Golovkin v Jacobs

First topic message reminder :

Not sure if anyone is staying up for this as I guess it's pretty much a guaranteed GGG win. Same goes for Gonzalez I guess

But if you are you can keep me company

All my Irish mates are tipping Michael Conlan to go all the way after last night in MSG

I think winning in rugby today and stopping and English Triple Crown and Grandslam has gone to their heads personally

Anyway...after the Haye v Bellew shambles here's to a good night of boxing


Regards

Steffan

Jacobs looked huge. Made GGG look like a welter.

Yes. And Hagler would be awfuly small as middleweight with todays regulations. He could find himself spotting 20lbs to other middleweights.

Jacobs looked as big as any 168 fighter last night. Weight classes are a joke really.

I always wonder how Stevenson makes 175. He looks massive at the weight.

Callum Smith looks like a cruiserweight when he fights. I wonder what he actually weighs in the ring.

Ufc is notorious (especially the notorious) for weight cuts. McGregor was huge at 145. He looked like a skeleton at the weigh in, but fight night, he was as big as many a mw boxer.

Callum Smith must walk around at least 200lbs. His ring weight must be 190 or there about. Isn't he 6'3??

The UFC has less than half the weight divisions boxing has though.

In boxing, if you are going to have variances of 15 lbs between fighters competitng in the same weight class on fight night then you may as well get rid of a lot of the weight classes as they arent serving any meaningful purpose. The whole point of them was to match fighters according to weight. That isnt happening now. And its messing everything up.

The guys in the 80's still put on weight after the weigh in and it's a fallacy to suggest that the likes of Hagler or Spinks weren't big at their weights. There's reports that Harry Greb for his title fight against Mickey Walker entered the ring weighing upwards of 166lbs.

The 80s was nothing like the current weight cutting and regaining going on now. Hagler might have been big at his weight in the 80s. He would be very small by current middlweght standards.

Do any fighters fight at their weigh in weights other than Heavies? Floyd and Manny wouldn't weigh much more than 147, but I'm struggling to think of anyone that doesn't cut weight.

I'm an amateur powerlifter and I have cut 6-8 lbs for a 2 hour weigh in. It's tough cutting water weight. I just done a simple water load and sodium cut. I know these guys use saunas and hot baths. I guess they have more Time to hydrate, so they can easily cut double what I have.

Cutting weight is fine. All fighters outside heavyweight do it.

Fighting in a 160 lb weight class when you weight 180lbs in the ring. Well theres something not right about that. It makes the weight classes pretty pointless.

What a fighter weighs in the ring for the actual contest is really their "fighting weight" and true weight class. It shouldnt be 15-20lbs higher than the division limit.

GGG fighting Jacobs isn't any different Tha Floyd vs Ortiz, or Pacquiao vs Clottey. Weight difference has been a big part of boxing for years.

Hatton killed himself to make 140. He was big at the weight and was really a welterweight.

No its not any different to those examples. It is however different to the Hagler era. When this kind level of weight cutting and regaining was not what it is now.

I'm sure them guys still cut around10lbs. I doubt they could could near 20 like some guys

Canelo probably gains over 20 lbs when he fights at 155.

kingraf wrote:Maybe I'm thick, but I genuinely can't for the life of me see what happened in this fight that suggests Canelo could replicate whatever success Jacobs had. He isn't 6'0. He can't match Jacobs for speed. He doesn't hit as hard as Jacobs. He can't (to our knowledge) switch hit.

Maybe you're being thick? Well you did post this twice, raf

Can't speak for others but I wasn't drawing any comparison between canelo and Jacobs. My points were a) has ggg slipped? b) I always thought Alvarez would give a good account of himself against golovkin because he looks better against guys who come at him and give him a chance to counter... assuming he can withstand the artillery coming at him. I think he hits hard enough for golovkin to respect him and not just walk him down.

I will be interested to see how Alvarez gets on with Chavez, especially if Chavez is up for this fight.

Ive been suspicious of Alvarez as a guy fighting generally smaller guys. I think there is a reasonable chance he will come struggle at middleweight against fighters his own size or bigger.

Golovkin would be a formidable step up for Alvarez as a proper hard hitting and durable middleweight. Im on the fence insofar as Alvarez is going to be a significant step up in challenge as a middlweight opponent for Golovkin though.

Hagler had off nights as well. And he had them a hell of a lot younger than 35. Good as Duran was, possibly the greatest 160lbs pounder to ever walk the earth shouldn't be down against him heading into the showpiece rounds. Vito was a little fortunate to get the nod in their first bout, but he put himself in a position to get it, and you can't convince me that he's better than GGG. Not for nothing Haz because I respect you as a poster, but you do have a habit of crossing off modern fighters due to one fight, when plenty, to the point of it probably being all, really good to great fighters who've had enough fights have these nights.

Milky
1 - Bog off
2 - I liked Canelo until he became a Mexican Mayweather caricature, so I've seen him fight quite a lot. I don't think, unless you're right and this wasn't a case of GGG having an off night or Jacobs just being better than advertised, but GGG slipping (as the Yank is always reminding us, he's 35) - that I can't see how he beats him. Or even gets it to within earshot really. Even accounting Brook's success as Kell is about the same size as Canelo in terms of height and reach, you're still talking about an astronomical leap in boxing and speed ability to give GGG the problems Brook gave him. I look at the Cotto fight and think to myself "if a fully fledged 160lbs fighter was landing those flush, Canelo would have been in trouble". For me, Canelo loses to both guys who fought last night (although he may keep a Jacobs fight close enough to get charitable judging), and I'm not really convinced he beats Lemieux too easy either

The problem with a lot of modern fighters is that they're rarely tested (unlike, say the 70s and 80s, where a champion would usually be presented with genuine number one contenders to fight - guys who'd fought their way into that position rather than merely being marketable opponents). In the case of Golovkin, we've been waiting to see him tested to see how good he is. No-one has been able to get near him and many have criticised his level of opposition.

Jacobs is probably the best middleweight he's been in with and, while all fighters can have a bad night, I was struck at how one-dimensional Golovkin looked. I'm not sure whether that's down to age or deterioration (on second watch, I'm not as convinced Golovkin wasn't his usual self).

Contrast that with Gonzalez: "Chocolatito" lost, however, he didn't lose anything reputation-wise in my book. He's proven he's a great fighter and has been tested numerous times. I certainly wouldn't write a guy like that off (he's still the best fighter in the world PFP in my book).

Hagler had a tough night with Duran but that says more about Duran to me (the greatest modern fighter of all after Ali). He'd have given anyone weighing in same day at 160 a fight that night - he was great.

It's easier to forgive a fighter an off-night when they're already proven. I think there have always been questions about Golovkin. He's a class act. He's terrified his division like no-one I've seen in my lifetime and carried himself superbly but he still hasn't shown he's a great fighter. Maybe a rematch with DJ could change that (it has to happen).

Thank heavens someone agrees with me. He is one dimensional, albeit it's a fantastic dimension.

His style isn't like Tyson, but he reminds es of Mike in lots of ways. Bit of a bully and great frontrunner. Imagine if Manny (won't use Floyd for a change) was a Mw. He would easily beat GGG Imo, with his angles, volume and speed.

AdamT wrote:Thank heavens someone agrees with me. He is one dimensional, albeit it's a fantastic dimension.

His style isn't like Tyson, but he reminds es of Mike in lots of ways. Bit of a bully and great frontrunner. Imagine if Manny (won't use Floyd for a change) was a Mw. He would easily beat GGG Imo, with his angles, volume and speed.  

Tyson is what? 5'10? So a MW Tyson would be like 5'5? 5'6? Would be interesting

I'm not comparing who is better, but Tyson was pretty one dimensional and was sensational for a few years. He has losses, but he beat higher standard opponents than GGG.

GGG wouldn't beat a Mw Toney. He would struggle with Graham, Eubanks and Watson. McCallum? Kalumby? Others he would struggle with.

He's a very good Mw with a solid amateur background.

Most don't rate Floyd with SRL and Duran because of level of opponents. Well GGG has less opponents Than even Eubanks sr,never mind Hagler or Mccallum.

Also I'm not trolling, haven't done any for months. Happy to debate with anyone and won't be calling anyone bums, or other sh1t!

I don't think we can say that tbh Adam

I'm pretty sure most of us DKSAB and everything we think is a sure victory never turns out to be the case....

U disagree. Plenty know a fair bit boxing. I don't know all the history, but I know a good fighter when I see one.

You're right about the point, that we can never be completely sure on results.

RAF, don't get me wrong, always thought ggg would beat canelo, just that he'd provide a tough test. I still think Alvarez looks a bit slow footed and ponderous against guys who move and box but a different animal against guys who come at him. As catchy says... when it's a big hitting fully fledged middle, then who knows, so in that respect the Chavez fight will be interesting as he'll be fighting a front footed big lump.

Adam, Re golovkin being one dimensional,  I think he is to a degree but with two gears, pressure behind the jab, and hunt and destroy. But most fighters are 1 dimensional, it becomes about imposing that dimension on the opponent, knowing what's coming and being able to do something about it are two different things... and sometimes one guy's style is just the perfect antidote to the opponents. styles make fights as they say. The Ray Leonard's who were equally happy back foot and front foot are very much the exception not the rule.

I thought both guys fought a good fight and both looked great in patches - I had GGG winning by 3 pts in the end - Jacobs went too defensive for more liking and GGG's work with the jab was rarely mentioned. GGG would give Hagler hell and vice versa, lets remember Marvelous Marvin made hard work out of Hamsho, Antuofermo and a 33 year old much smaller Duran who'd lost 3 of his last 7 fights. The expectation bar seems to be set too high for him, GGG beat the number 2 in the division deservedly so from my point of view and didn't looked terrible doing so.

Cheers, Rodders

All fighters meet opponents who give them trouble and who they don't look their best against. The greats find a way to win. Golovkin won and most cards so we shouldn't slate him because it was tougher than expected.

Hagler had a bunch of tough close fights. Dropped a few decisions to the the phillies in the 70's went very close with finnegan, wasnt that convincing against Vito or Duran.

Don't recall hamsho troubling him in either fight rodders.

Some on here don't name Floyd, Manny, Hopkins and Jmm as great fighters.

So can we please call GGG good, rather than great? Surely he hasn't reached great status.

AdamT wrote:Some on here don't name Floyd, Manny, Hopkins and Jmm as great fighters.

So can we please call GGG good, rather than great? Surely he hasn't reached great status.

I don't think anyone has called him great? For me, barring a struggle against a real club fighter, I'm generally never gonna downgrade a fighter because they struggled against a fighter they were maybe expected to walk through. It's like deciding this season's Chelsea, who will probably get pretty close to the all time record points haul by an EPL team, are actually not that good because they struggled to put Stoke away this weekend.

As for greatness, it's so subjective isn't it? If GGG does face and beat Saunders, to me he'll have done all he could to be a middleweight great.
- Unbeaten at the weight
- Beat all available challengers
- 16 or 17 title defences

whether that makes him great or not I don't know, but I'm sure he'd be pretty satisfied.

Can see why you might interpret it that way but i wasnt and wouldn't call him a great Adam. I meant to imply the greats find a way to win, and golovkin did so it doesn't rule him out! Depends who he fights and how he gets on with the rest of his career.

Ultimately, he's fought a bunch of limited/overmatched fighters and looked great. Stepped up a class and struggled but still won. Jury still out.

For the record, Floyd manny Hopkins are great fighters imo. JMM for me, despite having the Indian sign over manny (styles and fights again) is in the 'just shy of great' category.. were such a category to exist!

Wasn't solely aimed at you. And for the record, I rate him as great. At least a modern great.

Raf I agree with your assessment. How can he not be a Mw great? Beat what's put in front of him.

Rodney wrote:I thought both guys fought a good fight and both looked great in patches - I had GGG winning by 3 pts in the end - Jacobs went too defensive for more liking and GGG's work with the jab was rarely mentioned. GGG would give Hagler hell and vice versa, lets remember Marvelous Marvin made hard work out of Hamsho,  Antuofermo and a 33 year old much smaller Duran who'd lost 3 of his last 7 fights. The expectation bar seems to be set too high for him, GGG beat the number 2 in the division deservedly so from my point of view and didn't looked terrible doing so.

Cheers, Rodders

I'm normally on the same page as you Rodders but I thought both fighters looked quite poor. Both looked there for the taking (if either had set themselves away a bit more). Jacobs doesn't look as good as the likes of Taylor or Joppy even.

Hagler (had he been the same size) had too much to his game as a bonafide great fighter. Jacobs isn't near great and Golovkin certainly wasn't on Saturday.

Maybe it was just an off-night for GGG and he'll put the record straight. It just doesn't look good when he looks so poor against the best man he's fought.

hazharrison wrote:

Rodney wrote:I thought both guys fought a good fight and both looked great in patches - I had GGG winning by 3 pts in the end - Jacobs went too defensive for more liking and GGG's work with the jab was rarely mentioned. GGG would give Hagler hell and vice versa, lets remember Marvelous Marvin made hard work out of Hamsho,  Antuofermo and a 33 year old much smaller Duran who'd lost 3 of his last 7 fights. The expectation bar seems to be set too high for him, GGG beat the number 2 in the division deservedly so from my point of view and didn't looked terrible doing so.

Cheers, Rodders

I'm normally on the same page as you Rodders but I thought both fighters looked quite poor. Both looked there for the taking (if either had set themselves away a bit more). Jacobs doesn't look as good as the likes of Taylor or Joppy even.

Hagler (had he been the same size) had too much to his game as a bonafide great fighter. Jacobs isn't near great and Golovkin certainly wasn't on Saturday.

Maybe it was just an off-night for GGG and he'll put the record straight. It just doesn't look good when he looks so poor against the best man he's fought.

He most likely is not as good as previously thought, but I think he showed Jacobs too much respect and had an off night.

Kellerman is blaming it on age, but I never heard that excuse for Cotto, Floyd etc! GGG has had a long stellar amateur career, but less than 40 fights as a pro. How many times has he took a hiding as a pro??

All athletes age differently, but I don't think GGG's performance had anything to do with age. All good fighters have off nights. Perhaps this was is.

I do apologize for any trolling I did with GGG. The truth is, I have always been a big fan. However I felt that many were proclaiming him as the second coming, while blasting Floyd (my hero lol). He has a fair bit to go to reach Floyd, Manny, JMM etc.

In all seriousness, he will go down as a great Mw, for his longevity and destruction, but without the stellar tests? He will not reach Hagler or Monzon, or even Hopkins in my eyes. I actually think Bhop beat better fighters at Mw, though he also lost to Taylor twice.

This is just my opinion. I have always rated the guy, but not like I rate Ward or Lomachenko to name a couple.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Rodney wrote:I thought both guys fought a good fight and both looked great in patches - I had GGG winning by 3 pts in the end - Jacobs went too defensive for more liking and GGG's work with the jab was rarely mentioned. GGG would give Hagler hell and vice versa, lets remember Marvelous Marvin made hard work out of Hamsho,  Antuofermo and a 33 year old much smaller Duran who'd lost 3 of his last 7 fights. The expectation bar seems to be set too high for him, GGG beat the number 2 in the division deservedly so from my point of view and didn't looked terrible doing so.

Cheers, Rodders

I'm normally on the same page as you Rodders but I thought both fighters looked quite poor. Both looked there for the taking (if either had set themselves away a bit more). Jacobs doesn't look as good as the likes of Taylor or Joppy even.

Hagler (had he been the same size) had too much to his game as a bonafide great fighter. Jacobs isn't near great and Golovkin certainly wasn't on Saturday.

Maybe it was just an off-night for GGG and he'll put the record straight. It just doesn't look good when he looks so poor against the best man he's fought.

He most likely is not as good as previously thought, but I think he showed Jacobs too much  respect and had an off night.

Kellerman is blaming it on age, but I never heard that excuse for Cotto, Floyd etc! GGG has had a long stellar amateur career, but less than 40 fights as a pro. How many times has he took a hiding as a pro??

All athletes age differently, but I don't think GGG's performance had anything to do with age. All good fighters have off nights. Perhaps this was is.

I do apologize for any trolling I did with GGG. The truth is, I have always been a big fan. However I felt that many were proclaiming him as the second coming, while blasting Floyd (my hero lol). He has a fair bit to go to reach Floyd, Manny, JMM etc.

In all seriousness, he will go down as a great Mw, for his longevity and destruction, but without the stellar tests? He will not reach Hagler or Monzon, or even Hopkins in my eyes. I actually think Bhop beat better fighters at Mw, though he also lost to Taylor twice.

This is just my opinion. I have always rated the guy, but not like I rate Ward or Lomachenko to name a couple.

They make a cute couple.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Rodney wrote:I thought both guys fought a good fight and both looked great in patches - I had GGG winning by 3 pts in the end - Jacobs went too defensive for more liking and GGG's work with the jab was rarely mentioned. GGG would give Hagler hell and vice versa, lets remember Marvelous Marvin made hard work out of Hamsho,  Antuofermo and a 33 year old much smaller Duran who'd lost 3 of his last 7 fights. The expectation bar seems to be set too high for him, GGG beat the number 2 in the division deservedly so from my point of view and didn't looked terrible doing so.

Cheers, Rodders

I'm normally on the same page as you Rodders but I thought both fighters looked quite poor. Both looked there for the taking (if either had set themselves away a bit more). Jacobs doesn't look as good as the likes of Taylor or Joppy even.

Hagler (had he been the same size) had too much to his game as a bonafide great fighter. Jacobs isn't near great and Golovkin certainly wasn't on Saturday.

Maybe it was just an off-night for GGG and he'll put the record straight. It just doesn't look good when he looks so poor against the best man he's fought.

He most likely is not as good as previously thought, but I think he showed Jacobs too much  respect and had an off night.

Kellerman is blaming it on age, but I never heard that excuse for Cotto, Floyd etc! GGG has had a long stellar amateur career, but less than 40 fights as a pro. How many times has he took a hiding as a pro??

All athletes age differently, but I don't think GGG's performance had anything to do with age. All good fighters have off nights. Perhaps this was is.

I do apologize for any trolling I did with GGG. The truth is, I have always been a big fan. However I felt that many were proclaiming him as the second coming, while blasting Floyd (my hero lol). He has a fair bit to go to reach Floyd, Manny, JMM etc.

In all seriousness, he will go down as a great Mw, for his longevity and destruction, but without the stellar tests? He will not reach Hagler or Monzon, or even Hopkins in my eyes. I actually think Bhop beat better fighters at Mw, though he also lost to Taylor twice.

This is just my opinion. I have always rated the guy, but not like I rate Ward or Lomachenko to name a couple.

Golovkin has something like 400 amateur fights. He does have a lot of miles on the clock when that's taken into consideration.

I guess he does, but amateur isn't pro.

Totally in agreement though that Golovkin is absolutely right to go for a Saunders fight followed by Golovkin. He loses nothing by not giving Jacobs an immediate rematch

He has to give Jacobs a rematch at some point though if the American keeps on winning

Does anyone want to see Jacobs vs GGG again? I can do without it -but he'll need to take the rematch if he runs out of options.

I'd be amazed if Canelo didn't go for Jacobs before GGG. They can give it all "this is the man that really won" in the promotion.

I think Canelo will be chomping at the bit. GGG needs to accept an offer.

AdamT wrote:I think Canelo will be chomping at the bit. GGG needs to accept an offer.

He may be but GBP are already pouring cold water on the fight - saying his performance has done nothing to increase his profile/bargaining power.

Haz you were one that thought GGG would give Ward major problems. Do you still hold view?

Not baiting you, just interested really.

I reckon Jacobs and Eubanks could both beat Canelo

I think Golovkin has lost something in the eyes of the fans after Saturday so his next few fights will be very interesting he needs an impressive performance to get it back

I think fans are swaying to Ward again after Saturday in that matchup maybe Golovkin's power won't go up to 68 they're thinking

If fans are only swaying to Ward now, then they should take up another sport.

Wards size alone would be too much. I was always convinced that Ward would win an easy, albeit boring decision.

Posters on here Say that nobody has an easy night with GGG. I beg to differ. A pure boxer with special ability, would have no problem neutralizing his offense.

I keep beating the same drum, but GGG is lucky there is no one of the talent of Jones, or Floyd in his division. We wouldn't be having this debate.

He's a very good, but limited fighter, that has beat everybody put in front of him. The flip side to that is! Who has really been put in front of him?

Jacobs is good, but he is not a special fighter. Also nickname aside, neither really is Brook and I think if he was the same size as GGG, he would possibly have the skills to do the job.

GGG is simply quite easy to hit and it isn't because he wants to get hit for bravado.

Hopefully some posters will see what I did years ago. Very good fighter, strong, determined, but very basic and no special effects (stole that from Floyd).

You probably think the same of Kovalev, Adam

He beat Ward in many peoples eyes and destroyed Hopkins. Kovalev has a great jab and good skills. As great as he looked in the first half of the Ward fight, I think he didn't look that great later.

To be honest I don't think either guy is special. Kovalev has certainly fought better opposition and Ward is a better fighter than Jacobs.

Not saying these guys are no good. On the contrary, they are very good. Special fighters are your Leonard's, your Duran's, your Pacquiao's etc, etc.

I think Kovalev is a very good fighter he was frustrated by Ward but not dominated

No one has ever come close to dominating him

I agree, but again, level of opposition hasn't been all that hot, bar a couple of guys. I do however rate Kovalev higher than GGG.

AdamT wrote:Haz you were one that thought GGG would give Ward major problems. Do you still hold view?

Not baiting you, just interested really.

Why would asking a question be baiting (unless you're planning on baiting someone)? I thought Golovkin would trouble Ward a couple of years back. I still do. Kovalev beat Ward and I would fancy GGG to give Ward major problems, yes (providing Saturday wasn't the beginning of the end for Golovkin). Neither look as good as they were, though.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Haz you were one that thought GGG would give Ward major problems. Do you still hold view?

Not baiting you, just interested really.

Why would asking a question be baiting (unless you're planning on baiting someone)? I thought Golovkin would trouble Ward a couple of years back. I still do. Kovalev beat Ward and I would fancy GGG to give Ward major problems, yes (providing Saturday wasn't the beginning of the end for Golovkin). Neither look as good as they were, though.

My reputation of being a troll is why.

I don't agree with your answer, but fair enough. For the record I don't think Ward is quite as good as he was, but he is too big and awkward, calm and for GGG. Again this is my view. Most disagree with it.

AdamT wrote:If fans are only swaying to Ward now, then they should take up another sport.

Wards size alone would be too much. I was always convinced that Ward would win an easy, albeit boring decision.

Posters on here Say that nobody has an easy night with GGG. I beg to differ. A pure boxer with special ability, would have no problem neutralizing his offense.

I keep beating the same drum, but GGG is lucky there is no one of the talent of Jones, or Floyd in his division. We wouldn't be having this debate.

He's a very good, but limited fighter, that has beat everybody put in front of him. The flip side to that is! Who has really been put in front of him?

Jacobs is good, but he is not a special fighter. Also nickname aside, neither really is Brook and I think if he was the same size as GGG, he would possibly have the skills to do the job.

GGG is simply quite easy to hit and it isn't because he wants to get hit for bravado.

Hopefully some posters will see what I did years ago. Very good fighter, strong, determined, but very basic and no special effects (stole that from Floyd).

No-one has managed to neutralize Golovkin's offense yet. You've predictably waited until he's had a poor night and then suddenly every Tom, Dick and Harry would outbox him. Jones would probably be too quick but didnt face a puncher like Golovkin and Floyd wouldn't dare fight Golovkin - even if he weighed 190. Floyd didn't fight anyone that posed the threat Golovkin does, so take the Floydette thing elsewhere. He's fighting McGregor, concentrate on that beauty.