.

Not a fan of GGG and will be delighted when his bubble bursts.

AdamT wrote:Do you think GGG looked good against Jacobs Haz?

Floyd and Manny struggled at times, but GGG looked clueless at times. If Jacobs showed a little less respect, I think he would of won.

I pick Canelo or Jacobs to beat GGG.

I can't get behind the overrated hype job.

I don't see the brilliance of a Lomachenko. A bully with a good stalking style and scary power. That's it. He is like a poor, slow Mike Tyson.

Not a fan of GGG and will be delighted when his bubble bursts.

He looked as flat as a fanny but he did enough. Labelling him a "hype job", though is frigging ridiculous.

how about changing it up a bit and instead of going back and forth on whether he is or isn't great. Put in why he's good and which quality opponents he's shown that skill against

and for those against
explain why he's not and show an occasion or 2 where it shown he was 'overhyped' etc (and no you can't all use Jacobs)

Derbymanc wrote:how about changing it up a bit and instead of going back and forth on whether he is or isn't great. Put in why he's good and which quality opponents he's shown that skill against

and for those against
explain why he's not and show an occasion or 2 where it shown he was 'overhyped' etc (and no you can't all use Jacobs)

Now you're asking us to think and be rational, and frankly, that's bang out of order!

What type of forum would this be if we weren't allowed to make bold, unsubstantiated claims about fighters we liked or disliked?

I think you should be banned.

Derbymanc wrote:how about changing it up a bit and instead of going back and forth on whether he is or isn't great. Put in why he's good and which quality opponents he's shown that skill against

and for those against
explain why he's not and show an occasion or 2 where it shown he was 'overhyped' etc (and no you can't all use Jacobs)

Even though he got the job done against Monroe, I thought he looked a little limited and flat footed in that fight. Yeah he got the knock out, but it Was Monroe.

I think he is a very good fighter, but nothing special and benefiting from having scary power. If greater boxers were in his division (with great defence), I believe they could nullify his stalking offence and power. GGG is a bit of a bully. He won't walk through Canelo's punches, like he did with Brook.

AdamT wrote:Do you think GGG looked good against Jacobs Haz?

Floyd and Manny struggled at times, but GGG looked clueless at times. If Jacobs showed a little less respect, I think he would of won.

I pick Canelo or Jacobs to beat GGG.

I can't get behind the overrated hype job.

I don't see the brilliance of a Lomachenko. A bully with a good stalking style and scary power. That's it. He is like a poor, slow Mike Tyson.

Not a fan of GGG and will be delighted when his bubble bursts.

A hype job with one a the best amateur records out there? Never been dropped? Biggest KO ratio? Beats everyone in his division.

Not too sure why he is a hype job.

AdamT wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:how about changing it up a bit and instead of going back and forth on whether he is or isn't great. Put in why he's good and which quality opponents he's shown that skill against

and for those against
explain why he's not and show an occasion or 2 where it shown he was 'overhyped' etc (and no you can't all use Jacobs)

Even though he got the job done against Monroe, I thought he looked a little limited and flat footed in that fight. Yeah he got the knock out, but it Was Monroe.

I think he is a very good fighter, but nothing special and benefiting from having scary power. If greater boxers were in his division (with great defence), I believe they could nullify his stalking offence and power. GGG is a bit of a bully. He won't walk through Canelo's punches, like he did with Brook.

He is flat footed. His technique and footwork, though, is world class. Joe Louis was flat footed, yet he too had amazing technique and footwork that helped him rack up the greatest championship reign in history.

I get the impression you're basically still butt hurt about him calling out Floyd (that tends to be what all criticism of Golovkin comes back to from the trio of fanatics - two of whom are the same poster - who regularly criticise a fighter who has doggedly cleaned out a division with the steady technique and consistency that Hopkins (another board darling) exhibited.

It's impossible to judge a fighter's legacy until he's finished. Golovkin is nearing the end game but the challenges are beginning to stack up (finally). Whacking Saunders, Canelo/Chavez, Ramirez and Jacobs within the next year or so would all add to his resume. Lennox Lewis and Calzaghe both benefitted from similar late career surges.

And, has anyone suggested he was a great fighter?

I don't care about him calling out Floyd lol. He can't move up a division, but will move down to fight a smaller man.

You all cream yourselves over him, so yes that suggests you think he is great.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=65814