LiveFight

Boxing Boards => Worldwide Boxing Discussion => Topic started by: The Hurricane on July 25, 2015, 10:32:29 PM



Title: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on July 25, 2015, 10:32:29 PM
Signed for 17th October at MSG. Could be an absolute cracker.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Driscoll on July 25, 2015, 11:02:58 PM
What a fight


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Goldenboy87 on July 25, 2015, 11:58:38 PM
Brilliant fight, really looking forward to seeing that one - two guys who carry some serious power.

Smart money says GGG, but Lemieux carries a big punch so may cause an upset!


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: dmp on July 26, 2015, 12:19:48 AM
box smart ggg =win what a fight
lemieux biggest fight he wont disappoint
i cant wait 



 


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Stevie J on July 26, 2015, 03:09:03 AM
WOW super fight would love to go I'd imagine tickets wouldn't be hyped up for this


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Red on July 26, 2015, 09:52:26 AM
Lemiuex just needs to run forward throwing bombs.

If he starts standing off, boxing a little - it's a GGG victory ten times out of ten.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: mooreman on July 26, 2015, 10:13:20 AM
Lemiuex just needs to run forward throwing bombs.

If he starts standing off, boxing a little - it's a GGG victory ten times out of ten.

Lemieux has to hurt him early. Tough match up for GGG , Lemieux is vicious.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Faulks on July 26, 2015, 11:29:32 AM
Ggg will win this by ko lemiuex is ferocious at coming
Forward but he'll get sparked out doing so


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Every Cloud on July 26, 2015, 11:48:15 AM
GGG inside 3


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Gadje on July 26, 2015, 12:43:19 PM
GGG inside 3

Sounds about right.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: HurricaneHig on July 26, 2015, 02:18:24 PM
GGG inside 6 I reckon,  lemieux is ferocious on the front foot but leaves himself wide open.  

He won't withstand GGG's power.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Gaz on July 26, 2015, 02:24:47 PM
Common opponent Rubio, GGG flattened him in a couple of rounds, Lemieux was stopped in 7 if I remember rightly?

Lemieux always has a punchers chance but GGG should take him apart.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: lurkyshaka on July 26, 2015, 03:36:01 PM
Lemieux carries genuine KO power and 'believes' in it too which is crucial. Power means little if the guy is scared to let his hands go. But I think we can be rest assured that Lemieux will definitely come out looking to land heavy artillery and with the belief that good things can happen if he does connect. That is what makes this an intriguing tussle, because both men carry big guns and will be prepared to exchange.

Given what we know....we can expect Golovkin to win, but anytime a guy comes into a fight with Lemieux's power he can never be written off. GGG's biggest fans will feel a little bit of trepidation for perhaps the first time in one of his fights.

Glad to see this fight being made now and not built up to be something its not.

Basically guaranteed bombs away action for as long as it lasts....while both have boxing ability, power is their major asset and both will be in a hurry to strike first with the big bombs. While not a mega fight, Lemieux is a legit opponent and will pose some danger. Golovkin should win but he can't take it for granted. How he handles Lemieux will tell us more about him.




Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: GOD on July 26, 2015, 05:24:02 PM
Cracking fight...GGG will win but this WILL be fight if the year...


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: east coast on July 26, 2015, 06:47:56 PM
Hey fellas. I want to go to this but iv never been to show abroad. What's the best way to go about getting tix for it? What you reckon prices will be?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on July 26, 2015, 06:57:44 PM
Hey fellas. I want to go to this but iv never been to show abroad. What's the best way to go about getting tix for it? What you reckon prices will be?

msg is an easy one mate. links on their web page for tickets and travels pretty straight forward.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: tweetstreet on July 26, 2015, 08:57:03 PM
I reckon both fighters to touch the canvas and GGG within 6


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on July 26, 2015, 10:09:54 PM
GGG has shown a decent chin at middleweight and obviously has the power. I think the question is whether or not he can carry his attributes up to super mid but I'm not sure if he's ever going to make that move although he has talked about it enough.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Kevan2 on July 28, 2015, 05:40:21 PM
Mouth Watering!

Must watch live fight!! (Armchair)

Really excited for this.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Faulks on July 29, 2015, 07:57:04 AM
I really fancy this, Jamie has booked it and i could get free flight but i highly doubt i can do this and fury  back to back


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: mooreman on July 29, 2015, 10:25:41 AM
Lemieux looks a big price at 7/1.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Every Cloud on August 05, 2015, 04:03:44 PM
Just booked flights and Hotel. Tickets on sale Tuesday


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: east coast on August 05, 2015, 07:29:21 PM
how much were your flights and digs fella?
everywhere iv read says Wednesday for tix btw


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Every Cloud on August 05, 2015, 07:47:00 PM
I'm flying from London to JFK flights are £945 but thats premium economy with Virgin Atlantic
 
Hotel is always a pain in NYC well overpriced but I'm staying in Waldorf Astoria thats $1400 for Thursday-Sunday mate. You're right by the way tickets on sale Wednesday


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Kevan2 on August 08, 2015, 05:35:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ndKp5-IWH9Q#t=123 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ndKp5-IWH9Q#t=123)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Chris on August 08, 2015, 11:54:36 PM
I think GGG cements his place with a solid stoppage performance.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Kevan2 on August 09, 2015, 07:50:58 AM
I think GGG cements his place with a solid stoppage performance.
  I'm with you Chris. I think he's to cute to accurate and Lemieux is wide open. Should be explosive.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Vlad The Impaler on August 09, 2015, 06:18:55 PM
I know it's still a bit away but anybody know who's got UK TV rights for this one?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Every Cloud on August 10, 2015, 04:43:20 PM
Tickets nailed Ringside Section 12 row 2 seat 11. You can hear the bones crunch


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 16, 2015, 08:58:26 AM
Really looking forward to this card tomorrow night.  Not often you can get odds of 1/16 on a guy to win yet still have a fight to look forward too.  Paddy are doing 8's on both guys to get knocked down which could provide a bit of interest.  Have to favour both GGG and Gonzalez to prevail but both Lemieux and Viloria should both give it everything.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 16, 2015, 09:26:22 AM
Iím pretty nervous about Gonzalez, I must admit. Viloria looks to be in tremendous shape and I saw a picture of Gonzalez looking rather gaunt yesterday. It should be a cracking fight either way.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 16, 2015, 10:16:17 AM
GGG will likely get hit harder than he has ever been(unless he can get the win early)

I think Golovkin has a decent chin tbh but it will be interesting to see how it copes v Lemieuxs power.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Kevan2 on October 16, 2015, 10:24:27 AM
Cant Wait!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8mDliRpmIc&feature=player_detailpage#t=45 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8mDliRpmIc&feature=player_detailpage#t=45)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM0zJHUBAYs&feature=player_detailpage#t=2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM0zJHUBAYs&feature=player_detailpage#t=2)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: cowboy55 on October 16, 2015, 12:54:10 PM
while being in NYC tomorrow will be missing the fight (seeing a Broadway show) if you're wandering Tmes Square in the afternoon look for the black denim Ricky Hatton jacket-that's the "Cowboy" ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Faulks on October 16, 2015, 06:21:54 PM
while being in NYC tomorrow will be missing the fight (seeing a Broadway show) if you're wandering Tmes Square in the afternoon look for the black denim Ricky Hatton jacket-that's the "Cowboy" ;D

Tried mad tested that jacket lol..

I spot you by your crazy ass handlebar moustache  8)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: wbamitch on October 17, 2015, 08:58:17 AM
Really looking forward to this card tomorrow night.  Not often you can get odds of 1/16 on a guy to win yet still have a fight to look forward too.  Paddy are doing 8's on both guys to get knocked down which could provide a bit of interest.  Have to favour both GGG and Gonzalez to prevail but both Lemieux and Viloria should both give it everything.

Feel the same, really looking forward to it, it could turn out to be done in quick and dominating fashion by the two favorites but you can't knock these match up's at all. The opponents warrant their shots, look confident and will bring everything. I'm going to for GGG in 6, beating Lemieux up towards the end with maybe a bit of heavy trading early on, don't know much about Viloria but i have to fancy Gonzalez to again look impressive and get the job done, keep his momentum going.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Vlad The Impaler on October 17, 2015, 06:49:02 PM
Can't wait for this one, defo staying up for it.

What's the estimated ring walk times for main event?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 17, 2015, 07:44:00 PM
Can't wait for this one, defo staying up for it.

What's the estimated ring walk times for main event?

Said 5am on the BN website.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: SteveR on October 17, 2015, 08:58:19 PM
Always nice to see some respect for the opponent in the build up


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: middleweight on October 17, 2015, 10:43:20 PM
Said 5am on the BN website.

Don't think it'll be that late. GGG will probably be in the ring 11pm local time which is 4am here. Gonzalez will probably start around 3am here


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: brocktonbomber on October 17, 2015, 11:42:30 PM
Don't think it'll be that late. GGG will probably be in the ring 11pm local time which is 4am here. Gonzalez will probably start around 3am here
PPV starts at 9 pm here with three 12 round fights before the main event. So, I'd guess GGG in the ring closer to midnight than 11. Guess it depends how the undercard fights go. Enjoy the fights. Cost $60 plus fees ($65 total) here. Wouldn't pay that much by myself, but a couple of friends want to see it and we'll split the cost three ways. Excited about Gonzalez-Viloria, too.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: middleweight on October 18, 2015, 12:02:53 AM
PPV starts at 9 pm here with three 12 round fights before the main event. So, I'd guess GGG in the ring closer to midnight than 11. Guess it depends how the undercard fights go. Enjoy the fights. Cost $60 plus fees ($65 total) here. Wouldn't pay that much by myself, but a couple of friends want to see it and we'll split the cost three ways. Excited about Gonzalez-Viloria, too.

I stand corrected  ;D Are they usually that late?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: liamo on October 18, 2015, 01:46:20 AM
F*ck me this is a valiant effort from O'kane


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 18, 2015, 02:17:18 AM
Was gonna buy this one, but just got back from my friends wedding, so now I'm trying to find a link


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: dmp on October 18, 2015, 02:35:13 AM
PPV starts at 9 pm here with three 12 round fights before the main event. So, I'd guess GGG in the ring closer to midnight than 11. Guess it depends how the undercard fights go. Enjoy the fights. Cost $60 plus fees ($65 total) here. Wouldn't pay that much by myself, but a couple of friends want to see it and we'll split the cost three ways. Excited about Gonzalez-Viloria, too.

fk thats steep
cant u stream it there 
it been a long day with the rugby [wales losing gutted]but i wont miss this


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: middleweight on October 18, 2015, 03:13:10 AM
He is an absolute joy to watch


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: dmp on October 18, 2015, 03:21:40 AM
great fighter


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: dmp on October 18, 2015, 03:22:38 AM
Gonzalez


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Scarface on October 18, 2015, 04:06:48 AM
Strange stoppage.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Driscoll on October 18, 2015, 04:18:48 AM
Strange stoppage.

Was similar to the Gonzalez Viloria one


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: SCOTTY'S SOBER on October 18, 2015, 04:29:08 AM
That is why Mayweather is not "tbe"
Because if there is that much a threat around at a weight that could be made.....ok u just retire Floyd and be the best ever lol


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: brocktonbomber on October 18, 2015, 05:12:01 AM
I stand corrected  ;D Are they usually that late?
Well, that 3rd round KO by Ortiz sped the proceedings up a bit, but yes HBO PPV's typically start at 9 pm ET. The last few Showtime/Mayweather PPV's started an hour earlier at 8 which a lot of (older) people like myself prefer.

fk thats steep
cant u stream it there 
it been a long day with the rugby [wales losing gutted]but i wont miss this
When I'm on my own, I'll usually catch a stream or download Sunday morning. But when I can get a couple of others folks to share the cost, I don't mind dropping $20-25. Still, kind of pricey for four predictably one-sided fights. But I enjoy watching Chocolatito and  GGG fight, so what the heck.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Hotdog on October 18, 2015, 05:20:42 AM
Strange fight, it never really took off.  GGG was just too good for him and boxed brilliant behind his jab for most of it.

I thought the ref was a joke.  I don't think it was a stoppage,  it was only going one way but the ref couldn't wait to step in.  The ref was in Lemieux's face for an entire round, didn't give him any space to move and was looking for one reasonable punch from GGG to step in. He was still throwing punches back, he didn't look wobbled (apart from the 5th) and the only thing really wrong was his broken nose.  If ref's stepped in like that all the time,  we wouldn't of seen half the amount of FOTY's or even Cleverleys fight on Friday.

I think they summed it up in the studio after,  the ref wanted to be the star of the show.  I found myself watching him for an entire round, rather than the fight, instead he was there pulling funny faces.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: GOD on October 18, 2015, 06:47:52 AM
Strange fight, it never really took off.  GGG was just too good for him and boxed brilliant behind his jab for most of it.

I thought the ref was a joke.  I don't think it was a stoppage,  it was only going one way but the ref couldn't wait to step in.  The ref was in Lemieux's face for an entire round, didn't give him any space to move and was looking for one reasonable punch from GGG to step in. He was still throwing punches back, he didn't look wobbled (apart from the 5th) and the only thing really wrong was his broken nose.  If ref's stepped in like that all the time,  we wouldn't of seen half the amount of FOTY's or even Cleverleys fight on Friday.

I think they summed it up in the studio after,  the ref wanted to be the star of the show.  I found myself watching him for an entire round, rather than the fight, instead he was there pulling funny faces.

I personally thought it was a fair enough stoppage...it was a systematic beat down and his face was an absolute mess


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Scarface on October 18, 2015, 09:08:40 AM
That is why Mayweather is not "tbe"
Because if there is that much a threat around at a weight that could be made.....ok u just retire Floyd and be the best ever lol

I don't really see how a win over Lemieux equates to a mayweather fight.

A win against andre ward... that would be different.  Let's see if GGG can step up in class and weight instead of fishing for the lighter guys.

At middleweight he is definitely no.1 though.

Also did anybody notice how small the gloves were on GGG ?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Hotdog on October 18, 2015, 09:47:31 AM
I personally thought it was a fair enough stoppage...it was a systematic beat down and his face was an absolute mess

Was his face an absolute mess?  I didn't see any cuts, swollen eyes etc. He had a broken nose, so had blood splattered over it but there's been a lot lot worse. If it was any other fighter and not GGG with his power, then I dare say the ref wouldn't of stopped it.

I agree it was a beat down and to be honest, the  time of the stoppage wasn't too far off but at that time I feel it should of been in the corners hands to pull him out. When the ref originally called the doctor, it was just coming off the 6th round which was Lemieux's best. Then he just wouldn't go away. His mind was made up in the 7th he was gonna stop it. He just wouldn't go away once that was done.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: GOD on October 18, 2015, 10:52:52 AM
Was his face an absolute mess?  I didn't see any cuts, swollen eyes etc. He had a broken nose, so had blood splattered over it but there's been a lot lot worse. If it was any other fighter and not GGG with his power, then I dare say the ref wouldn't of stopped it.

I agree it was a beat down and to be honest, the  time of the stoppage wasn't too far off but at that time I feel it should of been in the corners hands to pull him out. When the ref originally called the doctor, it was just coming off the 6th round which was Lemieux's best. Then he just wouldn't go away. His mind was made up in the 7th he was gonna stop it. He just wouldn't go away once that was done.

Have a look at his face when the ref calls the doc over...

The HBO commentators actually applauded the ref's performance in the fight and I agree with them fully...

It's the ref's job to protect the fighters. Lemieux was getting beat down badly and I couldn't see any point in it being prolonged...you can say that it was  just because it was GGG but the fact of the matter is that he was getting seriously hurt and there was no objection from Lemieux's corner when the fight was stopped. I know Lemieux was disappointed with the stoppage and that's no surprise as he has a lot of heart, but that turned out to be a complete mismatch and he was hurt badly...


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Socrates on October 18, 2015, 11:02:17 AM
I'm surprised there hasn't been any talk of Golovkin clearly hitting Lemieux when he'd taken a knee.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 18, 2015, 11:09:05 AM
Well Golovkin ment business last night and came in with a hard jab and sharp hurtful shots...Lemieux was loading up from half way across the ring and getting countered every time. The stoppage was ok, Lemieux could barely land a shot and deep down I think he was pretty relieved when the ref jumped in.

When Golovkin hit him on the deck I began to think Lemieux may pull a Dirrell but credit to him for beating the count.

Let's all hope that the winner of Cotto v Alvarez takes the Golovkin fight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Gaz on October 18, 2015, 11:11:04 AM
I'm surprised there hasn't been any talk of Golovkin clearly hitting Lemieux when he'd taken a knee.

There's not much to say about it other than yes it happened and yes GGG probably should have had a point taken for it but it's not like Lemieux was taken out by it or even asked for a time out or anything, so it didn't really have any bearing on the fight, other than it being just one of a multitude of clean shots landed by GGG. He was a class apart overall and though Lemieux was hardly in any great distress at that particular moment when the stoppage came, really the fight was becoming more and more impossible for him to win as the fight wore on and the only likely outcome was Lemieux getting badly hurt, so I've no problem with Lemieux being rescued when he was and preserved for the good of his own future.

Can we please see GGG in with genuine elite level opposition soon please?! I really believe in this guy's talents but it's difficult to put him right up there with the p4p best until he has a couple of genuine megafights on his record.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Red on October 18, 2015, 11:45:58 AM
Was the fight average?



Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 18, 2015, 12:56:34 PM
Was the fight average?



Hmmm, Golovkin showed that he can control a fight with his jab and kept Lemieux at bay.

If I had to be harsh I would argue that rather than Golovkin looking great Lemieux was terrible...wide open for the jab and throwing shots that were never going to land.

Imo Alvarez will beat Cotto and go on to beat Golovkin but at this moment in time Golovkin should be considered the best middleweight on the planet although that could change come November.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 18, 2015, 01:53:20 PM
If GGG utilises his jab like he did last night, I can't see Alvarez having the footwork to avoid it. Alvarez is quite good at a lot but not really outstanding at anything and I think he'd just be broken up, albeit I think he'd last longer than Lemieux.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 18, 2015, 02:11:23 PM
If GGG utilises his jab like he did last night, I can't see Alvarez having the footwork to avoid it. Alvarez is quite good at a lot but not really outstanding at anything and I think he'd just be broken up, albeit I think he'd last longer than Lemieux.

That jab may work well v Lemieux but Alvarez is a different animal...massive step up imo.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 18, 2015, 02:30:37 PM
That jab may work well v Lemieux but Alvarez is a different animal...massive step up imo.

I think it would be a bigger step up for Alvarez who hasn't won a fight at 160 yet.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 18, 2015, 02:53:43 PM
I think it would be a bigger step up for Alvarez who hasn't won a fight at 160 yet.

But by the time they fight the likely hood is that Alvarez will have beaten Cotto, also pretty sure Alvarez does a number on the likes of Geale, Murray and Lemieux. Makes me wonder if Alvarez were to beat Cotto and Lemieux would he be considered a top 5 p4p fighter?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 18, 2015, 03:04:02 PM
But by the time they fight the likely hood is that Alvarez will have beaten Cotto, also pretty sure Alvarez does a number on the likes of Geale, Murray and Lemieux. Makes me wonder if Alvarez were to beat Cotto and Lemieux would he be considered a top 5 p4p fighter?

The Cotto fight is at 155 though.  I agree he most likely beats all the names you mention but that's different to beating the hardest punching and best fighter at the weight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 18, 2015, 03:13:27 PM
The Cotto fight is at 155 though.  I agree he most likely beats all the names you mention but that's different to beating the hardest punching and best fighter at the weight.

I think Alvarez will suits the 160 division. I'd argue that Golovkin power is what makes him a good fighter....he controls fights with hurtful shots rather than pure skill and could come unstuck when he fights someone who can ride his shots and back him up. The likes of Cotto and Alvarez will not stand there and let Golovkin dictate like his previous opponents have.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 18, 2015, 04:16:50 PM
I can't see Cotto or Canelo being able to hit hard enough at 160 to be able to back GGG up. Although I can't see Cotto being willing to take the fight at 160 if he did beat Alvarez.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 18, 2015, 04:33:00 PM
I can't see Cotto or Canelo being able to hit hard enough at 160 to be able to back GGG up. Although I can't see Cotto being willing to take the fight at 160 if he did beat Alvarez.

plenty of question marks left surrounding all three fighters imo but Alvarez is who i'd back currently although I would like to see him stood next to GGG to see if there is a size difference.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: lurkyshaka on October 18, 2015, 05:34:45 PM
That jab may work well v Lemieux but Alvarez is a different animal...massive step up imo.

Mate....I'd put my life savings on GGG not only beating Alvarez, but in knocking seven shades out of him in what would look a cake walk.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 18, 2015, 05:35:10 PM
plenty of question marks left surrounding all three fighters imo but Alvarez is who i'd back currently although I would like to see him stood next to GGG to see if there is a size difference.

I think GGG busts Alvarez up at 160 personally.
I like canelo, but think he will be intent on being in the pocket and toughing it out with golovkin. Any one who does that still 160 gets beat at the minute.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 18, 2015, 05:52:51 PM
Really? My only concern for Alvarez is if Golovkin has the size advantage...however I have yet to see them in the same room. Until last night Golovkin has looked very easy to hit and imo his hard jab against a smaller guy was what kept this big rights hands of Lemieuxs at bay. I'm sure I will be lumping on Alvarez once he beats Cotto.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Driscoll on October 18, 2015, 06:56:12 PM
The ref could've let the fight go on but at the same time no real complaints with the stoppage. Lemieux just couldn't get in the pocket, his footwork was average while Golovkins was exceptional. He was out of range almost all night so to say he'd still be able to find the equaliser would be a stretch of the imagination. I can't see Cotto or Alvarez going anywhere near him not unless GGG agrees to a catchweight and even then I'd be doubtful. He should do all he can to try and force a fight with the winner, if it doesn't happen he needs to move up to try and get the big fights. At 33 his window is closing. Andre Ward, Abraham, Degale are all fights which could be sold well and generate a good few quid, but would any of those even want anything to do with him?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Scarface on October 18, 2015, 08:26:06 PM
The ref could've let the fight go on but at the same time no real complaints with the stoppage. Lemieux just couldn't get in the pocket, his footwork was average while Golovkins was exceptional. He was out of range almost all night so to say he'd still be able to find the equaliser would be a stretch of the imagination. I can't see Cotto or Alvarez going anywhere near him not unless GGG agrees to a catchweight and even then I'd be doubtful. He should do all he can to try and force a fight with the winner, if it doesn't happen he needs to move up to try and get the big fights. At 33 his window is closing. Andre Ward, Abraham, Degale are all fights which could be sold well and generate a good few quid, but would any of those even want anything to do with him?

According to ward.  GGG had already turned down a fight against him. His post fight interview also alluded to the fact that he was going to take his time. He seemed more interested in the lighter guys. Everyone has a ceiling.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 18, 2015, 09:03:52 PM
According to ward.  GGG had already turned down a fight against him. His post fight interview also alluded to the fact that he was going to take his time. He seemed more interested in the lighter guys. Everyone has a ceiling.

Of all the sentences in the world that will be believed, one starting with "According to Ward" won't be one of them.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 18, 2015, 09:24:48 PM
Of all the sentences in the world that will be believed, one starting with "According to Ward" won't be one of them.

Tbf to Ward he doesn't run from anyone. I think it's worked out very well for Golovkin as he only really has one fight left at middleweight and if Murray beats Abraham(good chance imo) that fight would be ideal for Golovkins debut at super mid.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 18, 2015, 09:41:18 PM
Tbf to Ward he doesn't run from anyone. I think it's worked out very well for Golovkin as he only really has one fight left at middleweight and if Murray beats Abraham(good chance imo) that fight would be ideal for Golovkins debut at super mid.

I'd say currently he's only not running because he's hiding. I don't think anyone even knows where he is anymore. He fights Smith at catch weight, offers to fight GGG after the Lemieux fight is already signed but seemingly won't move up to 175.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Scarface on October 18, 2015, 11:03:43 PM
Of all the sentences in the world that will be believed, one starting with "According to Ward" won't be one of them.

I didn't think ward conveyed himself as a liar.  Nor does he have any reason to lie... given his record compared with GGG. There is no comparison.

Just because your not fighting. Doesn't mean your not better. Pacman was no.1 p4p but only until mayweather returned... Nobody really believed he was the best. GGG has yet to face an elite name. Until then... I'll be patient before i jump to any conclusions that he can cope with the guys who can actually box,  defend and can take a punch. The division he is in isn't that stacked. So it's difficult to judge how good he is.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 18, 2015, 11:08:56 PM
I'd say currently he's only not running because he's hiding. I don't think anyone even knows where he is anymore. He fights Smith at catch weight, offers to fight GGG after the Lemieux fight is already signed but seemingly won't move up to 175.

Let's not forget it wasn't that long ago that GGG and his team were claiming that no one at middleweight wanted to fight him yet stayed at the weight while talking up fights with super middleweights.

I really don't think Golovkin has any intention of moving up.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: GOD on October 19, 2015, 05:04:36 AM
Let's not forget it wasn't that long ago that GGG and his team were claiming that no one at middleweight wanted to fight him yet stayed at the weight while talking up fights with super middleweights.

I really don't think Golovkin has any intention of moving up.

I don't think GGG will move up to face Ward either, more likely to go after WBO middleweight straight assuming he get to fight Cotto-Canelo winner and assuming he beats the winner...

Ward should concentrate on Kovalev anyway, after all, his last fight was technically in that division anyway...


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 19, 2015, 07:51:33 AM
I didn't think ward conveyed himself as a liar.  Nor does he have any reason to lie... given his record compared with GGG. There is no comparison.

Just because your not fighting. Doesn't mean your not better. Pacman was no.1 p4p but only until mayweather returned... Nobody really believed he was the best. GGG has yet to face an elite name. Until then... I'll be patient before i jump to any conclusions that he can cope with the guys who can actually box,  defend and can take a punch. The division he is in isn't that stacked. So it's difficult to judge how good he is.

You don't lose as many court cases as he did against Goosen by telling the truth.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 19, 2015, 08:04:35 AM
Let's not forget it wasn't that long ago that GGG and his team were claiming that no one at middleweight wanted to fight him yet stayed at the weight while talking up fights with super middleweights.

I really don't think Golovkin has any intention of moving up.

He's got no reason to move up at the moment.  No different to when there was talk of Froch fighting Pascal or Hopkins at 175 really.

I don't think GGG will move up to face Ward either, more likely to go after WBO middleweight straight assuming he get to fight Cotto-Canelo winner and assuming he beats the winner...

Ward should concentrate on Kovalev anyway, after all, his last fight was technically in that division anyway...

If they did got for the WBO, I wonder if they'd look to have the fight over here.  K2 have said they still want GGG fighting in Europe and that venue in Monaco is going to be way too small now.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 19, 2015, 08:17:50 AM
I think itsvery different to Froch not moving up...Froch wasn't walking around claiming nobody in his weight class woukd fight him...Froch had options at suoer mid and knew that but GGG was saying nobody at middleweight would fight him yet for all his talk of fighting super mids he stayed at middle. Why stay at a weight where no one wants to fight you?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 19, 2015, 08:30:07 AM
It's his weight class so he shouldn't have to leave because others aren't stepping up to the plate and I can't remember anyone at 168lbs making a noise saying they would fight him.  Not really an issue now though as he's managed to get into a position (somehow) with the WBC where he will have a shot at the winner of Cotto v Canelo unless they vacate.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Faulks on October 19, 2015, 09:58:51 AM
Can't believe anyone gives canello a chance I this if  it happens (after he beats cotto)

He's no chance at all ..

As for cotto fighting him... Miguels face would look worse than after iron hands battered it


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 19, 2015, 10:50:28 AM
It's his weight class so he shouldn't have to leave because others aren't stepping up to the plate and I can't remember anyone at 168lbs making a noise saying they would fight him.  Not really an issue now though as he's managed to get into a position (somehow) with the WBC where he will have a shot at the winner of Cotto v Canelo unless they vacate.

This would be true if Golovkin didn't keep mentioning these super mids. Fact is he will happily talk about super mids yet he than stays in a pretty poor division in hope of fighting one of two guys who are not natural middleweights. On top of this he now has a ridiclios p4p ranking yet has only just face an opponent who was considered dangerous.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 19, 2015, 11:02:16 AM
This would be true if Golovkin didn't keep mentioning these super mids. Fact is he will happily talk about super mids yet he than stays in a pretty poor division in hope of fighting one of two guys who are not natural middleweights. On top of this he now has a ridiclios p4p ranking yet has only just face an opponent who was considered dangerous.

I think I've only heard of him being linked with two - Froch and Ward.  Obviously Froch retired and Ward hasn't been doing much of anything.  It's hardly GGG's fault that Cotto's holding his title hostage or that Alvarez is moving up.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 19, 2015, 11:54:53 AM
I think I've only heard of him being linked with two - Froch and Ward  Obviously Froch retired and Ward hasn't been doing much of anything.  It's hardly GGG's fault that Cotto's holding his title hostage or that Alvarez is moving up.

He shouldnt be mentioning any fighter at the weight above when he has his sights on a over the hill Cotto who has yet to fight at 160lb. Granted Cotto is taking the piss but he's fighting Alvarez who is a far superior opponent than Lemieux.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 19, 2015, 12:13:24 PM
He shouldnt be mentioning any fighter at the weight above when he has his sights on a over the hill Cotto who has yet to fight at 160lb. Granted Cotto is taking the piss but he's fighting Alvarez who is a far superior opponent than Lemieux.

It's not like that's a thing that doesn't happen in boxing.  And he's hardly been going full on Amir Khan in terms of talking about other fighters.  Cotto flat out refuses to defend the middleweight title at 160lbs.  It's fortunate that GGG is now the WBC mandatory so whoever wins between Cotto and Alvarez shouldn't be in a position to demand the fight is at a catchweight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 19, 2015, 12:54:58 PM
It's not like that's a thing that doesn't happen in boxing.  And he's hardly been going full on Amir Khan in terms of talking about other fighters.  Cotto flat out refuses to defend the middleweight title at 160lbs.  It's fortunate that GGG is now the WBC mandatory so whoever wins between Cotto and Alvarez shouldn't be in a position to demand the fight is at a catchweight.

Alvarez will take the fight should he beat Cotto. If Golovkin beats Alvarez than I will but the p4p talk over his name no doubt but I think he will surely need to move weight after that and imo that really could be his undoing (should Alvarez not be)

Still not convinced on the hype around Golovkin...he's a great fighter and has some power aswell as a decent chin imo but this talk of him being p4p etc. is giving me a migrane.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 19, 2015, 01:03:19 PM
Alvarez will take the fight should he beat Cotto. If Golovkin beats Alvarez than I will but the p4p talk over his name no doubt but I think he will surely need to move weight after that and imo that really could be his undoing (should Alvarez not be)

Still not convinced on the hype around Golovkin...he's a great fighter and has some power aswell as a decent chin imo but this talk of him being p4p etc. is giving me a migrane.

More than ever at the moment I'd say it's best to avoid all P4P rankings.  When the Ring have Brook at #10 you know there are slim pickings.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 19, 2015, 02:38:34 PM
More than ever at the moment I'd say it's best to avoid all P4P rankings.  When the Ring have Brook at #10 you know there are slim pickings.

This is true.  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Every Cloud on October 19, 2015, 03:33:01 PM
Just back from New York. Gonzalez simply sensational the way he puts them together. Not enjoyed watching a fighter as much as him Saturday


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 19, 2015, 04:09:52 PM
Just back from New York. Gonzalez simply sensational the way he puts them together. Not enjoyed watching a fighter as much as him Saturday


Seriously envious of anyone lucky enough to see the great man in action. I'm told he should be fighting in NY early next year (Feb/Mar) so I'm going to do everything in my power to see the God.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: GOD on October 20, 2015, 05:53:59 AM
I'm going to do everything in my power to see the God.

I am always here for you  ;)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: bigbibbs on October 20, 2015, 04:40:57 PM
Let me get this right?  Are we saying Canelo is an elite fighter?  I don't see it at all IMO.

When stepped up in class against good stylists he has suffered.  He is proven to be quite one dimensional though very good at it.

But if GGG beats Alverez, which i think he would i don't think you could say he was an elite fighter.

There again if Cotto beats Alverez and GGG goes on to beat Cotto does that make him elite?  Cotto is proven at the top with the very best and has only come unstuck against good and great fighters.  But he is past his best, despite recent form, he not getting any better overall and admits he is not a true MW.

I think GGG beats anyone in or around MW.  There is so much more to see from him and i think as he is pushed more he will produce much more.

If he cleans up at MW then he is rightlfull the best MW out there.  Moving up or down in weight to produce the same results will cement him as elite and P4P.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: cowboy55 on October 21, 2015, 03:33:43 PM
Seriously envious of anyone lucky enough to see the great man in action. I'm told he should be fighting in NY early next year (Feb/Mar) so I'm going to do everything in my power to see the God.
I'm told by reliable sources he goes by the name of "Cowboy"


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 22, 2015, 08:52:59 AM
Just been reading that Canelo has said he'll only fight Golovkin at 155lbs.  The way things look, I can see whoever wins on 21st November dropping the belt to avoid GGG.  Although that does mean that there is a potentially huge fight on the table for the winner of Lee and BJS.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 22, 2015, 09:50:49 AM
Just been reading that Canelo has said he'll only fight Golovkin at 155lbs.  The way things look, I can see whoever wins on 21st November dropping the belt to avoid GGG.  Although that does mean that there is a potentially huge fight on the table for the winner of Lee and BJS.

Can they stipulate a catchweight on a mandatory?

Actually, come to think of it, if Canelo wins the WBC wonít be enforcing mandatories for a while


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 22, 2015, 10:11:24 AM
Can they stipulate a catchweight on a mandatory?

Actually, come to think of it, if Canelo wins the WBC wonít be enforcing mandatories for a while

The winner is obligated to fight GGG next with no voluntary defence before hand and they won't be in a position to demand a catchweight.  Hence it seems likely the winner will ditch the belt.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 22, 2015, 10:30:49 AM
Just been reading that Canelo has said he'll only fight Golovkin at 155lbs.  The way things look, I can see whoever wins on 21st November dropping the belt to avoid GGG.  Although that does mean that there is a potentially huge fight on the table for the winner of Lee and BJS.

I dont agree with Canelo if he does win and than claims he will only fight GGG at 155lbs....if you dont want to fight at 160lb than dont move to it. However surely Golovkin the man who said he would move down to fight Mayweather will accept the 155lb stipulation rather than lose the biggest fight and pay day of his career.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 22, 2015, 10:31:23 AM
The winner is obligated to fight GGG next with no voluntary defence before hand and they won't be in a position to demand a catchweight.  Hence it seems likely the winner will ditch the belt.

I donít know where Golovkin goes from there if neither Cotto or Canelo will fight him. Lee or Saunders against Golovkin isnít particularly appealing (and Saunders has already said he won't fight Golovkin). Jacobs or Quillin is a non-starter so weíll likely have Heiland and Tureano Johnson next year. Golovkin seems really comfortable at 160lbs so I donít see why he should have to go up in weight, but if he wants a half decent fight, I think heíll have to go to SMW. Even then heíll struggle to get a decent foe.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 22, 2015, 02:29:01 PM
Alvarez will take the fight should he beat Cotto. If Golovkin beats Alvarez than I will but the p4p talk over his name no doubt but I think he will surely need to move weight after that and imo that really could be his undoing (should Alvarez not be)

Still not convinced on the hype around Golovkin...he's a great fighter and has some power aswell as a decent chin imo but this talk of him being p4p etc. is giving me a migrane.

Lomanchenco IMO right now has the skill and ability to be the #1 p4p fighter. Shutting Russell out (who is a very good fighter) proved that. Russell's skill level trumps any opponent that either Golovkin or Kovalev has fought. Golovkin will get a real shock if he ever gets in with ward at 168.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 22, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
I donít know where Golovkin goes from there if neither Cotto or Canelo will fight him. Lee or Saunders against Golovkin isnít particularly appealing (and Saunders has already said he won't fight Golovkin). Jacobs or Quillin is a non-starter so weíll likely have Heiland and Tureano Johnson next year. Golovkin seems really comfortable at 160lbs so I donít see why he should have to go up in weight, but if he wants a half decent fight, I think heíll have to go to SMW. Even then heíll struggle to get a decent foe.

Right now it doesnt really matter. Fans are going to watch and pay their money regardless who GGG fights and hes getting rich in the process. People are just happy to see a top class figher knock people put. I think fans are relieved the Mayweather era is over and clammering for something different, even if it is foreign...


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Platty on October 23, 2015, 02:12:32 AM
None of it really matters because Alvarez won't beat cotto and miguel will fight 'someone else' cinco weekend.

GGG proved me wrong with recent performances and none of the 'elite' will go near him. He'll fight nearly beens for the rest of his career...hopefully making a few quid.  He's hard as F*ck and can box, who on earth would fight him except for a retired British fighter who is clearly gagging to get back into it.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 02:56:53 AM
None of it really matters because Alvarez won't beat cotto and miguel will fight 'someone else' cinco weekend.

GGG proved me wrong with recent performances and none of the 'elite' will go near him. He'll fight nearly beens for the rest of his career...hopefully making a few quid.  He's hard as F*ck and can box, who on earth would fight him except for a retired British fighter who is clearly gagging to get back into it.

I don't feel that golovkin has fully proven himself, and I'm not sold that he beats cotto, while his size and power and good boxing ability make him an avoided fighter, he had the opportunity to fight a true elite in Andre Ward. They came back with a 164 lb catch weight even though were willing to fight Froch or Chafatz at 168.

Now Golovkin has said he won't move down for cotto or canelo, but would have moved down to 154 for Floyd... the guy is a walking contradiction.

The fact IMO is that the 160 and 168 lb divisions have become weak with top guys either moving up, retired, or past it.

Also remember that Chafatz not long ago was koing everyone at 160, but what happened when he moved up? He looked more ordinary and realized using his face wasn't the best defense.

I don't dislike Golovkin, but he didn't want the Ward fight because he knew he was in for a boxing lesson.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: GOD on October 23, 2015, 04:25:12 AM
I don't feel that golovkin has fully proven himself, and I'm not sold that he beats cotto, while his size and power and good boxing ability make him an avoided fighter, he had the opportunity to fight a true elite in Andre Ward. They came back with a 164 lb catch weight even though were willing to fight Froch or Chafatz at 168.

Now Golovkin has said he won't move down for cotto or canelo, but would have moved down to 154 for Floyd... the guy is a walking contradiction.

The fact IMO is that the 160 and 168 lb divisions have become weak with top guys either moving up, retired, or past it.

Also remember that Chafatz not long ago was koing everyone at 160, but what happened when he moved up? He looked more ordinary and realized using his face wasn't the best defense.

I don't dislike Golovkin, but he didn't want the Ward fight because he knew he was in for a boxing lesson.

It's all about money, risk, reward and position...

GGG is in a relatively strong position with respect to Canelo and Cotto...he's their mandatory and the interim WBC title holder and knows he will be upgraded to full champ if the winner of that fight doesn't fight him, so he feels no need to meet any demands to fight them at a lower weight...

He holds no power over Floyd and knows that IF there was any chance of facing him, he would make a TON of money, far more than he would vs Cotto or Canelo, so the situation is different...

As for Ward, yes I agree that Ward beats him at 168, and the problem with Ward is that while he is an excellent fighter, he is a boring bastard inside and outside the ring (and it hurts to speak about my son like that), so is high risk for low reward because only boxing purist fans want to watch Ward rather than having crossover appeal with casual fans; not enough money in that fight at the moment, which is a bit ironic as this is the same excuse why GGG has been avoided (but for different factors) in the sense that he has been too high risk for not enough reward but its because he hurts people badly in the ring at the same time as not having crossover PPV box office appel as yet rather than being boring...

I think GGG walks Cotto down and stops hum by the way...


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Cobra on October 23, 2015, 06:55:18 AM
I don't feel that golovkin has fully proven himself, and I'm not sold that he beats cotto, while his size and power and good boxing ability make him an avoided fighter, he had the opportunity to fight a true elite in Andre Ward. They came back with a 164 lb catch weight even though were willing to fight Froch or Chafatz at 168.

Now Golovkin has said he won't move down for cotto or canelo, but would have moved down to 154 for Floyd... the guy is a walking contradiction.

The fact IMO is that the 160 and 168 lb divisions have become weak with top guys either moving up, retired, or past it.
 
CARL was in negotiations with golovkin and his team , he was interested in this for his last fight , fact is tho , ggg said 164 for CARL as well ... Hence fight never happened .

Also remember that Chafatz not long ago was koing everyone at 160, but what happened when he moved up? He looked more ordinary and realized using his face wasn't the best defense.

I don't dislike Golovkin, but he didn't want the Ward fight because he knew he was in for a boxing lesson.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 23, 2015, 06:55:31 AM
I don't feel that golovkin has fully proven himself, and I'm not sold that he beats cotto, while his size and power and good boxing ability make him an avoided fighter, he had the opportunity to fight a true elite in Andre Ward. They came back with a 164 lb catch weight even though were willing to fight Froch or Chafatz at 168.

Now Golovkin has said he won't move down for cotto or canelo, but would have moved down to 154 for Floyd... the guy is a walking contradiction.

The fact IMO is that the 160 and 168 lb divisions have become weak with top guys either moving up, retired, or past it.

Also remember that Chafatz not long ago was koing everyone at 160, but what happened when he moved up? He looked more ordinary and realized using his face wasn't the best defensef.

I don't dislike Golovkin, but he didn't want the Ward fight because he knew he was in for a boxing lesson.

Comparing the abilities of Golovkin and Chavez... And then critisizng GGG because he's not fought a bloke who has had one fight in almost 3 years... And that was at 172lbs.

Strong post.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Driscoll on October 23, 2015, 08:43:14 AM
I don't think Canelo's record reads any better than Golovkin to be honest so I don't see how beating him would make GGG "elite". Canelo has Mayweather on his CV but he was pretty much humiliated for 12 rounds so I don't see how that would count for much. Are Lara, Trout, Kirkland any better than Lemieux, Murray, Geale?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 23, 2015, 09:03:19 AM
I don't feel that golovkin has fully proven himself, and I'm not sold that he beats cotto, while his size and power and good boxing ability make him an avoided fighter, he had the opportunity to fight a true elite in Andre Ward. They came back with a 164 lb catch weight even though were willing to fight Froch or Chafatz at 168.

Now Golovkin has said he won't move down for cotto or canelo, but would have moved down to 154 for Floyd... the guy is a walking contradiction.

The fact IMO is that the 160 and 168 lb divisions have become weak with top guys either moving up, retired, or past it.

Also remember that Chafatz not long ago was koing everyone at 160, but what happened when he moved up? He looked more ordinary and realized using his face wasn't the best defense.

I don't dislike Golovkin, but he didn't want the Ward fight because he knew he was in for a boxing lesson.

this. Golovkin claims he will do this and that but fact is he will not move from 160lb. Should he? No, but don't say you're willing to move down to fight Mayweather but than turn down the toughest test and biggest pay day of your career because the opponent wants you to fight 5lb lower than your natural weight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 23, 2015, 09:28:14 AM
Ward said he'd move down to 160lbs to fight Mayweather.  But he won't go down to 160lbs to fight his toughest test and biggest pay day in Golovkin.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 23, 2015, 09:31:42 AM
Ward said he'd move down to 160lbs to fight Mayweather.  But he won't go down to 160lbs to fight his toughest test and biggest pay day in Golovkin.

Did he?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 23, 2015, 09:38:08 AM
Did he?


http://www.boxingscene.com/andre-ward-mayweather-ill-go-160-fight-you--63365 (http://www.boxingscene.com/andre-ward-mayweather-ill-go-160-fight-you--63365)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 23, 2015, 10:06:23 AM
[url]http://www.boxingscene.com/andre-ward-mayweather-ill-go-160-fight-you--63365[/url] ([url]http://www.boxingscene.com/andre-ward-mayweather-ill-go-160-fight-you--63365[/url])


I don't agree with him on that...too many fighters play for weight advantages. However it's easy for Ward to make claims like this because he has options at two weights against some very good fighters (Degale, Stevenson, Kovalev) while Golovkin for all his talk of fighting at other weights is now in a division with pretty much zero quality bar two guys who are not natural middleweights.

Regards Alvarez...if he beats Cotto(he will imo) and than stipulates that he will only fight Golovkin at 155lb(after all he only move to middleweight to fight Cotto) and Golovkin refuses, than although it's a bitch move by Alvarez it will also completely rubbish all Golovkins talk of moving weights to fight superior opposition and show that he's happy taking out the weaker opponents at 160.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 23, 2015, 10:27:48 AM
I don't agree with him on that...too many fighters play for weight advantages. However it's easy for Ward to make claims like this because he has options at two weights against some very good fighters (Degale, Stevenson, Kovalev) while Golovkin for all his talk of fighting at other weights is now in a division with pretty much zero quality bar two guys who are not natural middleweights.

Regards Alvarez...if he beats Cotto(he will imo) and than stipulates that he will only fight Golovkin at 155lb(after all he only move to middleweight to fight Cotto) and Golovkin refuses, than although it's a bitch move by Alvarez it will also completely rubbish all Golovkins talk of moving weights to fight superior opposition and show that he's happy taking out the weaker opponents at 160.

Ward doesn't really have that many options as he refuses to accept he is the B-side fighter.  He can't call the shots against GGG, Kovalev or Stevenson.  He might have a chance of having some sway against DeGale if he decides to continue at 168 but he's not in a position to dictate.  I thought Ward was meant to be fighting on the Cotto v Canelo undercard but still nothing has been announced so I don't expect much if he does.

Half of boxing has said they will move weight for Mayweather so I don't blame GGG for that.  Given the WBC's position, GGG doesn't need to give up weight to fight for a middleweight title fight.  It will only reflect badly in the Cotto v Canelo winner if they duck GGG.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 02:18:40 PM
Ward said he'd move down to 160lbs to fight Mayweather.  But he won't go down to 160lbs to fight his toughest test and biggest pay day in Golovkin.

That's fair, but its a boxing purists dream fight and Floyd would have no power at 160 lbs. He injured both hands vs. Berto as it was at 147. Golovkin obviously would have power on top of Ward being drained. That article was also written 2.5 years ago when perhaps Ward's body MIGHT have been able to pull that off. You are also asking a guy who just fought at 172 to come down 8 lbs vs Golovkin who not to long ago weighed in at 157 lbs..I feel Golovkin could easily make a 155 lb catch weight for Cotto or canelo.

The problem for Golovkin remains that 160 and 168 are now weak divisions, you don't have great pure boxers at either weight. You have quillen, who IMO has lost twice, and Jacobs who I feel Mora would have beaten.

Golovkin should wait, see the outcome of Murray vs. Abraham and fight the winner to test himself out at 168.

On a side note, I think Ward should get more respect for seeking the fight with Golovkin, it didn't work out, so moving up and planning to fave Kovalev, which makes Ward the top p4p fighter IMO. Note that Ward has now shown no hesitation to face arguably the top 2 punchers in the sport..the supposed boogey men of boxing.

Food for thought...remember when Paul Williams was "the most feared man in boxing"? Exposed feared fighters has happened since the sport began. Golovkin happens to be in a good situation and is able to fight smaller guys or mediocre guys and look great. Do I fault him for that? Not at all. I'm not buying the hype just yet.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 23, 2015, 02:42:38 PM
I don't really think you can say he has shown no hesitation to face either of them when neither fight has happened.  A bit of talk when he was all but retired can't be taken that seriously. Especially when he seems reticent to confirm a move to 175 in terms of Kovalev.  Hopefully he and Roc Nation figure out what they are doing and actually start putting some fights together.

I think Williams was in the avoided category as he was an awkward 6' plus welterweight.  Golovkin would be more in the feared category because of his 90%+ KO ratio.  It's not that I think GGG is the second coming, but he can look to unify the division in 2-3 fights and see how the landscape looks then.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 02:47:21 PM
Comparing the abilities of Golovkin and Chavez... And then critisizng GGG because he's not fought a bloke who has had one fight in almost 3 years... And that was at 172lbs.

Strong post.

I never compared their abilities once actually. I said it was a similar situation in which both guys were beating lesser fighters and one got exposed once stepping into the ring with an upper tier fighter.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 02:49:47 PM
I don't really think you can say he has shown no hesitation to face either of them when neither fight has happened.  A bit of talk when he was all but retired can't be taken that seriously. Especially when he seems reticent to confirm a move to 175 in terms of Kovalev.  Hopefully he and Roc Nation figure out what they are doing and actually start putting some fights together.

I think Williams was in the avoided category as he was an awkward 6' plus welterweight.  Golovkin would be more in the feared category because of his 90%+ KO ratio.  It's not that I think GGG is the second coming, but he can look to unify the division in 2-3 fights and see how the landscape looks then.

Ward has been saying for a long time that he would have no problem fighting him when Golovkin or his team made the statement that he would fight anyone from 154-168. Probably should have kept quiet on that one.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 23, 2015, 02:55:41 PM
Ward has been saying for a long time that he would have no problem fighting him when Golovkin or his team made the statement that he would fight anyone from 154-168. Probably should have kept quiet on that one.

Ward says a lot of things.  In terms of actions in the last 2 years he fought the fourth or fifth best Super Middleweight in England at a catchweight.  He should have kept quiet.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 03:08:06 PM
Ward says a lot of things.  In terms of actions in the last 2 years he fought the fourth or fifth best Super Middleweight in England at a catchweight.  He should have kept quiet.

Ward couldn't do much of anything with his legal issues. History shows us Ward is legit and has a better resume than Golovkin has without having to make demands. Golovkins fight may have sold out MSG, but at 125k ppv buys. He's not in a position to bargain very much yet.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 23, 2015, 03:12:57 PM
Ward couldn't do much of anything with his legal issues. History shows us Ward is legit and has a better resume than Golovkin has without having to make demands. Golovkins fight may have sold out MSG, but at 125k ppv buys. He's not in a position to bargain very much yet.

No one can argue with what Ward achieved at 168.  He beat everyone there was to beat.  He was the author of his own downfall in terms of his legal issues given that he lost every time he was in court against Goosen.  The problem Ward has is that it would seem he has reached his peak in terms of his audience whereas GGG can already do more than him and is only gaining momentum at present.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 03:33:05 PM
No one can argue with what Ward achieved at 168.  He beat everyone there was to beat.  He was the author of his own downfall in terms of his legal issues given that he lost every time he was in court against Goosen.  The problem Ward has is that it would seem he has reached his peak in terms of his audience whereas GGG can already do more than him and is only gaining momentum at present.

You have to have a career defining fight before people take notice. Golovkin has/had a chance to establish himself as an elite in getting an opportunity to fight and beat Ward. He and his team know he can't beat him in all likelihood, therefore their fan base will build very slowly. Floyd and DLHs first ppvs both did 300k, Golovkin did less than half of that. He's not the star that people think yet. Ward isn't either, but having a fight with a top p4p fighter and David lemeiux (who had previously been stopped already) is a huge step up and will make or break GGG. He wants to sit around for Cotto, who IMO has no business even at 160, to try to make a name for himself rather than himself moving up to take the risk at greatness.

I don't care what legal battles ward won or lost, he wanted out of his contract, couldn't get out, so didn't fight. He's now signed a 3 fight deal with HBO with the third fight likely being kovalev, he's taking steps to greatness...is Golovkin?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 23, 2015, 03:47:33 PM
Even after winning the Super 6 people haven't taken notice of Ward, despite his CV.  Has he had a fight on PPV in the US yet?  I don't think his numbers were bad for a Kazakh national compared to two US fighters.

Unifying the middleweight division would be a good start for GGG.  Until Ward starts fighting regularly again he isn't taking any steps towards anything.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 23, 2015, 04:06:22 PM
Ward doesn't really have that many options as he refuses to accept he is the B-side fighter.  He can't call the shots against GGG, Kovalev or Stevenson.  He might have a chance of having some sway against DeGale if he decides to continue at 168 but he's not in a position to dictate.  I thought Ward was meant to be fighting on the Cotto v Canelo undercard but still nothing has been announced so I don't expect much if he does.

Half of boxing has said they will move weight for Mayweather so I don't blame GGG for that.  Given the WBC's position, GGG doesn't need to give up weight to fight for a middleweight title fight.  It will only reflect badly in the Cotto v Canelo winner if they duck GGG.

I agree somewhat. I think fighters should pick a weigh rather than messing about with catch weight fights (bar the occasional block buster) and I cant stand fighters holding titles for a weigh they dont even fight at.

But again im gonna take a dig at GGG...the guy has claimed he will move weight several times for big fights....Froch, Ward, Chavez (not so big), Mayweather and now he may turn down Alvarez (his toughest test by a country mile) because of 5lb? ridiclious.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 04:47:02 PM
I agree somewhat. I think fighters should pick a weigh rather than messing about with catch weight fights (bar the occasional block buster) and I cant stand fighters holding titles for a weigh they dont even fight at.

But again im gonna take a dig at GGG...the guy has claimed he will move weight several times for big fights....Froch, Ward, Chavez (not so big), Mayweather and now he may turn down Alvarez (his toughest test by a country mile) because of 5lb? ridiclious.

IMO Alvarez is the easier fight between he and cotto vs Golovkin.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 04:50:32 PM
Even after winning the Super 6 people haven't taken notice of Ward, despite his CV.  Has he had a fight on PPV in the US yet?  I don't think his numbers were bad for a Kazakh national compared to two US fighters.

Unifying the middleweight division would be a good start for GGG.  Until Ward starts fighting regularly again he isn't taking any steps towards anything.

There is nothing wrong with staying at and dominating a division. Just don't say you're going to do something if you're not. IE. Moving to this or that weight class.

For the record, I am not a fan of catch weights. If you can't make the weight, you can't fight for the next belt up or down....stupid.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 23, 2015, 04:53:53 PM
IMO Alvarez is the easier fight between he and cotto vs Golovkin.

I think Cottos style is more dangerous for Golovkin but he's too small imo. There's a picture online where Golovkin dwarfs him.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 05:15:34 PM
I think Cottos style is more dangerous for Golovkin but he's too small imo. There's a picture online where Golovkin dwarfs him.

Well he's got about 2.5" or so in height and without looking I think Golovkin has a pretty long reach.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 23, 2015, 05:19:38 PM
(http://i59.tinypic.com/1zofgbk.jpg)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ChicagoFightFan on October 23, 2015, 05:58:37 PM
Are Lara, Trout, Kirkland any better than Lemieux, Murray, Geale?

Yes, yes, and yes


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ChicagoFightFan on October 23, 2015, 06:02:40 PM
Cotto has no shot against Golovkin. He would be walked down and stopped. I think it would be a career ending fight.

Alvarez would get battered but he would make a fight out of it and it would be worth the fans paying for.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Driscoll on October 23, 2015, 06:27:17 PM
Does anyone know what weight both Canelo and Golovkin come into the ring at? The reason I ask is that I saw bob Arum saying something the other day about Canelo being 170lb on fight night. I wouldn't have though Golovkin would be much heavier than that.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 23, 2015, 08:51:57 PM
I agree somewhat. I think fighters should pick a weigh rather than messing about with catch weight fights (bar the occasional block buster) and I cant stand fighters holding titles for a weigh they dont even fight at.

But again im gonna take a dig at GGG...the guy has claimed he will move weight several times for big fights....Froch, Ward, Chavez (not so big), Mayweather and now he may turn down Alvarez (his toughest test by a country mile) because of 5lb? ridiclious.

Your going to be a busy man if you start digging everyone in boxing who suggests they might do something but then doesn't mate.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 23, 2015, 09:01:26 PM
Your going to be a busy man if you start digging everyone in boxing who suggests they might do something but then doesn't mate.

Only the ones who are being hyped for wins v mediocre opposition.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 10:05:54 PM
Only the ones who are being hyped for wins v mediocre opposition.

Its still up in the air for Golovkin IMO. I believe having watched all of his fights that Rosado gave him his toughest test in terms of movement and missed shots and those landed on GGG for about 4 or so RDS, and that was iirc his first fight at 160.

Now, to try to be fair to Golovkin Rosado IMO beat j Leon love (who was busted in that fight and was ruled a nc later) and was also ripped off vs. Quillen.

I don't think quillen is that great and I think Golovkin would make easy work of him, but you really don't know until two guys get in the ring.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 10:07:53 PM
Does anyone know what weight both Canelo and Golovkin come into the ring at? The reason I ask is that I saw bob Arum saying something the other day about Canelo being 170lb on fight night. I wouldn't have though Golovkin would be much heavier than that.

Canelo is big, comes in over 170, I believe 172 his last fight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 10:12:33 PM
Yes, yes, and yes

Lara is better skilled than all of them, trout is well skilled, Kirkland absolutely sucks and wanted to try to use power to beat Canelo. Murray is tough and has a solid defense, Geale is quick, but not top notch skill by any means, lemeiux is at best just decent and that's because he has power, without that power, he would have been stopped in less than half the time.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 23, 2015, 10:16:51 PM
Its still up in the air for Golovkin IMO. I believe having watched all of his fights that Rosado gave him his toughest test in terms of movement and missed shots and those landed on GGG for about 4 or so RDS, and that was iirc his first fight at 160.

Now, to try to be fair to Golovkin Rosado IMO beat j Leon love (who was busted in that fight and was ruled a nc later) and was also ripped off vs. Quillen.

I don't think quillen is that great and I think Golovkin would make easy work of him, but you really don't know until two guys get in the ring.

I rate Golovkin highly....he's clearly a big puncher and Imo he's shown a decent chin so far. My point with the guy (besides his talk with lack of execution) is that if you were to pit his last 4/5 opponents(the wins that have got people calling GGG p4p) against the likes of Cotto and Alvarez they would do the exact same number on them as Golovkin did.

I think Golovkins biggest test will be when he fights a world level opponent at or closer to super mid where I think his power and resistance will fade in the same fashion to Abrahams(yes he's a far better boxer than Abraham)

This is where people will say that Golovkin doesn't have to move up and than I argue that due to the weakness of the division he's in he will have to IF he truly wants to take a p4p place.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 23, 2015, 10:17:04 PM
Cotto has no shot against Golovkin. He would be walked down and stopped. I think it would be a career ending fight.

Alvarez would get battered but he would make a fight out of it and it would be worth the fans paying for.

Canelo has only age and MAYBE power edge over Cotto. Miguel is far better in all other areas. Canelo will have to hurt Cotto or he gets stopped. Canelo stamina also sucks. 30 day weigh in and he's got 12 lbs to lose, I wonder if cotto has more than 5.

Canelo's flat footed fighting style makes him an easy target for Golovkin. Same as with Cotto, if cannot hurt him enough, he loses by KO


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Driscoll on October 24, 2015, 05:50:46 AM
Canelo is big, comes in over 170, I believe 172 his last fight.

I thought so, I can't see Golovkin being any heavier than 175 on fight night so the difference really isn't that much. Canelo's comment about his body not being ready for 160 seems to be a bit of an excuse.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 24, 2015, 11:25:05 AM
I thought so, I can't see Golovkin being any heavier than 175 on fight night so the difference really isn't that much. Canelo's comment about his body not being ready for 160 seems to be a bit of an excuse.

I think it's more of a case of Alvarez taking every advantage he can than him not being able to make weight. As I've said I don't agree with Alvarez on this because imo if you want to hold a middleweight title that you should be prepared to fight at middleweight.

However IF Golovkin doesn't call his bluff than that will show the guys intentions or lack of imo.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 24, 2015, 04:03:58 PM
I thought so, I can't see Golovkin being any heavier than 175 on fight night so the difference really isn't that much. Canelo's comment about his body not being ready for 160 seems to be a bit of an excuse.

Its a total excuse. Canelo does not have the right style, nor the ability to beat Golovkin. Ward or Floyd would beat Golovkin easily in terms of pure ability and skill. However, the power and size differential for Floyd would be likely to high and yet again those who hate the guy say he ran, after winning an SD. Ward? Well Ward has a brilliant inside and outside game, but Golovkin would be eating shots from every angle on the inside en route to a late Golovkin stoppage 11th or 12th. The best he could hope for is a wide UD loss to Ward.

Canelo really should not even be in this discussion... Canelo is mediocre at best. Golovkin was 165 at his last 30 day weigh in. I also checked Cotto, who is at 160.2 for his 30 day weight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: wbamitch on October 24, 2015, 07:04:07 PM
First of all, i really enjoyed the Golovkin/Gonzalez performances in different ways, we maybe got very much what was expected in terms of the results but it was enjoyable to see them elevate their levels and separate them from the quality of their opponents with great control.

Golvokin's jab was fantastic as previously highlighted he really was punching through the target with that, it was effectively a power shot everytime from him, i was worried watching the referee's performance that he was going to jump in early but i can't argue with the stoppage, Lemiuex was taking a systematic beating and his reaction in the closing seconds of the fight told me that he was hoping the ref would jump in.

Onto what's next, GGG has every right to still campaign at Middleweight with his goal of unifying, everybody expects him very much to walk through all opponents in the division but they are still highly respected and good level fighters who hold the belts. I have felt for a while that GGG/Canelo is a more natural match up, certainly much more that Cotto stepping in with Golovkin which i highly doubt he will even if he beats Canelo. The Canelo fight is one i have wanted to see for a while and he is a guy who certainly does take on them all, i really do think Golovkin busts him up big time as well even though he is a very good fighter himself. It all seems and i hope will build up to a Ward fight very soon which i would really love to see, Ward needs to get active though and get a fight or maybe a couple i feel before he were to face his toughest test i feel against GGG or Kovalev which would be really be fantastic fights for him to earn that respect and crowning of the best.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 24, 2015, 08:49:39 PM
He does have every right to stay at 160, I think most are pointing out that the competition is less than stellar at MW, so its easy for him to keep winning, looking good doing it until he steps up the 8 lbs and we see how his body handles that. Also, stay at MW all you want, but don't make stupid comments about fight in a weight class you clearly have no intention of. I'm all for Golovkin to keep winning, but when Ward schools him, all we'll hear from the same people who think he's the second coming now is how he was overrated, or Ward was to big, or some other excuse.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 25, 2015, 03:05:56 AM
Rewatching this fight again and I really have no idea why people think Golovkin is a world beater.

1. Lemeiux's movement is hardly there. He moved straight backward or straight ahead.

2. He used no jab, he relied the entire time on power shots.
3. Zero game plan. He wasn't calm at all, he showed heart, but skill? Come on.
4. Cotto beats Lemeiux too...yep. Lemeiux is an easy target for a guy like Cotto, who wastes little movement with big steps but small, fast pivots. Cotto lands more left hooks on him than he's ever landed.
5.Golovkin is easily frustrated. You see it on his face many times during this fight and vs. Monroe.
6. Lemeiux is simply very sloppy, and even a sloppy fighter landed some good shots, especially when Lemeiux walked forward while throwing punches.
7.Golovkin's inside game looks like it sucks...if he can't keep a guy at his own distance, when they get closer, his short shots are not really there.

Just some observations rather than purposely trying to rip either guy.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ChicagoFightFan on October 25, 2015, 05:35:01 AM

Canelo really should not even be in this discussion... Canelo is mediocre at best. Golovkin was 165 at his last 30 day weigh in.

He troused Trout, who made Cotto look like a tired old man, in a fight he didn't even have to take. He also took on Lara and won in convincing fashion against one of the best technical fighters in the division. Again, his career didn't dictate that he had to take either fight.

I don't think either of them will last with Golovkin, but you aren't really putting anything forward. You seem to like talking about Cotto and don't seem to like Alvarez. Heard and understood, but it is irrelevant. You are just making general statements without  anything constructive to accompany it. Sorry if this comes off harsh, but I find broad statements take away from any real discussion on the sport.




Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 25, 2015, 07:35:02 AM
He does have every right to stay at 160, I think most are pointing out that the competition is less than stellar at MW, so its easy for him to keep winning, looking good doing it until he steps up the 8 lbs and we see how his body handles that. Also, stay at MW all you want, but don't make stupid comments about fight in a weight class you clearly have no intention of. I'm all for Golovkin to keep winning, but when Ward schools him, all we'll hear from the same people who think he's the second coming now is how he was overrated, or Ward was to big, or some other excuse.

Firstly GGG doesn't really make stupid comments, rather he responds to questions brought about by his complete domination of the division.
Secondly ward is a fantastic fighter, top 3 p4p no doubt (if he can get to the level he was at previously), but realistically he probably is too big for golovkin. However I think your extreme bias towards anything American is blinding your judgement. Golovkin had great footwork and cuts the ring off brilliantly, for the first time last week he was in there with someone who's power he respected and for the first time in a while he avoided getting tagged. I think the fact he's the bat puncher in boxing makes you feel he's just a slugger, he's nothing of the sort.
Lastly boxing is a professional sport, that means to make money you have to have an appeal to the audience. GGG had that at so many levels higher than ward to the extent he would sell more tickets to wards family than Andre could. For that reason GGG is a better professional boxer than ward ( Andre should have remained amateur - he could fence his way to wins, had a head guard to protect others from his head, and he wouldn't have to sign contracts he didn't want to).


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 25, 2015, 03:16:31 PM
He troused Trout, who made Cotto look like a tired old man, in a fight he didn't even have to take. He also took on Lara and won in convincing fashion against one of the best technical fighters in the division. Again, his career didn't dictate that he had to take either fight.

I don't think either of them will last with Golovkin, but you aren't really putting anything forward. You seem to like talking about Cotto and don't seem to like Alvarez. Heard and understood, but it is irrelevant. You are just making general statements without  anything constructive to accompany it. Sorry if this comes off harsh, but I find broad statements take away from any real discussion on the sport.




He convincingly beat Lara? Last I saw most had the fight very close, 1 judge gave it to Lara by 2, 1 , by 2 for Canelo, and a 117-111 for Canelo, which seemed quite a bit wide.

I'm not fond of canelo and his recent comment about his body not being ready for 160 when he's 167 (2 lbs higher than Golovkins last 30 day weigh in, and 7 (seven) lbs above Cottos 30 day). However, I think that the bigger picture is that Canelo is the current Mexican fan poster boy, and I get sick of credit being taken away from current Mexican fighters who are much better...even now I think Marquez beats Alvarez, or gives him a hell of a time.

Cottos rejuvenated career or whatever you want to call it suggests he stops Canelo. I'm beyond the thinking with my heart and use my brain to pick who I think is good. I don't recall suggesting that either guy would beat Golovkin (solely based on power BTW), I said I believe Cotto would do better out of the 2, and as my above post says...I think Cotto would also beat Lemeiux aside from a lucky punch. I think Lemeiux has massive heart..but I also think that he has little talent.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 25, 2015, 03:22:32 PM
Firstly GGG doesn't really make stupid comments, rather he responds to questions brought about by his complete domination of the division.
Secondly ward is a fantastic fighter, top 3 p4p no doubt (if he can get to the level he was at previously), but realistically he probably is too big for golovkin. However I think your extreme bias towards anything American is blinding your judgement. Golovkin had great footwork and cuts the ring off brilliantly, for the first time last week he was in there with someone who's power he respected and for the first time in a while he avoided getting tagged. I think the fact he's the bat puncher in boxing makes you feel he's just a slugger, he's nothing of the sort.
Lastly boxing is a professional sport, that means to make money you have to have an appeal to the audience. GGG had that at so many levels higher than ward to the extent he would sell more tickets to wards family than Andre could. For that reason GGG is a better professional boxer than ward ( Andre should have remained amateur - he could fence his way to wins, had a head guard to protect others from his head, and he wouldn't have to sign contracts he didn't want to).

Wow, and I'm the biased one? Yes, his footwork looked good...against sub par opponent(s). Yes he stayed away from a guy who could punch...so he has half a brain at least. Yes, he used his jab effectively...OMG!! who would have thought that would be so effective in this sport????lol give me a break.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 25, 2015, 06:40:29 PM
Been away all weekend but glad to see this is still going on. Especially seeing as award has just had an opponent refused by the commission due to it being that bad a mismatch.  I'm sure that there is a legitimate reason for him trying to drag a sub Paul Smith level super middleweight opponent to 175 and GGG is still a fraud though.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 25, 2015, 06:53:38 PM
Been away all weekend but glad to see this is still going on. Especially seeing as award has just had an opponent refused by the commission due to it being that bad a mismatch.  I'm sure that there is a legitimate reason for him trying to drag a sub Paul Smith level super middleweight opponent to 175 and GGG is still a fraud though.

Gotta laugh at Ward but fact is his cv pisses on Golovkins.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 25, 2015, 07:28:29 PM
Been away all weekend but glad to see this is still going on. Especially seeing as award has just had an opponent refused by the commission due to it being that bad a mismatch.  I'm sure that there is a legitimate reason for him trying to drag a sub Paul Smith level super middleweight opponent to 175 and GGG is still a fraud though.

While you're whining about GGG remember facts are facts...THEY wanted the fight at 164. I also never called Golovkin a fraud. I said I wasn't sold on him.

Be honest...did you think anything about Lemeiux was going to win that fight? Besides power what did he show? Good movement? Any sort of good defense? Please enlighten us.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 25, 2015, 09:06:27 PM
Wow, and I'm the biased one? Yes, his footwork looked good...against sub par opponent(s). Yes he stayed away from a guy who could punch...so he has half a brain at least. Yes, he used his jab effectively...OMG!! who would have thought that would be so effective in this sport????lol give me a break.

Point out one thing which is not true in the post.
I've said ward is fantastic ( well was, we can't really judge him on an out of shape euro level fighter he has fought in the last 3 years), I also said he's too big for GGG.
But this is pro sport which by its very nature demands entertainment... Hence the reason GGG is a better pro fighter.
GGG would outsell ward in Oakland.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 25, 2015, 09:18:06 PM
Point out one thing which is not true in the post.
I've said ward is fantastic ( well was, we can't really judge him on an out of shape euro level fighter he has fought in the last 3 years), I also said he's too big for GGG.
But this is pro sport which by its very nature demands entertainment... Hence the reason GGG is a better pro fighter.
GGG would outsell ward in Oakland.

Lol so because you sell more, then you are a better pro? Pretty ignorant response really. Ward is better skilled, ultimately a professional is who has the better skill and ability. I never said Ward was more of a draw...or a draw at all, but guess what? More and more people are talking about him, why? Because Golovkin BLATANTLY ducked him and yet people are singing his praises which allows him to sit around and wait for a mega fight (which he's not going to get) while fighting opposition that a 153 lb Cotto is knocking out or would knock out...IMO at least.

The truth is that whether Ward is a draw or not, there is no one who is a real draw that will get Golovkin noticed. Believe it or not, he needs Ward. Why? Ward is elite, and Golovkin has yet to prove he is as of yet. If he proves elite, I will gladly give him credit...but you have to beat elite to be considered elite.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 25, 2015, 09:25:24 PM
BTW, he might outsell Ward in Oakland...but he'd be doing it from either flat on his back or a wide UD loss...Ward would then be the draw.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 25, 2015, 09:56:28 PM
Gotta laugh at Ward but fact is his cv pisses on Golovkins.

I'd say you could read them in such a way that they aren't getting too far away from each other CV wise. If you wanted to of course.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 25, 2015, 09:59:27 PM
While you're whining about GGG remember facts are facts...THEY wanted the fight at 164. I also never called Golovkin a fraud. I said I wasn't sold on him.

Be honest...did you think anything about Lemeiux was going to win that fight? Besides power what did he show? Good movement? Any sort of good defense? Please enlighten us.

Ward said he'd do 160 so he has a 4lb advantage on that logic.

I never said Lemieux would win that fight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 25, 2015, 10:04:10 PM
I'd say you could read them in such a way that they aren't getting too far away from each other CV wise. If you wanted to of course.

I'm just going on the quality of opposition they have beat.....Ward inactivity has become laughable but Golovkins going to have to make a move if he wants to face quality opposition. Personally even though I disagree with Canelos request I think GGG should accept the stipulation and fight him at 155lb.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 25, 2015, 11:24:58 PM
Lol so because you sell more, then you are a better pro? Pretty ignorant response really. Ward is better skilled, ultimately a professional is who has the better skill and ability. I never said Ward was more of a draw...or a draw at all, but guess what? More and more people are talking about him, why? Because Golovkin BLATANTLY ducked him and yet people are singing his praises which allows him to sit around and wait for a mega fight (which he's not going to get) while fighting opposition that a 153 lb Cotto is knocking out or would knock out...IMO at least.

The truth is that whether Ward is a draw or not, there is no one who is a real draw that will get Golovkin noticed. Believe it or not, he needs Ward. Why? Ward is elite, and Golovkin has yet to prove he is as of yet. If he proves elite, I will gladly give him credit...but you have to beat elite to be considered elite.

Please don't type lol again, it makes me swear.
To answer your post... To be more entertaining, sell more tickets, make more money, does indeed make you a better pro. Think of the meaning of the word. Profession... A job... You have Burger King, they are boxers. Your supervisor is better at his profession than you, because he makes more more money. You probably have a better flipping technique, but he's not a social retard so he is more engaging with the customers than you.
See the difference.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 25, 2015, 11:44:48 PM
Please don't type lol again, it makes me swear.
To answer your post... To be more entertaining, sell more tickets, make more money, does indeed make you a better pro. Think of the meaning of the word. Profession... A job... You have Burger King, they are boxers. Your supervisor is better at his profession than you, because he makes more more money. You probably have a better flipping technique, but he's not a social retard so he is more engaging with the customers than you.
See the difference.

OK, so Ward is a better pro because he can actually speak proper English and relate to the fans rather than say... "Max, he is good boy" ?

A professional is someone who does a BETTER job at the job they do...Ward is better, thus he is IMO more professional...want to know why? His resume is LEAGUES above Golovkin.

Being a boxer, means you box, that's your job. Selling tickets and all of that stuff is not the job of said boxer. Fans take to who they take to. Ultimately it is the boxers job to train and get in the ring and win or lose, some fighters are salesmen, some aren't.

Lololololol...I don't care if that makes you swear, get better control of your emotions or don't post if you can't handle it.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 26, 2015, 07:32:53 AM
OK, so Ward is a better pro because he can actually speak proper English and relate to the fans rather than say... "Max, he is good boy" ?

A professional is someone who does a BETTER job at the job they do...Ward is better, thus he is IMO more professional...want to know why? His resume is LEAGUES above Golovkin.

Being a boxer, means you box, that's your job. Selling tickets and all of that stuff is not the job of said boxer. Fans take to who they take to. Ultimately it is the boxers job to train and get in the ring and win or lose, some fighters are salesmen, some aren't.

Lololololol...I don't care if that makes you swear, get better control of your emotions or don't post if you can't handle it.

Haha how is ward's Kazakh these days? We will never know because no sod wants to interview him.

That's being the better boxer, not professional.
It's debatable if he's even that, but he'll never be a better professional. He's less successful at his profession, success in profession is normally judged by earning potential.

Ward should have stayed amateur as I said. He clearly lacks the intellect to negotiate a deal in the pro game, and instead spends his career on the sidelines rambling about religion.
Great pro.
No one will remember him in 5 years.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 08:54:41 AM
I'm just going on the quality of opposition they have beat.....Ward inactivity has become laughable but Golovkins going to have to make a move if he wants to face quality opposition. Personally even though I disagree with Canelos request I think GGG should accept the stipulation and fight him at 155lb.

Do bear in mind that he did have the easiest route in the Super Six though.  And what really are his best wins?  Kessler via headbutts and Froch after he initially pulled out and got the fight rescheduled.  The he failed to box Bute after the conclusion of the tournament.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 12:04:29 PM
Haha how is ward's Kazakh these days? We will never know because no sod wants to interview him.

That's being the better boxer, not professional.
It's debatable if he's even that, but he'll never be a better professional. He's less successful at his profession, success in profession is normally judged by earning potential.

Ward should have stayed amateur as I said. He clearly lacks the intellect to negotiate a deal in the pro game, and instead spends his career on the sidelines rambling about religion.
Great pro.
No one will remember him in 5 years.

You completely missed the point, which I'm not surprised of. I'm not picking on a guy who doesn't come from here, and English is not his native tongue. I am saying that because he lacks the ability to speak English well, he doesn't and can't relate to fans as well in that area...at least English speaking fans.

Why you wanted to take this discussion so far off course is understandable considering that no matter how hard you try to look at all other variables, a fact is a fact, and the fact is that Golovkin ducked Ward. He will not fight him because he knows he will lose. Of course he's trying to milk his career for as long as he can, and once the hype train slows down, or stops...Golovkins resume will be questioned more and more.

BTW, Ward actually does quite a good job doing commentary when he was doing it for HBO. He's very professional in both his speaking as well as his fighting.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 12:17:10 PM
Do bear in mind that he did have the easiest route in the Super Six though.  And what really are his best wins?  Kessler via headbutts and Froch after he initially pulled out and got the fight rescheduled.  The he failed to box Bute after the conclusion of the tournament.

He beat Kessler, who was favored to win the SS, Froch, who had only lost a close fight with Kessler, Dawson, (who was drained, but on his own said he would fight at 168), Green who at the time was considered a very good fight with good skill and power, and a few others. I wonder how Golovkin would have done against the same opposition? I'm not speaking about now either...I mean the above mentioned in their primes. Maybe he should have a middleweight and a half tournament so he won't have to go to 168.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 12:23:25 PM
He beat Kessler, who was favored to win the SS, Froch, who had only lost a close fight with Kessler, Dawson, (who was drained, but on his own said he would fight at 168), Green who at the time was considered a very good fight with good skill and power, and a few others. I wonder how Golovkin would have done against the same opposition? I'm not speaking about now either...I mean the above mentioned in their primes. Maybe he should have a middleweight and a half tournament so he won't have to go to 168.

When you have to start making up that people actually thought Allan Green was good, it's probably time to turn it in.

Good idea about the tournament though.  They could run it in parallel with Ward's 172/guys who won't get sanctioned to fight at 175 tournament.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 12:36:38 PM
When you have to start making up that people actually thought Allan Green was good, it's probably time to turn it in.

Good idea about the tournament though.  They could run it in parallel with Ward's 172/guys who won't get sanctioned to fight at 175 tournament.

Lol, at one point people considered Green to be a pretty dangerous opponent, never said he was a world beater. Think Golovkin would've fought him at 164 too?

It doesn't matter, Ward is signed to a 3 fight deal with HBO and that includes a fight with Kovalev.



Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 26, 2015, 12:45:09 PM
You completely missed the point, which I'm not surprised of. I'm not picking on a guy who doesn't come from here, and English is not his native tongue. I am saying that because he lacks the ability to speak English well, he doesn't and can't relate to fans as well in that area...at least English speaking fans.

Why you wanted to take this discussion so far off course is understandable considering that no matter how hard you try to look at all other variables, a fact is a fact, and the fact is that Golovkin ducked Ward. He will not fight him because he knows he will lose. Of course he's trying to milk his career for as long as he can, and once the hype train slows down, or stops...Golovkins resume will be questioned more and more.

BTW, Ward actually does quite a good job doing commentary when he was doing it for HBO. He's very professional in both his speaking as well as his fighting.

So he can't communicate with the widest audience... And yet he's still got more about him than ward. That's embarrassing eh.
How's he ducked a fighter who is in a different division... And fights once every 3 years?
I also hear rigondeaux is ducking ward, and chocolito, and willie pepp.

I've heard him commentate... He puts more people to sleep that way than he ever had in the ring.
He talks about God more than a Bon jovi album.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 01:15:40 PM
So he can't communicate with the widest audience... And yet he's still got more about him than ward. That's embarrassing eh.
How's he ducked a fighter who is in a different division... And fights once every 3 years?
I also hear rigondeaux is ducking ward, and chocolito, and willie pepp.

I've heard him commentate... He puts more people to sleep that way than he ever had in the ring.
He talks about God more than a Bon jovi album.

Oh OK, but if it was allah, it would be OK. Bash the guy for his faith...I'm not the one getting butthurt over Golovkins mediocre opposition getting called out. I'm just pointing out what was said:

NYFightBlog
Golovkin: I'll fight anyone at 154, 160, 168
3/17/2012
Emailcomment
Michael Woods, Boxing
Gennady Golovkin, who might be the best middleweight -- hell, one of the best boxers, pound for pound -- who you don't know, was at Madison Square Garden scouting Sergio Martinez Saturday night. The Kazahkstan-born hitter, who lives in Stuttgart, Germany, and is trained by Californian Abel Sanchez, told spam New York, in halting English, that he thinks he's the best middleweight out there right now, including Martinez, and that he would like an opportunity to prove it by fighting Martinez.

Asked whom he thought would win in the main event -- Martinez or Matthew Macklin -- Golovkin picked Martinez. "He has more power," he said. "I think by KO."

Tom Loeffler, who helps run the Klitschko brothers' promotional company, told me that K2 wants to do Golovkin-Martinez, but down the line a bit. First, the company would like to whet the U.S. fans' appetites by showcasing Golovkin on HBO. That could happen in November, Loeffler said.

Golovkin (22-0, 19 KOs), the 29-year-old WBA world middleweight champ (who happens to look nine years younger), stood by as I queried Loeffler, Golovkin's baby face not at all indicative of his chosen trade.

Golovkin wants WBA super world champ Felix Sturm first, and that could happen in September. Golovkin said he has been chasing Sturm (who also lives in Germany, so catching him shouldn't be that hard to do) for two years. Sturm next fights Sebastian Zbik, on April 13, while Golovkin will fight in May against an opponent to be determined. Loeffler also said he'd like, ideally, to see Golovkin take out Daniel Geale, the IBF champ, and/or WBO champ Dmitriy Pirog, to consolidate the crowns.

Sanchez, who trained Terry Norris and Miguel Angel Gonzalez, said Golovkin is better than Norris right now. He told me he has superstar potential, and more.

"He is by far the best fighter I've ever worked with," Sanchez said. Golovkin, Sanchez said, is more cerebral and a better technician than Norris, the ex-junior middleweight champ. "He's the biggest puncher you've ever seen, bar none. Nothing wild, nothing long, everything is compact."

I don't think I've ever come across a trainer as enthused about his client as Sanchez is about Golovkin. He said his fighter has already run Julio Cesar Chavez Jr., Peter Quillin and Alfredo Angulo out of the ring in sparring. Sanchez also told me he has a written list at his gym, with Muhammad Ali being No. 1, a blank for No. 2 and Sugar Ray Robinson at No. 3. Give it some time, Sanchez says he told Golovkin, and you will take that slot behind Ali. For that matter, I don't recall the last time I heard a promoter offer to put his guy in against anyone at 154, 160 or 168 pounds, as Loeffler did.

"Andre Ward?" I asked.

"Maybe, yes," Golovkin said.

Hmmm, has he fought at 154 or 168? Lol


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 01:18:06 PM
Lol, at one point people considered Green to be a pretty dangerous opponent, never said he was a world beater. Think Golovkin would've fought him at 164 too?

It doesn't matter, Ward is signed to a 3 fight deal with HBO and that includes a fight with Kovalev.

You actually said he was "considered a very good fight (sic) with good skill and power".  He'd been outpointed by Edison Miranda and his entry hardly boosted the appeal of the Super Six.  

Reality is that Golovkin would be the A-side in a fight against Ward and, as much as I'm not generally keen on them, Ward should have accepted 164 if he really wanted the fight.  He had no bargaining power and had already said he would go to 160 so the onus was on him to take the fight.  Still, gives him something to talk about whilst Roc Nation look on page 5 of the 168lb rankings on Boxrec for an opponent for him to fight at 175.

It might include a fight with Kovalev but that fight isn't actually signed is it?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 01:42:40 PM
Oh OK, but if it was allah, it would be OK. Bash the guy for his faith...I'm not the one getting butthurt over Golovkins mediocre opposition getting called out. I'm just pointing out what was said:

NYFightBlog
Golovkin: I'll fight anyone at 154, 160, 168
3/17/2012
Emailcomment
Michael Woods, Boxing
Gennady Golovkin, who might be the best middleweight -- hell, one of the best boxers, pound for pound -- who you don't know, was at Madison Square Garden scouting Sergio Martinez Saturday night. The Kazahkstan-born hitter, who lives in Stuttgart, Germany, and is trained by Californian Abel Sanchez, told spam New York, in halting English, that he thinks he's the best middleweight out there right now, including Martinez, and that he would like an opportunity to prove it by fighting Martinez.

Asked whom he thought would win in the main event -- Martinez or Matthew Macklin -- Golovkin picked Martinez. "He has more power," he said. "I think by KO."

Tom Loeffler, who helps run the Klitschko brothers' promotional company, told me that K2 wants to do Golovkin-Martinez, but down the line a bit. First, the company would like to whet the U.S. fans' appetites by showcasing Golovkin on HBO. That could happen in November, Loeffler said.

Golovkin (22-0, 19 KOs), the 29-year-old WBA world middleweight champ (who happens to look nine years younger), stood by as I queried Loeffler, Golovkin's baby face not at all indicative of his chosen trade.

Golovkin wants WBA super world champ Felix Sturm first, and that could happen in September. Golovkin said he has been chasing Sturm (who also lives in Germany, so catching him shouldn't be that hard to do) for two years. Sturm next fights Sebastian Zbik, on April 13, while Golovkin will fight in May against an opponent to be determined. Loeffler also said he'd like, ideally, to see Golovkin take out Daniel Geale, the IBF champ, and/or WBO champ Dmitriy Pirog, to consolidate the crowns.

Sanchez, who trained Terry Norris and Miguel Angel Gonzalez, said Golovkin is better than Norris right now. He told me he has superstar potential, and more.

"He is by far the best fighter I've ever worked with," Sanchez said. Golovkin, Sanchez said, is more cerebral and a better technician than Norris, the ex-junior middleweight champ. "He's the biggest puncher you've ever seen, bar none. Nothing wild, nothing long, everything is compact."

I don't think I've ever come across a trainer as enthused about his client as Sanchez is about Golovkin. He said his fighter has already run Julio Cesar Chavez Jr., Peter Quillin and Alfredo Angulo out of the ring in sparring. Sanchez also told me he has a written list at his gym, with Muhammad Ali being No. 1, a blank for No. 2 and Sugar Ray Robinson at No. 3. Give it some time, Sanchez says he told Golovkin, and you will take that slot behind Ali. For that matter, I don't recall the last time I heard a promoter offer to put his guy in against anyone at 154, 160 or 168 pounds, as Loeffler did.

"Andre Ward?" I asked.

"Maybe, yes," Golovkin said.

Hmmm, has he fought at 154 or 168? Lol

Have you actually started mocking yourself or did you not realise that article is 3 and a half years old?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 26, 2015, 01:49:55 PM
Do bear in mind that he did have the easiest route in the Super Six though.  And what really are his best wins?  Kessler via headbutts and Froch after he initially pulled out and got the fight rescheduled.  The he failed to box Bute after the conclusion of the tournament.

Wards win v Froch has become by far his greatest accomplishment to date purely because of the demolition job Carl went on after that loss.

I agree that bar Froch his CV isn't amazing but the fact remains he did beat Froch and that's a massive scalp especially when Golovkins biggest scalp to date is Martin Murray imo.

I actually like both fighters as they are both genuinely good guys and top level....obviously prefer to watch Golovkin to Ward but atm they are both being talked about as p4p but not doing that much to impress.

Golovkin to me has the Liverpool effect.....he's doing nothing special but every time he wins against mediocre opposition people go on as if he's the greatest fighter to ever live. It's becoming more a case of delusional fans that are winding me up about the guy rather than the way his career spanning out.

Still think he needs to agree to Cotto or Canelos demands should they be willing to fight him.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 02:02:41 PM
As is usually the case, it's most likely hype coming from people who've been watching him for a couple of fights.  I remember watching him fight in some random hotel room in Germany a few years back so am pleased he's got to where he is headlining at MSG.

Like I mentioned above, it was heading for four years ago now that he said he'd go to 154 so I think it's fair enough if that's off the table now.  If Cotto or Canelo want to hold a middleweight title, it's only right it's contested at the 160 limit.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 26, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
As is usually the case, it's most likely hype coming from people who've been watching him for a couple of fights.  I remember watching him fight in some random hotel room in Germany a few years back so am pleased he's got to where he is headlining at MSG.

Like I mentioned above, it was heading for four years ago now that he said he'd go to 154 so I think it's fair enough if that's off the table now.  If Cotto or Canelo want to hold a middleweight title, it's only right it's contested at the 160 limit.

That final statement I agree with but surely the great Golovkin would rather agree to 155lb than throw away such a big opportunity to show he can beat world level opposition? look at the risk Froch took to fight Taylor (a fight he never had to take) and how that risk is what got Froch a place in the super six. Great fighters take chances to prove their greatness. Will Golovkin?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 02:34:04 PM
That final statement I agree with but surely the great Golovkin would rather agree to 155lb than throw away such a big opportunity to show he can beat world level opposition? look at the risk Froch took to fight Taylor (a fight he never had to take) and how that risk is what got Froch a place in the super six. Great fighters take chances to prove their greatness. Will Golovkin?

Taylor was Froch's mandatory wasn't he?  If so, he had to defend against Taylor or be stripped.

Thinking about it, wasn't that fight at the time when everyone had pretty much pulled out of boxing after he beat Pascal on ITV?  I remember it only got shown on tape delay the following day on ITV4 or something.  I don't think Froch really had any options at that point in time.

If he'd fought Taylor at 164 that might be close to doing what GGG would be expected to by fighting at 155.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 26, 2015, 02:56:06 PM
Taylor was Froch's mandatory wasn't he?  If so, he had to defend against Taylor or be stripped.

Thinking about it, wasn't that fight at the time when everyone had pretty much pulled out of boxing after he beat Pascal on ITV?  I remember it only got shown on tape delay the following day on ITV4 or something.  I don't think Froch really had any options at that point in time.

If he'd fought Taylor at 164 that might be close to doing what GGG would be expected to by fighting at 155.

Sorry but this is wrong, Taylor ducked purse bids for the fight as he wasnt willing to fight in the uk and Froch(although he could have easily avoided it) took the risk and accepted terms for a fight in the states as he wanted to fight Taylor because he considered Taylor a bigger name than anyone else available at the time. Make no mistake Froch took the harder fight away from home and for less cash because he wanted to show the world how good he was.....its a shame that Golovkin can't even drop 5lbs to prove his greatness.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 03:09:59 PM
Sorry but this is wrong, Taylor ducked purse bids for the fight as he wasnt willing to fight in the uk and Froch(although he could have easily avoided it) took the risk and accepted terms for a fight in the states as he wanted to fight Taylor because he considered Taylor a bigger name than anyone else available at the time. Make no mistake Froch took the harder fight away from home and for less cash because he wanted to show the world how good he was.....its a shame that Golovkin can't even drop 5lbs to prove his greatness.

I still don't think he had much option that to face Taylor as he had no TV backing over here after Pascal (which is a mystery given what a quality fight it was).  It wouldn't have made for much of a payday defending the title in Nottingham off TV.

Since when has it been a thing that fighters have to fight a mandatory title challenge at 5lbs below the division limit because of a statement they made years ago?  Maybe Froch should have proved his greatness by rematching Pascal at 175 as he said he would.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 26, 2015, 03:17:12 PM
I still don't think he had much option that to face Taylor as he had no TV backing over here after Pascal (which is a mystery given what a quality fight it was).  It wouldn't have made for much of a payday defending the title in Nottingham off TV.

Since when has it been a thing that fighters have to fight a mandatory title challenge at 5lbs below the division limit because of a statement they made years ago?  Maybe Froch should have proved his greatness by rematching Pascal at 175 as he said he would.

No sorry you've gone miles off course here. Selling out the nottingham arena would have generated more money for Carl than the Taylor fight(they'd of got equal tv coverage as the Taylor fight if not better). The Pascal comment pretty much kills your statement dead...why would Carl move to 175lb to fight a guy hes already beat rather than fight guys like Taylor, Kessler, Abraham, Ward etc at the weight hes champion at?

Golovkins issue is the opposition at 160lb is shockingly poor and this is why IF he wants the big fights he will have to realise they will not be on his terms.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 03:36:32 PM
No sorry you've gone miles off course here. Selling out the nottingham arena would have generated more money for Carl than the Taylor fight(they'd of got equal tv coverage as the Taylor fight if not better). The Pascal comment pretty much kills your statement dead...why would Carl move to 175lb to fight a guy hes already beat rather than fight guys like Taylor, Kessler, Abraham, Ward etc at the weight hes champion at?

Golovkins issue is the opposition at 160lb is shockingly poor and this is why IF he wants the big fights he will have to realise they will not be on his terms.

I'm not sure about that given that he then ended up fighting on Prime Time after the Taylor fight.  There was just no interest on the main television channels.  He might have got a smaller purse than Taylor but that doesn't mean he'd have made more by fighting in Notts.

You misunderstood the argument.  Carl said he'd rematch Pascal at 175 but a bit further down the line this wasn't practicle.  GGG said he'd fight anyone at 154 three and a half years ago and now that isn't practical.  The Cotto v Canelo winner and the winner of Lee v BJS aren't bad fights.  If the winner of Cotto v Canelo won't fight at 160 they will lose a lot of respect so he's right to stand his ground.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 26, 2015, 03:45:43 PM
I'm not sure about that given that he then ended up fighting on Prime Time after the Taylor fight.  There was just no interest on the main television channels.  He might have got a smaller purse than Taylor but that doesn't mean he'd have made more by fighting in Notts.

You misunderstood the argument.  Carl said he'd rematch Pascal at 175 but a bit further down the line this wasn't practicle.  GGG said he'd fight anyone at 154 three and a half years ago and now that isn't practical.  The Cotto v Canelo winner and the winner of Lee v BJS aren't bad fights.  If the winner of Cotto v Canelo won't fight at 160 they will lose a lot of respect so he's right to stand his ground.

100% certain Froch would have made more fighting in Nottingham and with less risk v an easier opponent than Taylor.

I haven't mentioned Golovkin talk of fighting at different weights recently as its clear he has no intention to. Canelo at 155 or Lee at 160.....easy choice for a world beater....not sire what Golovkin will pick though


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 03:55:15 PM
100% certain Froch would have made more fighting in Nottingham and with less risk v an easier opponent than Taylor.

I haven't mentioned Golovkin talk of fighting at different weights recently as its clear he has no intention to. Canelo at 155 or Lee at 160.....easy choice for a world beater....not sire what Golovkin will pick though

It's strange that this demand only seems to be being made of GGG to prove himself in his own weight class and not of other fights in the many weight divisions in boxing.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 26, 2015, 03:59:09 PM
Oh OK, but if it was allah, it would be OK. Bash the guy for his faith...I'm not the one getting butthurt over Golovkins mediocre opposition getting called out. I'm just pointing out what was said:

NYFightBlog
Golovkin: I'll fight anyone at 154, 160, 168
3/17/2012
Emailcomment
Michael Woods, Boxing
Gennady Golovkin, who might be the best middleweight -- hell, one of the best boxers, pound for pound -- who you don't know, was at Madison Square Garden scouting Sergio Martinez Saturday night. The Kazahkstan-born hitter, who lives in Stuttgart, Germany, and is trained by Californian Abel Sanchez, told spam New York, in halting English, that he thinks he's the best middleweight out there right now, including Martinez, and that he would like an opportunity to prove it by fighting Martinez.

Asked whom he thought would win in the main event -- Martinez or Matthew Macklin -- Golovkin picked Martinez. "He has more power," he said. "I think by KO."

Tom Loeffler, who helps run the Klitschko brothers' promotional company, told me that K2 wants to do Golovkin-Martinez, but down the line a bit. First, the company would like to whet the U.S. fans' appetites by showcasing Golovkin on HBO. That could happen in November, Loeffler said.

Golovkin (22-0, 19 KOs), the 29-year-old WBA world middleweight champ (who happens to look nine years younger), stood by as I queried Loeffler, Golovkin's baby face not at all indicative of his chosen trade.

Golovkin wants WBA super world champ Felix Sturm first, and that could happen in September. Golovkin said he has been chasing Sturm (who also lives in Germany, so catching him shouldn't be that hard to do) for two years. Sturm next fights Sebastian Zbik, on April 13, while Golovkin will fight in May against an opponent to be determined. Loeffler also said he'd like, ideally, to see Golovkin take out Daniel Geale, the IBF champ, and/or WBO champ Dmitriy Pirog, to consolidate the crowns.

Sanchez, who trained Terry Norris and Miguel Angel Gonzalez, said Golovkin is better than Norris right now. He told me he has superstar potential, and more.

"He is by far the best fighter I've ever worked with," Sanchez said. Golovkin, Sanchez said, is more cerebral and a better technician than Norris, the ex-junior middleweight champ. "He's the biggest puncher you've ever seen, bar none. Nothing wild, nothing long, everything is compact."

I don't think I've ever come across a trainer as enthused about his client as Sanchez is about Golovkin. He said his fighter has already run Julio Cesar Chavez Jr., Peter Quillin and Alfredo Angulo out of the ring in sparring. Sanchez also told me he has a written list at his gym, with Muhammad Ali being No. 1, a blank for No. 2 and Sugar Ray Robinson at No. 3. Give it some time, Sanchez says he told Golovkin, and you will take that slot behind Ali. For that matter, I don't recall the last time I heard a promoter offer to put his guy in against anyone at 154, 160 or 168 pounds, as Loeffler did.

"Andre Ward?" I asked.

"Maybe, yes," Golovkin said.

Hmmm, has he fought at 154 or 168? Lol

Wow.
An article from the time ward was still a fighter (3 years ago)... And like I said he responds to questions rather than make stupid statements.
''Andre Ward'' I asked.
 ;D
Thanks for digging back in the archive to confirm just how correct I am.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 26, 2015, 04:00:52 PM
It's strange that this demand only seems to be being made of GGG to prove himself in his own weight class and not of other fights in the many weight divisions in boxing.

Could likely pull up 20 odd videos of him claiming he'd fight at different weights yet now he's likely to turn down the first world level opponent he could fight over 5lbs. Pretty sure those demands only exist because of his mouth.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 04:14:57 PM
Could likely pull up 20 odd videos of him claiming he'd fight at different weights yet now he's likely to turn down the first world level opponent he could fight over 5lbs. Pretty sure those demands only exist because of his mouth.

I think most people would think Cotto/Canelo should defend the title at the relevant limit than look for excuses as to why they should be allowed to continue to make the WBC title a joke.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 04:30:32 PM
I'm not sure about that given that he then ended up fighting on Prime Time after the Taylor fight.  There was just no interest on the main television channels.  He might have got a smaller purse than Taylor but that doesn't mean he'd have made more by fighting in Notts.

You misunderstood the argument.  Carl said he'd rematch Pascal at 175 but a bit further down the line this wasn't practicle.  GGG said he'd fight anyone at 154 three and a half years ago and now that isn't practical.  The Cotto v Canelo winner and the winner of Lee v BJS aren't bad fights.  If the winner of Cotto v Canelo won't fight at 160 they will lose a lot of respect so he's right to stand his ground.

So why will he go down to 154 for Floyd? He's not going to be able to dictate terms to Cotto or Canelo either. He needs to face facts that he will either have to fight at a catch weight or he's going to lose out on his biggest payday. No matter how you slice it, he is not the draw in any of the above fights.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 04:35:23 PM
You actually said he was "considered a very good fight (sic) with good skill and power".  He'd been outpointed by Edison Miranda and his entry hardly boosted the appeal of the Super Six.  

Reality is that Golovkin would be the A-side in a fight against Ward and, as much as I'm not generally keen on them, Ward should have accepted 164 if he really wanted the fight.  He had no bargaining power and had already said he would go to 160 so the onus was on him to take the fight.  Still, gives him something to talk about whilst Roc Nation look on page 5 of the 168lb rankings on Boxrec for an opponent for him to fight at 175.

It might include a fight with Kovalev but that fight isn't actually signed is it?


Actually a fight with Kovalev in 2016 is part of the contract yes.

http://www.boxingglobe.com/ward-signs-3-fight-deal-w-hbo-3rd-fight-to-be-kovalev-kovalev-jean-pascal-ii-looming/ (http://www.boxingglobe.com/ward-signs-3-fight-deal-w-hbo-3rd-fight-to-be-kovalev-kovalev-jean-pascal-ii-looming/)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 26, 2015, 04:36:52 PM
I think most people would think Cotto/Canelo should defend the title at the relevant limit than look for excuses as to why they should be allowed to continue to make the WBC title a joke.

Canelos playing a game, he knows he can make 160 and likely will but as Golovkin has pretty much zero world level opposition Canelos going to try to get any advantages he can. Fact is the winner of Cotto v Alvarez will have beaten a far better opponent for a middleweight title than Golovkin has to date and therefore should be considered the no.1 middleweight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 04:43:39 PM
Wow.
An article from the time ward was still a fighter (3 years ago)... And like I said he responds to questions rather than make stupid statements.
''Andre Ward'' I asked.
 ;D
Thanks for digging back in the archive to confirm just how correct I am.

I don't know what you think you proved...not like Golovkin is struggling to make weight, and when asked about Ward he simply said "maybe" proving that even 3 years ago he knew he'd lose and 3 years later, he still knows it.

Why do you think he was willing to fight fat boy Chavez at 168, but not Ward?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 04:48:04 PM
Actually a fight with Kovalev in 2016 is part of the contract yes.

[url]http://www.boxingglobe.com/ward-signs-3-fight-deal-w-hbo-3rd-fight-to-be-kovalev-kovalev-jean-pascal-ii-looming/[/url] ([url]http://www.boxingglobe.com/ward-signs-3-fight-deal-w-hbo-3rd-fight-to-be-kovalev-kovalev-jean-pascal-ii-looming/[/url])


It doesn't say that it's actually part of the contract though does it?  It's part of the plan.

He'd do 154 for Floyd for the same reason Ward would do 160 for him - fighting Floyd was essentially fighting for all the marbles.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 04:49:37 PM
Canelos playing a game, he knows he can make 160 and likely will but as Golovkin has pretty much zero world level opposition Canelos going to try to get any advantages he can. Fact is the winner of Cotto v Alvarez will have beaten a far better opponent for a middleweight title than Golovkin has to date and therefore should be considered the no.1 middleweight.

I'd say no one can be the number one in the division if they refuse to fight at it's limit.  Cotto v Canelo is a glorified LMW fight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 26, 2015, 04:53:58 PM
I'd say no one can be the number one in the division if they refuse to fight at it's limit.  Cotto v Canelo is a glorified LMW fight.

They both handle all of Golovkins previous opponenets regardless of what they weigh in at.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 04:54:10 PM
Canelos playing a game, he knows he can make 160 and likely will but as Golovkin has pretty much zero world level opposition Canelos going to try to get any advantages he can. Fact is the winner of Cotto v Alvarez will have beaten a far better opponent for a middleweight title than Golovkin has to date and therefore should be considered the no.1 middleweight.

I'll give Golovkin credit for trying to collect all the belts and unify the division, but as I've said before...you have to sometimes chase greatness. Golovkin fighting and beating Ward (though I seriously doubt that) would take that little bit of doubt out of peoples minds that he might just be another Kirkland, Miranda, etc, who were knocking everyone out until they stepped it up and were exposed. Part of that was HBOs hyping of fighters, part of it is them cherry picking.

Golovkin will have to chase greatness in another weight class because no one at 160 lbs is really considered to be a threat (I am not including cotto or Canelo because they are fighting 5 lbs south of the limit) or very good. Abel Sanchez is trying to build quillen up saying he's "the biggest threat to Golovkin in the division" so people can be fooled into believing that crap, when the truth is quillen should have st least 1 loss, if not 2 because he got gift decisions.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 05:04:01 PM
It doesn't say that it's actually part of the contract though does it?  It's part of the plan.

He'd do 154 for Floyd for the same reason Ward would do 160 for him - fighting Floyd was essentially fighting for all the marbles.

Oh give me a break....of course it's the "plan" but anything can happen in boxing... What if kovalev gets flattened by Pascal, or what if Ward loses? Obviously it would make the fight much less enticing.

The Floyd fight is about money...but its stupid in either the case of Ward or Golovkin. What if Floyd beat Ward at 160 or Golovkin at 154? Then he'd be getting called out by freaking Klitschko, where would it end? Floyd's worth over a half billion dollars and needs neither guy...oh AND he's retired lol. People need to give up on the Floyd sweepstakes.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 26, 2015, 05:46:18 PM
I don't know what you think you proved...not like Golovkin is struggling to make weight, and when asked about Ward he simply said "maybe" proving that even 3 years ago he knew he'd lose and 3 years later, he still knows it.

Why do you think he was willing to fight fat boy Chavez at 168, but not Ward?

I proved what I said was true.
Well you proved it...

Personally I think ward would win, however ward has always been at a heavier weight.
Golovkin doesn't make these outlandish claims (as I said), he just responds respectfully to questions.
I also said Golovkin is the better pro because 1) he understands pro contracts. 2) he is marketable and exciting to watch (this is the difference between pro and am) 3) he actually fights.

That said if ward could get down to middleweight then GGG puts him away - but he can't fight at middle because he's too big.



Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 06:05:53 PM
They both handle all of Golovkins previous opponenets regardless of what they weigh in at.

I'd say GGG does the same to all the opponents they have defeated too.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 26, 2015, 06:07:40 PM
Oh give me a break....of course it's the "plan" but anything can happen in boxing... What if kovalev gets flattened by Pascal, or what if Ward loses? Obviously it would make the fight much less enticing.

The Floyd fight is about money...but its stupid in either the case of Ward or Golovkin. What if Floyd beat Ward at 160 or Golovkin at 154? Then he'd be getting called out by freaking Klitschko, where would it end? Floyd's worth over a half billion dollars and needs neither guy...oh AND he's retired lol. People need to give up on the Floyd sweepstakes.

It was you that claimed it was in the contract and clearly it's not for obvious reasons.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 06:09:21 PM
I proved what I said was true.
Well you proved it...

Personally I think ward would win, however ward has always been at a heavier weight.
Golovkin doesn't make these outlandish claims (as I said), he just responds respectfully to questions.
I also said Golovkin is the better pro because 1) he understands pro contracts. 2) he is marketable and exciting to watch (this is the difference between pro and am) 3) he actually fights.

That said if ward could get down to middleweight then GGG puts him away - but he can't fight at middle because he's too big.




Like I said...Golovkin is going to have to chase greatness. People who talk about a challenge for Golovkin are not talking about the much shorter Cotto, they are talking about Ward. No one in their right mind would consider Canelo much of a challenge...at least I wouldn't because he's just to flat footed, stamina sucks, and is easy to hit. Golovkin can continue to fight sub par guys, but eventually people will want to see him in there with a real threat.

What outlandish claim did Ward make? He's been saying for a long time that he wanted to fight Golovkin...and this hasn't just been recently.

As far as Golovkin being this huge supposed star...


Golovkin is truly a star in the making. His KO percentage and recorded title defenses speak for itself. But upon reviewing the record of Golovkin. There isnít anyone of note on his resume of fighters heís faced. Where as Ward cleared out the 168 division of great former champions and even some current champions. Golovkin sold 12,000 tickets in his recent fight with Willie Monroe Jr; whereas Ward sold out the Oracle Arena in Oakland, California in his comeback fight with Smith. Golovkin made his first million dollar purse in his fight with Martin Murray last February; whereas Ward has been a million dollar per fight fighter for years. But money issues aside, it comes down to risk and reward. Ward is the undefeated wba 168 pound champion who is known in boxing as the best behind Floyd Mayweather Jr. A victory over Golovkin would do nothing for the career of Ward except reestablish him as the number 2 pound for pound officially once again. However, if Golovkin were to pull off a victory over Ward, Golovkin would be catapulted to heights and fame that could only be touched by Mayweather himself. Golovkin would become the WBA super middleweight champion, and instantly become the face of boxing with the retirement of Mayweather looming. Golovkin would then truly become the man to beat, and make him the A-side fighter in negotiations with anyone he faces afterwards. Therefore, in my opinion, Ward is the true A-side. What do you think boxing fans?

http://www.boxingshite24.com/2015/07/ward-vs-ggg-whos-really-the-a-side/ (http://www.boxingshite24.com/2015/07/ward-vs-ggg-whos-really-the-a-side/)



Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 06:11:54 PM
It was you that claimed it was in the contract and clearly it's not for obvious reasons.

I don't have access to every detail in the contract..I would imagine however that it's dependent on both not losing. Wouldn't that make sense?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Red on October 26, 2015, 06:29:37 PM
Did u really post a story from boxingshite24 to add credence to your point?  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 26, 2015, 07:03:04 PM
Did u really post a story from boxingshite24 to add credence to your point?  ;D

I feel there are some good points made...Ward has a lot more to lose if the fight were to come off.

It doesn't matter, as Sanchez is not going to put his guy in with Ward, which is why he's moving to LHW, there's nothing and no one at 168 for Ward to chase a legacy. Fighting and beating Kovalev will do more than hanging around a pretty empty division.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 26, 2015, 07:21:51 PM
I'd say GGG does the same to all the opponents they have defeated too.

Hed vastly improve his cv if he did.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: GOD on October 27, 2015, 08:49:00 AM
Hed vastly improve his cv if he did.

I personally think GGG would beat all of Ward's best opposition  I.e. Froch, Kessler etc when they were in their prime...

But Ward beats GGG...


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 27, 2015, 09:04:49 AM
I personally think GGG would beat all of Ward's best opposition  I.e. Froch, Kessler etc when they were in their prime...

But Ward beats GGG...

Go home God, You're drunk.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 27, 2015, 09:14:37 AM
I don't have access to every detail in the contract..I would imagine however that it's dependent on both not losing. Wouldn't that make sense?

That makes perfect sense.  It's just that Ward's team are using Kovalev's name to try and draw attention away from the fact that they are going to be facing a no hoper next month.  There is clearly no concrete deal that he will face Kovalev as it being portrayed.  And Ward's third fight could well take place in 2020 given his level of activity.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Red on October 27, 2015, 09:35:33 AM
I like GGG as much as the next guy, but he is pure hype at the moment and doesn't have a significant win on his ledger.

It's all well and good his mouthpiece Abel Sanchez saying he'd beat everyone from 154 to 168  - but now with Canelo saying come to 155, he's either going to make that fight or shut up.

I've already seen a new trend this week of saying "unifying is more important than Cotto or Canelo" which is pure bullshit.

They need that big box office scalp to get to that next level of earning power, beating Andy Lee is not going to unlock it in any shape or form.



Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 27, 2015, 03:31:32 PM
I personally think GGG would beat all of Ward's best opposition  I.e. Froch, Kessler etc when they were in their prime...

But Ward beats GGG...

At 164 you mean?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: GOD on October 27, 2015, 04:16:04 PM
At 164 you mean?

THANK YOU!!!

At least SOMEONE had the smarts to understand what I was alluding to!!!


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jaff_no1 on October 27, 2015, 06:30:36 PM
I like GGG as much as the next guy, but he is pure hype at the moment and doesn't have a significant win on his ledger.

It's all well and good his mouthpiece Abel Sanchez saying he'd beat everyone from 154 to 168  - but now with Canelo saying come to 155, he's either going to make that fight or shut up.

I've already seen a new trend this week of saying "unifying is more important than Cotto or Canelo" which is pure bullshit.

They need that big box office scalp to get to that next level of earning power, beating Andy Lee is not going to unlock it in any shape or form.


Spot on. So many hype jobs have been exposed when they step up after beating bum after bum to protect their 0. Lacy and bute immediately come to mind and I'm sure there are many more


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 27, 2015, 07:02:41 PM
Spot on. So many hype jobs have been exposed when they step up after beating bum after bum to protect their 0. Lacy and bute immediately come to mind and I'm sure there are many more

Its what I've been trying to say, people jump on the bandwagon and then a guy loses and they jump off and scatter immediately. I never said Golovkin wasn't the real deal, I said that I wasn't sold on him yet.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 27, 2015, 07:10:50 PM
Spot on. So many hype jobs have been exposed when they step up after beating bum after bum to protect their 0. Lacy and bute immediately come to mind and I'm sure there are many more

Abrahams the obvious one....he was doing a demolition job at middleweight but the wheels fell off once he stepped up.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 27, 2015, 07:55:24 PM
Abrahams the obvious one....he was doing a demolition job at middleweight but the wheels fell off once he stepped up.
You can't really compare that one dimensional limited talent to GGG. There is something abit more special to GGG than Bute, Abrahams, Lacy. 

No one is saying GGG is the greatest fighter ever, hes beatable like most fighters but if he steps up hes certainly not getting exposed by anyone. A defeat to Ward does not mean hes been exposed, it depends on the manner of the defeat. Its a close fight imo.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 27, 2015, 08:12:29 PM
You can't really compare that one dimensional limited talent to GGG. There is something abit more special to GGG than Bute, Abrahams, Lacy. 

No one is saying GGG is the greatest fighter ever, hes beatable like most fighters but if he steps up hes certainly not getting exposed by anyone. A defeat to Ward does not mean hes been exposed, it depends on the manner of the defeat. Its a close fight imo.

GGG fights differently but fact is Abraham had just a much hype back than.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 27, 2015, 10:02:55 PM
GGG fights differently but fact is Abraham had just a much hype back than.
True but the difference in class and skill is like night and day.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 27, 2015, 10:19:52 PM
True but the difference in class and skill is like night and day.

I disagree, not many people saw flaws in Abrahams style back when he was on top of the middleweight division, it's easy to point them out now that they've been exposed.

Same with Bute, he was seen as an extremely good boxer before he got cobra'd yet now every man and his dog seems to know all his flaws.

It's a typical story in boxing....virtually everyone backs the knock out experts and not only believe the hype but contribute to it yet when they get exposed the same people quickly change their tune as if they were never convinced.

Golovkin looks good v middleweights but he's far from elusive and without that power he could well become irrelevant. These are his flaws so let's see if they become exposed once he makes that move to world level opposition.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 27, 2015, 10:39:36 PM
I disagree, not many people saw flaws in Abrahams style back when he was on top of the middleweight division, it's easy to point them out now that they've been exposed.

Same with Bute, he was seen as an extremely good boxer before he got cobra'd yet now every man and his dog seems to know all his flaws.

It's a typical story in boxing....virtually everyone backs the knock out experts and not only believe the hype but contribute to it yet when they get exposed the same people quickly change their tune as if they were never convinced.

Golovkin looks good v middleweights but he's far from elusive and without that power he could well become irrelevant. These are his flaws so let's see if they become exposed if he makes that move to world level opposition.

Fixed !


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 27, 2015, 11:01:45 PM
Fixed !

Good call.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 27, 2015, 11:06:51 PM
http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/10045277/gennady-golovkins-trainer-has-warned-miguel-cotto-and-saul-canelo-alvarez (http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/10045277/gennady-golovkins-trainer-has-warned-miguel-cotto-and-saul-canelo-alvarez)

So he won't do a CW of any sort against whoever wins which I understand. Golovkin has to understand however that he's in no position to tell either of the 2 guys above what they can do...but this fight is going to do 1.5 million ppv buys, and I actually believe it will do over 2 million.

Cotto is making 30 million for this fight, so if GGG wants to make money and a name, he better agree to whatever demands the winner makes....OR he can move up, fight Ward for less and likely lose in the process.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 27, 2015, 11:29:29 PM
[url]http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/10045277/gennady-golovkins-trainer-has-warned-miguel-cotto-and-saul-canelo-alvarez[/url] ([url]http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/10045277/gennady-golovkins-trainer-has-warned-miguel-cotto-and-saul-canelo-alvarez[/url])

So he won't do a CW of any sort against whoever wins which I understand. Golovkin has to understand however that he's in no position to tell either of the 2 guys above what they can do...but this fight is going to do 1.5 million ppv buys, and I actually believe it will do over 2 million.

Cotto is making 30 million for this fight, so if GGG wants to make money and a name, he better agree to whatever demands the winner makes....OR he can move up, fight Ward for less and likely lose in the process.


People will respond claiming that Golovkin doesn't have to move weight etc. But fact is that the best fighters have always done what it takes to fight the best possible opposition. Golovkin can stay at middleweight for the rest of his career and make a lot of money fighting nobodies if he wants but when it's all said and done no one will care.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 27, 2015, 11:30:44 PM
People will respond claiming that Golovkin doesn't have to move weight etc. But fact is that the best fighters have always done what it takes to fight the best possible opposition. Golovkin can stay at middleweight for the rest of his career and make a lot of money fighting nobodies if he wants but when it's all said and done no one will care.

Can't wait for him to step in with Ward...if ever.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 27, 2015, 11:44:24 PM
I disagree, not many people saw flaws in Abrahams style back when he was on top of the middleweight division, it's easy to point them out now that they've been exposed.

Same with Bute, he was seen as an extremely good boxer before he got cobra'd yet now every man and his dog seems to know all his flaws.

It's a typical story in boxing....virtually everyone backs the knock out experts and not only believe the hype but contribute to it yet when they get exposed the same people quickly change their tune as if they were never convinced.

Golovkin looks good v middleweights but he's far from elusive and without that power he could well become irrelevant. These are his flaws so let's see if they become exposed once he makes that move to world level opposition.
Did Bute and Abrahams win an Olympic medal? To win an Olympic silver medal at that weight requires you to have pedigree and class. The guy has talent. You cannot compare those two with GGG. Golovkin has alot more to his game than a big punch. He knows he can get away with his come forward style and his wilingness to take a shot to dish one out is what makes him so exciting to watch. He has the skillset to adapt to a move to Super middle with maybe a more tactcal reserved approach. He has that in his locker imo. Time will tell.
A move to super middle right now would be premature. GGG has unfinished business at Middle plus a fight with Alvarez. Cotto doesnt want anything to do with GGG so i'm praying for an Alvarez win. Not forgetting Daniel Jacobs and Andy Lee.
Plenty of fights for GGG to choose from.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 12:17:53 AM
Did Bute and Abrahams win an Olympic medal? To win an Olympic silver medal at that weight requires you to have pedigree and class. The guy has talent. You cannot compare those two with GGG. Golovkin has alot more to his game than a big punch. He knows he can get away with his come forward style and his wilingness to take a shot to dish one out is what makes him so exciting to watch. He has the skillset to adapt to a move to Super middle with maybe a more tactcal reserved approach. He has that in his locker imo. Time will tell.
A move to super middle right now would be premature. GGG has unfinished business at Middle plus a fight with Alvarez. Cotto doesnt want anything to do with GGG so i'm praying for an Alvarez win. Not forgetting Daniel Jacobs and Andy Lee.
Plenty of fights for GGG to choose from.

O yes winning a medal at the olympics is what makes a great pro. Behave. Golovkins looked good against opponents that it's easy to look good against. Is he a great boxer...perhaps but we will not know until he beats someone that's considered world level.

Atm he's a hard hitting, exciting fighter with a decent fan base and massive hype to live up to....if that doesn't sound like middleweight Abraham to you than I suggest you pick a different sport to follow.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 12:37:46 AM
Also, Golovkin fought at 165 iirc in the Olympics, usually there is a reason a guy moves down in weight for the pros.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 28, 2015, 06:18:42 AM
Also, Golovkin fought at 165 iirc in the Olympics, usually there is a reason a guy moves down in weight for the pros.

Yeah there is...
Full time training camps and 24 hour weigh ins.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 28, 2015, 06:22:22 AM
Can't wait for him to step in with Ward...if ever.

Why are you so obsessed with him fighting one fighter?
If GGG did move weight, why would he fight ward? Ward isn't even a super middle anymore, why does Golovkin have to move 2 weights?
Why doesn't Ward move up again if he's desperate for fights? Wlad klitschko is still there, why does Ward keep ducking him?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 28, 2015, 08:50:09 AM
Ward's due to fight the mighty Alexander Brand next. Can't say I'd ever heard of him, to be honest.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 09:20:45 AM
Aside from the usual sort of idiots on Twitter, etc, I think most knowledgeable fans are realistic about where GGG is in terms of his career.  The reason he is generating interest is that he is actually bringing a bit of excitement to a sport that is seems a bit dull at present.  At a time when PBC seems to be sucking the entertainment out of the sport (bar the odd fight like Fonfara v Cleverly the other week) and Sky are serving us up Eubank Jr v Jeter as a main event and Kell Brook is considered PPV worthy, GGG at least provides some buzz in terms of seeing what he can achieve.  It's not as if I think he'll end up KO'ing all future opponents and end up defeated.



Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 09:28:07 AM
Ward's due to fight the mighty Alexander Brand next. Can't say I'd ever heard of him, to be honest.

Boxrec tells me he fought for the WBF Super Middleweight title in his last fight and before that a guy who was 6-1.  At 38 years old he is rapidly approaching his prime.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 09:49:19 AM
Same with Bute, he was seen as an extremely good boxer before he got cobra'd yet now every man and his dog seems to know all his flaws.

Not sure that Bute is a very good example mate given that he'd been Golovkin'd years before he was Cobra'd  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 28, 2015, 09:58:27 AM
Boxrec tells me he fought for the WBF Super Middleweight title in his last fight and before that a guy who was 6-1.  At 38 years old he is rapidly approaching his prime.

I don't understand the mad scramble to get him on the Canelo - Cotto undercard. If he was fighting someone of note then fair enough, but Ward - Brand adds absolutely nothing to the bill.

I do hope this isn't the first fight of the much vaunted three fight deal with HBO. Otherwise it'll likely be someone like Blake Caparello next before Ward inevitably prices himself out of the Kovalev fight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 10:06:22 AM
I don't understand the mad scramble to get him on the Canelo - Cotto undercard. If he was fighting someone of note then fair enough, but Ward - Brand adds absolutely nothing to the bill.

I do hope this isn't the first fight of the much vaunted three fight deal with HBO. Otherwise it'll likely be someone like Blake Caparello next before Ward inevitably prices himself out of the Kovalev fight.

It seems strange as there has been talk of him being on the bill for quite some time so in theory they could have found someone half decent.  If he was facing someone like Gonzalez (who narrowly lost to Pascal) I could see the point of getting him on the card, but surely this is a waste of time.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 10:07:18 AM
Not sure that Bute is a very good example mate given that he'd been Golovkin'd years before he was Cobra'd  ;D

O Dear, should I go back to Golovkin school days to see if he lost a fight on the play ground?

Golovkin best win is Martin Murray. Wake me up when that changes.   8)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 28, 2015, 10:09:58 AM
It seems strange as there has been talk of him being on the bill for quite some time so in theory they could have found someone half decent.  If he was facing someone like Gonzalez (who narrowly lost to Pascal) I could see the point of getting him on the card, but surely this is a waste of time.

I read that Ward turned down Gonzalez. it seems they're looking for the poorest possible opposition.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 10:18:28 AM
I read that Ward turned down Gonzalez. it seems they're looking for the poorest possible opposition.

The record of Brand looks HoF worthy compared to that of Murdock who the Commission turned down.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 10:23:33 AM
O Dear, should I go back to Golovkin school days to see if he lost a fight on the play ground?

Golovkin best win is Martin Murray. Wake me up when that changes.   8)

Can do if you want.  Doubt he did though because he is so amazing.  That has nothing to do with what I was saying though.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 10:29:06 AM
Can do if you want.  Doubt he did though because he is so amazing.  That has nothing to do with what I was saying though.

You said Bute isn't a very good example because he lost as an amateur? Bute was the next big thing back in his day.....knocking out mediocre opposition and looking like the greatest boxer that ever lived, the hype was strong.

Convenient how all his fans soon changed their tune once he got beat up.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 10:40:01 AM
You said Bute isn't a very good example because he lost as an amateur? Bute was the next big thing back in his day.....knocking out mediocre opposition and looking like the greatest boxer that ever lived, the hype was strong.

Convenient how all his fans soon changed their tune once he got beat up.

I don't disagree that there was hype, helped by the fact he didn't enter the Super Six so him against the winner of the tournament should have been a huge fight.  It's not that he's a bad example because he lost as an amateur, but because of the way he lost.  Which was the same way he should have lost to Andrade as a pro had the ref not saved him.  Didn't do me any harm though given that I got 9/1 on Froch to stop him from memory.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 10:51:29 AM
I don't disagree that there was hype, helped by the fact he didn't enter the Super Six so him against the winner of the tournament should have been a huge fight.  It's not that he's a bad example because he lost as an amateur, but because of the way he lost.  Which was the same way he should have lost to Andrade as a pro had the ref not saved him.  Didn't do me any harm though given that I got 9/1 on Froch to stop him from memory.

So Butes a bad example because he got beat badly? that makes no sense...I'm using him as an example of a boxer who was receiving massive hype for stopping mediocre opposition. Bute loosing wasn't part of that hype but the end of it just like it could well be should Golovkin stop fighting mediocre opposition.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 11:16:12 AM
So Butes a bad example because he got beat badly? that makes no sense...I'm using him as an example of a boxer who was receiving massive hype for stopping mediocre opposition. Bute loosing wasn't part of that hype but the end of it just like it could well be should Golovkin stop fighting mediocre opposition.

No, Bute is a bad example because he should have had a KO loss on his record to a guy that had lost every round to Kessler.  And he'd been flattened by Golovkin in a headguard and big gloves.  He did get hype from some quarters but plenty of people saw how vulnerable he was because of his chin. 

You're always going to get people who jump on and off bandwagons based on watching a couple of fights.  I wonder how many people who would now have Gonzalez at #1 P4P have seen more than 3 of his fights?   Like I said earlier, I'm realistic about where GGG is.  I've watched him for years and he is fundamentally a very good fighter but could lose KO1 next fight just the same as any other guy out there. 


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 11:34:51 AM
No, Bute is a bad example because he should have had a KO loss on his record to a guy that had lost every round to Kessler.  And he'd been flattened by Golovkin in a headguard and big gloves.  He did get hype from some quarters but plenty of people saw how vulnerable he was because of his chin. 

You're always going to get people who jump on and off bandwagons based on watching a couple of fights.  I wonder how many people who would now have Gonzalez at #1 P4P have seen more than 3 of his fights?   Like I said earlier, I'm realistic about where GGG is.  I've watched him for years and he is fundamentally a very good fighter but could lose KO1 next fight just the same as any other guy out there. 

Firstly no one ever mentioned Butes loss in the amateurs until the Golovkin hype machine came to town, secondly even if Bute did lose to Andrad like he should of he was still a massive hype job before that fight ever happened. Your final statement is true and back up what I've been saying about Bute and Abraham as th too had followers with good boxing knowledge who claimed they were very good fighters.

Just because Abraham, Bute and GGG have different styles doesn't take away from the fact that all three were/are considered to be absolute beasts for knocking out mediocre opposition.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 11:44:24 AM
Ward's due to fight the mighty Alexander Brand next. Can't say I'd ever heard of him, to be honest.

Had you heard of Monroe before Golovkin fought him? You'll say yes, but I'm betting no.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 11:49:10 AM
Why are you so obsessed with him fighting one fighter?
If GGG did move weight, why would he fight ward? Ward isn't even a super middle anymore, why does Golovkin have to move 2 weights?
Why doesn't Ward move up again if he's desperate for fights? Wlad klitschko is still there, why does Ward keep ducking him?

Hmmm, Wards next fight is still at 168. I'm not obsessed with him, I'm stating that he's ducking him, has ducked him in the past, and IMO, will KEEP ducking him.

If you weren't so busy swinging from Golovkins jock you might see that is Golovkins fastest way to both stardom as well as truly proving himself.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 11:50:58 AM
Yeah there is...
Full time training camps and 24 hour weigh ins.

And the guys who he fought in the Olympics are at 168, so what's the excuse for that?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 28, 2015, 11:55:06 AM
And the guys who he fought in the Olympics are at 168, so what's the excuse for that?

Fat and lazy


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 11:56:51 AM
Firstly no one ever mentioned Butes loss in the amateurs until the Golovkin hype machine came to town, secondly even if Bute did lose to Andrad like he should of he was still a massive hype job before that fight ever happened. Your final statement is true and back up what I've been saying about Bute and Abraham as th too had followers with good boxing knowledge who claimed they were very good fighters.

Just because Abraham, Bute and GGG have different styles doesn't take away from the fact that all three were/are considered to be absolute beasts for knocking out mediocre opposition.

Pretty sure Red, amongst others used to remind people on here that GGG had KO'd Bute in the amateurs before Froch faced him.

I think it seems to be an issue of perception.  Neither Abraham or Bute stopped being good fighters just because they lost to world class opposition.  People had issues with Bute and Abraham before they lost as well, like people do with GGG.  Bute as I've already mentioned and Abraham because he stayed in Germany when Taylor then Pavlik were considered the best in the division.

GGG probably will lose at some point as most fighters do.  That won't make him a bad fighter.  Some people might be claiming he is the best middleweight ever now but that doesn't mean you have to listen to the inmates at the asylum.  


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 12:00:31 PM
And the guys who he fought in the Olympics are at 168, so what's the excuse for that?

The other things with team GGG is that they go on as if everyone's ducking him yet every decent middlewight on the planet has faced him. The only guy who point blank doesn't want the fight is Cotto. If team GGG agree with us that the middlewight division has been exhausted than why not move weight?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 12:06:53 PM
Pretty sure Red, amongst others used to remind people on here that GGG had KO'd Bute in the amateurs before Froch faced him.

I think it seems to be an issue of perception.  Neither Abraham or Bute stopped being good fighters just because they lost to world class opposition.  People had issues with Bute and Abraham before they lost as well, like people do with GGG.  Bute as I've already mentioned and Abraham because he stayed in Germany when Taylor then Pavlik were considered the best in the division.

GGG probably will lose at some point as most fighters do.  That won't make him a bad fighter.  Some people might be claiming he is the best middleweight ever now but that doesn't mean you have to listen to the inmates at the asylum.  

Abraham entered the super six in a move that ended all the 'he only fights in Germany' talk....that move ended his hype...imagine if he stayed at middleweight in Germany and to this day was undefeated with a massive k.o percentage. That's pretty much where GGG will be soon IF he doesn't make a move...we know he can beat all the current middleweights at middleweight but we don't know what he does at super mid or how he does v Alvarez at 155lb. If these are his only options than I hope he picks one rather than having nothing fights at middleweight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 28, 2015, 12:24:07 PM
Had you heard of Monroe before Golovkin fought him? You'll say yes, but I'm betting no.

Yeah, he won the Boxcino tournament. He was an awful opponent for Golovkin, though.

You ever heard of the Boxcino tournament? You'll say yes, but I'm betting no.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 12:24:30 PM
Abraham entered the super six in a move that ended all the 'he only fights in Germany' talk....that move ended his hype...imagine if he stayed at middleweight in Germany and to this day was undefeated with a massive k.o percentage. That's pretty much where GGG will be soon IF he doesn't make a move...we know he can beat all the current middleweights at middleweight but we don't know what he does at super mid or how he does v Alvarez at 155lb. If these are his only options than I hope he picks one rather than having nothing fights at middleweight.

GGG is already seen to be fighting on the international stage where as Abraham wasn't though.

Surely by that logic, Froch should've moved to 175 and not had what could be considered a 'nothing' fight against Groves then?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 28, 2015, 12:34:13 PM
The other things with team GGG is that they go on as if everyone's ducking him yet every decent middlewight on the planet has faced him. The only guy who point blank doesn't want the fight is Cotto. If team GGG agree with us that the middlewight division has been exhausted than why not move weight?
There are still belts to be fought for at middle, Belts that GGG doesnt yet have. He has plenty to fight for at middle weight, he shouldnt have to move up. 2016 wil be the year he clears out the Middleweight division completely, it would be premature for him to move up at this point. It doesn't make sense.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 12:35:49 PM
GGG is already seen to be fighting on the international stage where as Abraham wasn't though.

Surely by that logic, Froch should've moved to 175 and not had what could be considered a 'nothing' fight against Groves then?

These Froch comparisons are cringe mate. Froch faced Groves as his mandatory as he was looking to follow it up defending his titles in a big Vegas fight. What would he have moved up for?

Golovkin on the other hand has cleared up a weak middleweight division and his options now look like this.

1.Alvarez at 155lb
2.Move to super mid
3.Stay at middleweight fighting nobodies.

If Froch was in that position every man and his dog knows that he chooses option 1 or 2.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 12:37:11 PM
There are still belts to be fought for at middle, Belts that GGG doesnt yet have. He has plenty to fight for at middle weight, he shouldnt have to move up. 2016 wil be the year he clears out the Middleweight division completely, it would be premature for him to move up at this point. It doesn't make sense.

Belts are as good as the fighters you beat for them. Whats the point in winning titles when you're 1/100 favourite with the bookies?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 28, 2015, 12:45:27 PM
Hmmm, Wards next fight is still at 168. I'm not obsessed with him, I'm stating that he's ducking him, has ducked him in the past, and IMO, will KEEP ducking him.

If you weren't so busy swinging from Golovkins jock you might see that is Golovkins fastest way to both stardom as well as truly proving himself.

You are obsessed with him fighting award though.
How can he be ducking someone who has only fought once in 3 years? You're talking utter bollocks.

If Golovkin decides to move up in weight he still isn't duty bound to fight Ward.
As I said, is Ward then ducking the heavy weights? Of course he's not... You know why.... He's not a heavy weight. If GGG does fight Ward it will just cement his reputation further, however if he decided to stay at middleweight and continue to knock another 20 out on the bounce (ward couldn't knock out a wank hence the reason he's not watched) - he still goes down as a great fighter.

What about wlad klit by the way? Will he be slagged off for not moving weights? Some clowns go on about wlad not going down as a great because of his opposition, it's nonsense.
You just beat what's infront of you, if that's the best in the division then so be it. No fighter has to move to someone else's weight to gain credit. Sometimes people just decide the opposition is crap because they are being demolished.... Sometimes the fighter doing the demolishing deserves the credit.

Ward is a fantastic technical fighter, however had he stopped at smw he would still be so. Moving weight has done nothing for his legacy, he didn't need to. Fighters should be judged at their optimum weight. At middle no one beats Golovkin currently.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 12:49:05 PM
Fat and lazy

Lol...really? That's the best you can come up with?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 12:53:32 PM
Yeah, he won the Boxcino tournament. He was an awful opponent for Golovkin, though.

You ever heard of the Boxcino tournament? You'll say yes, but I'm betting no.

Monroe was an spam fighter brought in to make Golovkin look good, since he has fought no superior A class boxers...or he would have been beaten.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 28, 2015, 12:55:44 PM
Monroe was an spam fighter brought in to make Golovkin look good, since he has fought no superior A class boxers...or he would have been beaten.

Oh right. Why are you telling me that? I know he was an spam fighter, hence the Boxcino tournament.



Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 12:55:54 PM
There are still belts to be fought for at middle, Belts that GGG doesnt yet have. He has plenty to fight for at middle weight, he shouldnt have to move up. 2016 wil be the year he clears out the Middleweight division completely, it would be premature for him to move up at this point. It doesn't make sense.

Then he should have kept quiet about Froch, Chavez, and Ward...he brought that on himself.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
These Froch comparisons are cringe mate. Froch faced Groves as his mandatory as he was looking to follow it up defending his titles in a big Vegas fight. What would he have moved up for?

Golovkin on the other hand has cleared up a weak middleweight division and his options now look like this.

1.Alvarez at 155lb
2.Move to super mid
3.Stay at middleweight fighting nobodies.

If Froch was in that position every man and his dog knows that he chooses option 1 or 2.

Problem with that argument is that the fight in Vegas would have been a 'nothing' fight against Chavez Jr.  Froch fought who was available in his division at the time and didn't move down or up once it had weakened.

The essence of the matter is that a whole new set of rules seemed to have been dreamed up that GGG is expected to adhere to which don't apply to others.  


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 01:07:00 PM
You are obsessed with him fighting award though.
How can he be ducking someone who has only fought once in 3 years? You're talking utter bollocks.

If Golovkin decides to move up in weight he still isn't duty bound to fight Ward.
As I said, is Ward then ducking the heavy weights? Of course he's not... You know why.... He's not a heavy weight. If GGG does fight Ward it will just cement his reputation further, however if he decided to stay at middleweight and continue to knock another 20 out on the bounce (ward couldn't knock out a wank hence the reason he's not watched) - he still goes down as a great fighter.

What about wlad klit by the way? Will he be slagged off for not moving weights? Some clowns go on about wlad not going down as a great because of his opposition, it's nonsense.
You just beat what's infront of you, if that's the best in the division then so be it. No fighter has to move to someone else's weight to gain credit. Sometimes people just decide the opposition is crap because they are being demolished.... Sometimes the fighter doing the demolishing deserves the credit.

Ward is a fantastic technical fighter, however had he stopped at smw he would still be so. Moving weight has done nothing for his legacy, he didn't need to. Fighters should be judged at their optimum weight. At middle no one beats Golovkin currently.


Golovkin is not all at fault, HBO has had protected fighters for years.

Wlad? Now you're comparing apples to a friggen watermelon. Where the hell is wlad gonna go? Drop 50 lbs of muscle on the Nazi diet?

I'm making outrageous claims though because...

1. Golovkin wanted Froch (maybe) or Chavez at 168
2. Ward, but he has to come to 164 (though ward has not been under 166 in nine years.
3. Fought in the Olympics YEARS ago at 165
4. Won't go to 155 for Canelo, as if Golovkin is the draw between he and Alvarez? Lol yeah OK.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 01:15:22 PM
Problem with that argument is that the fight in Vegas would have been a 'nothing' fight against Chavez Jr.  Froch fought who was available in his division at the time and didn't move down or up once it had weakened.

The essence of the matter is that a whole new set of rules seemed to have been dreamed up that GGG is expected to adhere to which don't apply to others.  

O yeah a proven world level super mid who had faced all the top names in his division(genuine world level fighters) should have moved to 175 for his final fight before retirement to prove himself....absolute rubbish.

Golovkin should move weight because after after 34 fights he's still yet to meet anyone world level and now the middleweight division doesn't have anyone at that level(maybe Andy Lee)

To compare Froch not moving to 175 with Golovkin not even being prepared to drop 5lbs is absolutely ridiclious and discredits pretty much everything you have said on this subject so far.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 01:25:46 PM
O yeah a proven world level super mid who had faced all the top names in his division(genuine world level fighters) should have moved to 175 for his final fight before retirement to prove himself....absolute rubbish.

Golovkin should move weight because after after 34 fights he's still yet to meet anyone world level and now the middleweight division doesn't have anyone at that level(maybe Andy Lee)

To compare Froch not moving to 175 with Golovkin not even being prepared to drop 5lbs is absolutely ridiclious and discredits pretty much everything you have said on this subject so far.

I think it was a good example.  Froch fought who was available in his division as Golovkin is doing.  Froch was lucky that he was in an era his division was considered strong but once it emptied out, you say it's fine for him to defend his titles against poor opposition.  Golovkin can't defend his titles against who is in the division at the time though because of the specific set of rules that have been created for him.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 28, 2015, 01:33:52 PM
Then he should have kept quiet about Froch, Chavez, and Ward...he brought that on himself.
He brought what on himself exactly? The rath of Meth?

I suppose GGG's head size will be an issue next.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 01:34:59 PM
I think it was a good example.  Froch fought who was available in his division as Golovkin is doing.  Froch was lucky that he was in an era his division was considered strong but once it emptied out, you say it's fine for him to defend his titles against poor opposition.  Golovkin can't defend his titles against who is in the division at the time though because of the specific set of rules that have been created for him.

Froch had REAL names on his resume, that's the difference. You can duke it out all you want to on how good Froch was or wasn't. What is sad is that even old Glen Johnson (the version Froch fought) was better than anyone Golovkin has faced his entire career. Golovkins most impressive resume is still his amateur one and even that could be called into question. The whole "he's never been knocked out or down" thing is more hype too, how many times have we heard that about many highly rated Cuban fighters who have been knocked out once they get to the pros?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 01:37:36 PM
He brought what on himself exactly? The rath of Meth?

I suppose GGG's head size will be an issue next.

Depends on how much it grows over the next 2 years.

He brought on himself the talk that he needs to move up in weight to continue to establish himself.

Its wrath with a w BTW...you're welcome.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 01:40:10 PM
Froch had REAL names on his resume, that's the difference. You can duke it out all you want to on how good Froch was or wasn't. What is sad is that even old Glen Johnson (the version Froch fought) was better than anyone Golovkin has faced his entire career. Golovkins most impressive resume is still his amateur one and even that could be called into question. The whole "he's never been knocked out or down" thing is more hype too, how many times have we heard that about many highly rated Cuban fighters who have been knocked out once they get to the pros?

Missed the entire point of my post.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 28, 2015, 01:45:49 PM
Depends on how much it grows over the next 2 years.

He brought on himself the talk that he needs to move up in weight to continue to establish himself.

Its wrath with a w BTW...you're welcome.
So your suggesting GGG is on roids?

Most fighters are asked about other competitors and potential match ups. A fighter like GGG or any top fighter are always being asked about other fighters. It would be weird if they didn't respond, it's not something that can be avoided.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 01:49:43 PM
Missed the entire point of my post.

No..I didn't, you're points are just stupid. It's common sense that the 168 division was loaded at the time Froch was there. Maybe he was "lucky" or maybe it was choice to want to be at 168.

Froch happened to achieve a good legacy with wins over quality opposition, but not just one. Golovkin has not a single world class opponent out of 34!! If the guy was that great, wouldn't he have the confidence to fight Ward at 168? No its got to be at 164, though Sanchez says they won't fight Canelo at 155 even though his guy isn't the draw, so not only is he overhyped, he's also a hypocrite.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 01:57:42 PM
So your suggesting GGG is on roids?

Most fighters are asked about other competitors and potential match ups. A fighter like GGG or any top fighter are always being asked about other fighters. It would be weird if they didn't respond, it's not something that can be avoided.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I think 90% of all fighters use something these days, but that's another issue.

You're right, but when they were looking for higher profile opponents. Those opponents were SMWs, so if you're willing to fight one, but not another...what's the point?

Its obvious that Sanchez is fooling both himself and Golovkin into thinking he is some sort of huge draw with the 125k ppv buys (half or more of which were probably for Lemeiux) they got...luckily we won't have to pay for another Golovkin mismatch unless its against a real opponent with better credentials.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 02:02:03 PM
No..I didn't, you're points are just stupid. It's common sense that the 168 division was loaded at the time Froch was there. Maybe he was "lucky" or maybe it was choice to want to be at 168.

Froch happened to achieve a good legacy with wins over quality opposition, but not just one. Golovkin has not a single world class opponent out of 34!! If the guy was that great, wouldn't he have the confidence to fight Ward at 168? No its got to be at 164, though Sanchez says they won't fight Canelo at 155 even though his guy isn't the draw, so not only is he overhyped, he's also a hypocrite.

You not being intelligent enough to understand the point in my post, which you still unable to comprehend, doesn't make it stupid.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 02:38:28 PM
You not being intelligent enough to understand the point in my post, which you still unable to comprehend, doesn't make it stupid.

Lol OK man...this whole thing is simply about GGG vs. Lemeiux... GGG beat a guy who had a lot of KO's, sloppy footwork, poor defense, and no real special skill to speak of. Wrap up the above and you have Golovkins whole pro career. When he beats someone elite, I'll acknowledge him as such until then, he's got a whole lot to prove to anyone who knows much about boxing.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Scarface on October 28, 2015, 02:54:14 PM
How do we know GGG is not another Bute if he is yet to fight a decent name ?

What happens to all the people on the GGG band wagon then.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 02:55:10 PM
Lol OK man...this whole thing is simply about GGG vs. Lemeiux... GGG beat a guy who had a lot of KO's, sloppy footwork, poor defense, and no real special skill to speak of. Wrap up the above and you have Golovkins whole pro career. When he beats someone elite, I'll acknowledge him as such until then, he's got a whole lot to prove to anyone who knows much about boxing.

I don't think a single person on here has suggested he is elite though. Lol.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 02:59:51 PM
How do we know GGG is not another Bute if he is yet to fight a decent name ?

What happens to all the people on the GGG band wagon then.

Probably the same that happens to the fans of any fighter after they lose for the first time. 


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 03:03:40 PM
Froch has nothing to prove, Golovkin has everything to prove.

End of discussion on that part.

Fighters make sacrifices be it weight, travel, money in order to get the biggest fights v the best opposition. if Golovkin would rather stay at middleweight and be the big fish in the small pond than that up to him but no way get him in the top p4p list.

For someone whose been so vocal about fighting at different weights hes gone very quiet now that its clear he needs to.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 28, 2015, 03:43:50 PM
Froch has nothing to prove, Golovkin has everything to prove.

End of discussion on that part.

Fighters make sacrifices be it weight, travel, money in order to get the biggest fights v the best opposition. if Golovkin would rather stay at middleweight and be the big fish in the small pond than that up to him but no way get him in the top p4p list.

For someone whose been so vocal about fighting at different weights hes gone very quiet now that its clear he needs to.
I don't blame him for wanting to unify all the belts and stay at a weight that suits him more than any other. He isn't a natural Supermiddle. I'd be interested to know what weight he walks around at. I doubt it would be much more than the weight he fights at currently. How long was b-hop fighting at middle? He had the size to move up all along but he chose to stay at middle for years.
GGG will move up when the time is right for him and his skillset may or may not prove superior at SM (I think it wil), he just won't be as explosive because its not his natural weight class. He's unfortunate that he isn't in an era where there are alot of great fighters at the weight he is at his most optimal.

Not sure why the hate from you and Meth comes from, its a tad obsessive. Your talking like your opinions are facts. Theyre not, its all conjecture and assumption. Until he moves up, nobody knows. Hes every right to stay at middle until he clears out the division and there is nothing left. The fight with ward and whoever else are exciting potentialities, but thats all they are for now.......Chill


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 03:50:37 PM
I don't blame him for wanting to unify all the belts and stay at a weight that suits him more than any other. He isn't a natural Supermiddle. I'd be interested to know what weight he walks around at. I doubt it would be much more than the weight he fights at currently. How long was b-hop fighting at middle? He had the size to move up all along but he chose to stay at middle for years.
GGG will move up when the time is right for him and his skillset may or may not prove superior at SM (I think it wil), he just won't be as explosive because its not his natural weight class. He's unfortunate that he isn't in an era where there are alot of great fighters at the weight he is at his most optimal.

Not sure why the hate from you and Meth comes from, its a tad obsessive. Your talking like your opinions are facts. Theyre not, its all conjecture and assumption. Until he moves up, nobody knows. Hes every right to stay at middle until he clears out the division and there is nothing left. The fight with ward and whoever else are exciting potentialities, but thats all they are for now.......Chill


If I'm hating than you're nut hugging. This guys receiving massive hype and has amplified it with talk of fighting big names at different weights yet he has no intention of moving weight. If we all accepted him as the number 1 p4p like so many are than boxing would die over night.

No hate here just pointing out why he's yet to live up to the hype and why he may never.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 04:09:20 PM
I can't say I've seen a single credible source or individual say that he's #1 P4P (mythical as it is).


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 28, 2015, 04:23:50 PM
Golovkin is not all at fault, HBO has had protected fighters for years.

Wlad? Now you're comparing apples to a friggen watermelon. Where the hell is wlad gonna go? Drop 50 lbs of muscle on the Nazi diet?

I'm making outrageous claims though because...

1. Golovkin wanted Froch (maybe) or Chavez at 168
2. Ward, but he has to come to 164 (though ward has not been under 166 in nine years.
3. Fought in the Olympics YEARS ago at 165
4. Won't go to 155 for Canelo, as if Golovkin is the draw between he and Alvarez? Lol yeah OK.

I'm comparing people who operate so dominant at one weight that people claim they are fighting weak names. Debating with you is like herding cats at times.
Why does GGG have to fight the person you deem most relevant... Who ironically hasn't been relevant for 3 years? His previous and next opponents wouldn't get paid sparring for any recognised world fighter.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 04:30:38 PM
I don't blame him for wanting to unify all the belts and stay at a weight that suits him more than any other. He isn't a natural Supermiddle. I'd be interested to know what weight he walks around at. I doubt it would be much more than the weight he fights at currently. How long was b-hop fighting at middle? He had the size to move up all along but he chose to stay at middle for years.
GGG will move up when the time is right for him and his skillset may or may not prove superior at SM (I think it wil), he just won't be as explosive because its not his natural weight class. He's unfortunate that he isn't in an era where there are alot of great fighters at the weight he is at his most optimal.

Not sure why the hate from you and Meth comes from, its a tad obsessive. Your talking like your opinions are facts. Theyre not, its all conjecture and assumption. Until he moves up, nobody knows. Hes every right to stay at middle until he clears out the division and there is nothing left. The fight with ward and whoever else are exciting potentialities, but thats all they are for now.......Chill


Don't tell me to chill firstly.
Second, I don't hate the guy, but the more I see things and read, the more it seems Golovkin is a protected fighter. Actually so much so that Hopkins had also offered to fight him at a cw and that was turned down. The guy is 50, is Golovkin really that worried about a 50 year old??


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 28, 2015, 07:00:19 PM
To be fair, you sound like you do need to chill because you're becoming delusional if you think he should drag Hopkins down to a catch weight and fight him next. Hopkins who lost every round and could have ended up hurt in his last fight. It wasn't even like it was a substantive offer, you just seem to read headline quotes on the internet and take them 100% literally.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 28, 2015, 07:01:40 PM
Don't tell me to chill firstly.
Second, I don't hate the guy, but the more I see things and read, the more it seems Golovkin is a protected fighter. Actually so much so that Hopkins had also offered to fight him at a cw and that was turned down. The guy is 50, is Golovkin really that worried about a 50 year old??

Chill lol


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 07:11:23 PM
To be fair, you sound like you do need to chill because you're becoming delusional if you think he should drag Hopkins down to a catch weight and fight him next. Hopkins who lost every round and could have ended up hurt in his last fight. It wasn't even like it was a substantive offer, you just seem to read headline quotes on the internet and take them 100% literally.

Hopkins offered the catch weight, though I'm sure it wouldn't have been 164.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 28, 2015, 07:14:49 PM
Don't tell me to chill firstly.
Second, I don't hate the guy, but the more I see things and read, the more it seems Golovkin is a protected fighter. Actually so much so that Hopkins had also offered to fight him at a cw and that was turned down. The guy is 50, is Golovkin really that worried about a 50 year old??

CHILL is exactly what you need to do son. You talk like your whole self esteem is on the line.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 28, 2015, 07:25:07 PM
New topic, who does everyone think Golovkin will fight next should the Alvarez fight not materialise(for whatever reason)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 28, 2015, 07:29:57 PM
New topic, who does everyone think Golovkin will fight next should the Alvarez fight not materialise(for whatever reason)

Tureano Johnson, unfortunately.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Red on October 28, 2015, 10:06:45 PM
Tureano Johnson, unfortunately.

Who Curtis Stevens stopped?

Jeez.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Scarface on October 28, 2015, 10:08:44 PM
I don't blame him for wanting to unify all the belts and stay at a weight that suits him more than any other. He isn't a natural Supermiddle. I'd be interested to know what weight he walks around at. I doubt it would be much more than the weight he fights at currently. How long was b-hop fighting at middle? He had the size to move up all along but he chose to stay at middle for years.
GGG will move up when the time is right for him and his skillset may or may not prove superior at SM (I think it wil), he just won't be as explosive because its not his natural weight class. He's unfortunate that he isn't in an era where there are alot of great fighters at the weight he is at his most optimal.

Not sure why the hate from you and Meth comes from, its a tad obsessive. Your talking like your opinions are facts. Theyre not, its all conjecture and assumption. Until he moves up, nobody knows. Hes every right to stay at middle until he clears out the division and there is nothing left. The fight with ward and whoever else are exciting potentialities, but thats all they are for now.......Chill


Didn't he make 20 defenses of his middleweight title, including fights against Howard Eastman and William Joppy.

GGG has the right to make 20 defenses of his title... but he may lose his market appeal as more exciting fights are made around him... which would be frustrating for him and his fans.  


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 28, 2015, 10:54:32 PM
New topic, who does everyone think Golovkin will fight next should the Alvarez fight not materialise(for whatever reason)

The weakest oppon...oh wait, they're all weak at 160, nm


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 29, 2015, 08:51:55 AM
Hopkins offered the catch weight, though I'm sure it wouldn't have been 164.


The article on Sky Sports doesn't indicate it was any sort of legitimate offer.


http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/9915801/bernard-hopkins-says-facing-gennady-golovkin-in-his-career-finale-could-bring-out-his-best (http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/9915801/bernard-hopkins-says-facing-gennady-golovkin-in-his-career-finale-could-bring-out-his-best)
Bernard Hopkins, the oldest fighter to win a world title, says he will be on his 'A-game' if his last bout is against middleweight sensation Gennady Golovkin.

The 50-year-old (55-7-2-KO32) held all four world middleweight titles in 2004 before suffering back-to-back defeats to Jermain Taylor but he became WBC world light-heavyweight champion in 2011 when he outpointed Jean Pascal.

He went on to unify the WBA and IBF titles in the same division in April 2014 and despite losing them to Sergey Kovalev via unanimous decision in November, hinted he would be prepared to face the unbeaten Golovkin (33-0-KO30) at a catchweight.

"You have guys turning down $2m dollars not to fight this guy. I would have fought him for $50,000 back then, because I wanted to show that I was the best fighter in my weight division.

"The only guy out there that nobody wants to fight, that I see, between 160 and 169 is Triple G. Oscar (de la Hoya) called out Triple G, so now they are going 'now Bernard is calling out Triple G' and someone will try to talk me out of it.

"It has to be weight situation on both sides, but it's good to see a middleweight guy Triple G dominating like I was dominating back then.

"But if I was going to fight anybody out there, where I had to be on my A-game, it would be that fight."

Golovkin, 33, stopped Willie Monroe Jr in six rounds in California in May to preserve his status as WBA (super) middleweight champion.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 29, 2015, 08:58:48 AM
Tureano Johnson, unfortunately.

Beat O'Kane on the Lemieux undercard to become the IBF mandatory so looks most likely.  At least GGG is fighting 3-4 times a year and this will keep satisfy the mandatory requirement whilst Lee/Saunders and Quillen/Jacobs were all tied up.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 29, 2015, 04:55:37 PM
Didn't he make 20 defenses of his middleweight title, including fights against Howard Eastman and William Joppy.

GGG has the right to make 20 defenses of his title... but he may lose his market appeal as more exciting fights are made around him... which would be frustrating for him and his fans. 
I actually think the longer he remains unbeaten the more marketable he will be. It didn't hurt Hopkins fighting all those tin cans at middle when he could have stepped up into a red hot super middle so much sooner. Time will tell with Golovkin, but many are touting him to be the new payperview star and Floyds replacement on that mantle. It set up for that when you look at whats out there. People want to see Golovkin fight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 29, 2015, 05:42:19 PM
I actually think the longer he remains unbeaten the more marketable he will be. It didn't hurt Hopkins fighting all those tin cans at middle when he could have stepped up into a red hot super middle so much sooner. Time will tell with Golovkin, but many are touting him to be the new payperview star and Floyds replacement on that mantle. It set up for that when you look at whats out there. People want to see Golovkin fight.

Lol, Golovkin hasn't fought anyone above a B- opponent yet and you're already saying he'll be the next Floyd?

Like I, and others have said already said...he's got to beat TOP opposition first, and there isn't any at 160...not Golovkins fault BTW, but that doesn't change the situation at MW being weak. Lee, Quillen and Jacobs themselves don't have any great wins, Jacobs got knocked down by a light hitting Mora, Lee was losing his last fight before landing a good, but lucky shot, and as I've said Quillen should gave 2 losses already.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 29, 2015, 06:23:02 PM
Lol, Golovkin hasn't fought anyone above a B- opponent yet and you're already saying he'll be the next Floyd?
I never said that.

Lol, Golovkin hasn't fought anyone above a B- opponent yet and you're already saying he'll be the next Floyd?

Like I, and others have said already said...he's got to beat TOP opposition first, and there isn't any at 160...not Golovkins fault BTW, but that doesn't change the situation at MW being weak. Lee, Quillen and Jacobs themselves don't have any great wins, Jacobs got knocked down by a light hitting Mora, Lee was losing his last fight before landing a good, but lucky shot, and as I've said Quillen should gave 2 losses already.


He'll fight whoever they put infront of him, he has to clear out his division first imo, The big fights will come, why the rush?
B-hop certainly was in no hurry to move up from middle in what was a crappy division, I don't see why GGG has to either.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 29, 2015, 07:00:01 PM
I never said that.


He'll fight whoever they put infront of him, he has to clear out his division first imo, The big fights will come, why the rush?
B-hop certainly was in no hurry to move up from middle in what was a crappy division, I don't see why GGG has to either.


I don't know why you keep bringing Hopkins up...perhaps because I said he would like to fight Golovkin, but I'm not making excuses. Hopkins already had 2 career defining wins st MW in DLH and Trinidad. He also beat Joppy and a much more prime Glen Johnson. There are no such opponents of that caliber for Golovkin at MW anywhere in sight IMO.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 29, 2015, 07:25:52 PM
I don't know why you keep bringing Hopkins up...perhaps because I said he would like to fight Golovkin, but I'm not making excuses. Hopkins already had 2 career defining wins st MW in DLH and Trinidad. He also beat Joppy and a much more prime Glen Johnson. There are no such opponents of that caliber for Golovkin at MW anywhere in sight IMO.

Hopkins is a legend but I can't believe you've mentioned Dela hoya as a credible source for an opponent in that weight class. At middle he was garbage. Got a gift of a decision against Felix Sturm. Oscar even said himself at middle his body ''doesn't carry the weight''  Trinidad and Dela hoya were natural welter weights and Hopkins towered above them. Yet you find them credible opponents for b-hop at Middle? ''Career defining wins''? Yet Cotto and Alvarez are not for GGG?
Joppy and Johnson were not great fighters.

Your talking utter garbage and contradicting yourself completely.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Scarface on October 29, 2015, 07:41:28 PM
I actually think the longer he remains unbeaten the more marketable he will be. It didn't hurt Hopkins fighting all those tin cans at middle when he could have stepped up into a red hot super middle so much sooner. Time will tell with Golovkin, but many are touting him to be the new payperview star and Floyds replacement on that mantle. It set up for that when you look at whats out there. People want to see Golovkin fight.

It could work out for him biding his time until he faces top opposition.... or he could get tiresome like vlad is to many boxing fans.  Let's hope that he gets some good tests while he is is his prime and not after.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 29, 2015, 11:48:27 PM
Hopkins is a legend but I can't believe you've mentioned Dela hoya as a credible source for an opponent in that weight class. At middle he was garbage. Got a gift of a decision against Felix Sturm. Oscar even said himself at middle his body ''doesn't carry the weight''  Trinidad and Dela hoya were natural welter weights and Hopkins towered above them. Yet you find them credible opponents for b-hop at Middle? ''Career defining wins''? Yet Cotto and Alvarez are not for GGG?
Joppy and Johnson were not great fighters.

Your talking utter garbage and contradicting yourself completely.

Dela hoya was certainly out of shape vs. Sturm, but weighed 155 for that fight. DLH is an ATG and so is Trinidad. Whether you agree with what I said I don't care. Hopkins beating those 2 gave him a name.

I never said anything about a Cotto or Canelo not being career defining, I said that fighting and beating Ward is what would make Golovkin an elite fighter in everyone's eyes. Canelo more so since he is the same size...Cotto is 5'7 and weighed 153 in his last fight. IMO cotto has no business at MW, but its a matter of opinion.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 30, 2015, 01:10:36 AM
It was you that claimed it was in the contract and clearly it's not for obvious reasons.
[/quote

The Kovalev-Ward fight is, of course, contingent upon the fighters both winning two intervening bouts, but both sides have agreed to terms, according to sources familiar with the agreement.

http://spam.go.com/blog/dan-rafael/post/_/id/14346/wards-hbo-deal-agreed-nov-21-foe-another-story (http://spam.go.com/blog/dan-rafael/post/_/id/14346/wards-hbo-deal-agreed-nov-21-foe-another-story)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 30, 2015, 04:19:03 AM
It now seems that it's official....

http://spam.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/14006041/andre-ward-move-175-pounds-part-three-fight-deal-ending-sergey-kovalev (http://spam.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/14006041/andre-ward-move-175-pounds-part-three-fight-deal-ending-sergey-kovalev)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 30, 2015, 09:15:22 AM
It now seems that it's official....

[url]http://spam.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/14006041/andre-ward-move-175-pounds-part-three-fight-deal-ending-sergey-kovalev[/url] ([url]http://spam.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/14006041/andre-ward-move-175-pounds-part-three-fight-deal-ending-sergey-kovalev[/url])


I hope it comes to fruition.  Although let's not forget that Ward doesn't have great form when it comes to fulfilling contracts that he has signed.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: ScottMillwall on October 30, 2015, 12:18:40 PM
Hmmm, Wards next fight is still at 168. I'm not obsessed with him, I'm stating that he's ducking him, has ducked him in the past, and IMO, will KEEP ducking him.

If you weren't so busy swinging from Golovkins jock you might see that is Golovkins fastest way to both stardom as well as truly proving himself.

Ward's next fight is at 175lbs.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 30, 2015, 01:52:29 PM
Ward's next fight is at 175lbs.

Yes, it is. I thought initially he was going to fight at 168.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 30, 2015, 03:50:17 PM
shit like this is why I give GGG such a hard time. http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12184/10045648/mike-tyson-sonny-liston-who-is-the-scariest-boxer-ever (http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12184/10045648/mike-tyson-sonny-liston-who-is-the-scariest-boxer-ever)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 30, 2015, 03:56:04 PM
shit like this is why I give GGG such a hard time. [url]http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12184/10045648/mike-tyson-sonny-liston-who-is-the-scariest-boxer-ever[/url] ([url]http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12184/10045648/mike-tyson-sonny-liston-who-is-the-scariest-boxer-ever[/url])


Given that Carlos Maussa is at #7 on that list I wouldn't take it too seriously mate.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 30, 2015, 04:02:52 PM
Given that Carlos Maussa is at #7 on that list I wouldn't take it too seriously mate.

I won't  ;D it's just baffles me how this guys topping all these lists.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 30, 2015, 04:06:18 PM
I won't  ;D it's just baffles me how this guys topping all these lists.

To be fair, I'd have had Golota ahead of GGG on that list based on all the low blows he hit Bowe with - the thought of getting hit with them would scare me.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 30, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
To be fair, I'd have had Golota ahead of GGG on that list based on all the low blows he hit Bowe with - the thought of getting hit with them would scare me.

if I named all the fighters id have ahead of GGG the whole internet would crash trying to handle it.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 30, 2015, 04:24:48 PM
Yes, it is. I thought initially he was going to fight at 168.

Funny though eh.  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 30, 2015, 04:31:13 PM
if I named all the fighters id have ahead of GGG the whole internet would crash trying to handle it.

You'd rank Phil Scott above GGG in your list.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 30, 2015, 05:01:28 PM
You'd rank Phil Scott above GGG in your list.

I've not heard of him so odds are he's Golovkins next opponent.  8)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 30, 2015, 07:05:31 PM
I've not heard of him so odds are he's Golovkins next opponent.  8)

At least he won't be pounding Yusuf Mack around the ring  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 30, 2015, 07:58:03 PM
At least he won't be pounding Yusuf Mack around the ring  ;D

in fear of getting sued? ha. Mack should be on the list of scariest fighters.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 30, 2015, 10:05:57 PM
Funny though eh.  ;D

Its funny that he's moving up and looks like he's going to fight the top guy at 175 since the "scary" Golovkin was actually to scared to move up and truly prove he's not another HBO hype job? Yeah, I guess it is pretty funny.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 30, 2015, 10:29:39 PM
Its funny that he's moving up and looks like he's going to fight the top guy at 175 since the "scary" Golovkin was actually to scared to move up and truly prove he's not another HBO hype job? Yeah, I guess it is pretty funny.

He'd have had to wait at 168 whilst GGG fought the likes of John Ryder and Les Sherrington at 162 and 168 then another 168 contest though. Unless GGG has to step up and in with the #1 in the division and not potentially fight the top guy after a few pushovers.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 30, 2015, 10:48:21 PM
Its funny that he's moving up and looks like he's going to fight the top guy at 175 since the "scary" Golovkin was actually to scared to move up and truly prove he's not another HBO hype job? Yeah, I guess it is pretty funny.

You ok mate?
You sound upset...
I saw ward on that Apple advert earlier, makes sense with him being from the US and all... Hang on it was only the semi literate Golovkin. I'll be F***ed.
Lol
Chill

Hopefully ward will stop ducking kovalev and Adonis Stevenson now.
And Tyson fury. And sonny Liston


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 30, 2015, 11:07:23 PM
You ok mate?
You sound upset...
I saw ward on that Apple advert earlier, makes sense with him being from the US and all... Hang on it was only the semi literate Golovkin. I'll be F***ed.
Lol
Chill

Hopefully ward will stop ducking kovalev and Adonis Stevenson now.
And Tyson fury. And sonny Liston

I'm not defending Ward here but the point being made about Golovkin is how vocal he's been about fighting at different weights yet showing no intention to do so.

Ward on the other hand looks set for a massive fight in 2016 against Kovalev...this fight really could decide who takes that p4p no.1 spot.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 31, 2015, 02:04:31 AM
You ok mate?
You sound upset...
I saw ward on that Apple advert earlier, makes sense with him being from the US and all... Hang on it was only the semi literate Golovkin. I'll be F***ed.
Lol
Chill

Hopefully ward will stop ducking kovalev and Adonis Stevenson now.
And Tyson fury. And sonny Liston

Lol, how about you just post something about Golovkin when he actually has beaten the level of opposition that Ward has.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 07:53:42 AM
Lol, how about you just post something about Golovkin when he actually has beaten the level of opposition that Ward has.

If you can show me where I've even suggested he has... Then I won't point and laugh at you.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 07:57:36 AM
I'm not defending Ward here but the point being made about Golovkin is how vocal he's been about fighting at different weights yet showing no intention to do so.

Ward on the other hand looks set for a massive fight in 2016 against Kovalev...this fight really could decide who takes that p4p no.1 spot.

I'm not sure he has been that vocal though. He has maintained (via his mouthpiece manager) that he wants to unify the division also.
Golovkin rarely says anything but the odd respectful remark about other fighters, however I agree the bigger fights are at different weights. If he decides to take them then fair enough, but I'll never call a fighter for dominating at his best weight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 09:25:51 AM
I'm not defending Ward here but the point being made about Golovkin is how vocal he's been about fighting at different weights yet showing no intention to do so.

Ward on the other hand looks set for a massive fight in 2016 against Kovalev...this fight really could decide who takes that p4p no.1 spot.

Realistically thought award is being vocal about all sorts of fights but that actual one in question is only potentially in 3 fights time and the guy has form for not honouring contracts and agreements.  Ward actually needs to fight a light heavyweight before people get too excited.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 10:41:35 AM
Realistically thought award is being vocal about all sorts of fights but that actual one in question is only potentially in 3 fights time and the guy has form for not honouring contracts and agreements.  Ward actually needs to fight a light heavyweight before people get too excited.

O I'll be the first to criticise Ward should the Kovalev fight not happen, just like I criticise Adonis Chickenson who won't even fight Pascal.

Golovkin on the shelf imo...I will tune back in once he becomes relevant....if ever.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 10:53:28 AM
O I'll be the first to criticise Ward should the Kovalev fight not happen, just like I criticise Adonis Chickenson who won't even fight Pascal.

Golovkin on the shelf imo...I will tune back in once he becomes relevant....if ever.

He's a relevant middle weight though.
He's just sparked 20 odd on the bounce. He's fought a world title fight 15 times, everyone has ended in knockout. That's impressive in a pub let alone for the middleweight world title.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 11:17:58 AM
O I'll be the first to criticise Ward should the Kovalev fight not happen, just like I criticise Adonis Chickenson who won't even fight Pascal.

Golovkin on the shelf imo...I will tune back in once he becomes relevant....if ever.

Kovalev clearly has nothing on if he's rematching Pascal next. Ward could easily fight him on that January date. GGG gets slated for not stepping straight up to 168 and fighting Ward, but Ward can skirt around the edges of 175 making promises and it's fine.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 11:24:39 AM
Kovalev clearly has nothing on if he's rematching Pascal next. Ward could easily fight him on that January date. GGG gets slated for not stepping straight up to 168 and fighting Ward, but Ward can skirt around the edges of 175 making promises and it's fine.

Again...GGG and his team have claimed several times that they would be happy to step up to 168 for Ward and Froch....I dont remember Ward making these claims regards Kovalev.

Kovalev has taken the best possible opponents he can...its not his fault Chickenson doesnt want the fight.

Rematching Pascal seems a joke to you but its got 10 fold the appeal of whatever tomato can Golovkin team pull out the trash for his next fight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 11:30:59 AM
He's a relevant middle weight though.
He's just sparked 20 odd on the bounce. He's fought a world title fight 15 times, everyones ended in knockout. That's impressive in a pub let alone for the middleweight world title.

O god were close to Sven Ottke territory now....im not watching a boxer for his record on paper but for the entertainment they bring. A guy dominating a weight class that everyone knows to be lacking in quality is not entertaining anymore.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 11:33:00 AM
Again...GGG and his team have claimed several times that they would be happy to step up to 168 for Ward and Froch....I dont remember Ward making these claims regards Kovalev.

Kovalev has taken the best possible opponents he can...its not his fault Chickenson doesnt want the fight.

Rematching Pascal seems a joke to you but its got 10 fold the appeal of whatever tomato can Golovkin team pull out the trash for his next fight.

Ward has been talking about Kovalev since at least last year though.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 12:20:21 PM
Ward has been talking about Kovalev since at least last year though.

He's never claimed he would move up to light heavy and fight him instantly like a Golovkin has with regards Ward and Froch.

Plus now Ward has actually made a move towards fighting Kovalev by signing this contract and moving weight even though the super mid division has some decent fights for him. Golovkins exhausted middleweight yet for all his chat has shown absolutely zero intentions on making a move to super mid and the big fights.

Wards pretty much made Golovkin look like a bitch.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 12:26:41 PM
O god were close to Sven Ottke territory now....im not watching a boxer for his record on paper but for the entertainment they bring. A guy dominating a weight class that everyone knows to be lacking in quality is not entertaining anymore.

We're not though are we.
Stiffing decisions over in Germany (otke stopped a handful of people in his whole career), or knocking everyone out...
To say he's not entertaining isn't right, he's one of the most watchable fighter on the planet at the minute.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 31, 2015, 12:38:59 PM
He's never claimed he would move up to light heavy and fight him instantly like a Golovkin has with regards Ward and Froch.

Plus now Ward has actually made a move towards fighting Kovalev by signing this contract and moving weight even though the super mid division has some decent fights for him. Golovkins exhausted middleweight yet for all his chat has shown absolutely zero intentions on making a move to super mid and the big fights.

Wards pretty much made Golovkin look like a bitch.
Very few boxing fans would agree with that. Andre chose to move away from a fight with Golovkin and rightfully so. He has the oportunuity to fight for the LH Belt sooner than a fight with Golovkin and GGG has yet to even clear out his own weight class and is waiting on Alvarez, which is a much bigger fight than one with Ward. Both fighters are on different paths and may or may not meet somewhere down the line.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 12:45:08 PM
Very few boxing fans would agree with that. Andre chose to move away from a fight from Golovkin and rightfully so. He has the oportunuity to fight for the LH Belt sooner than a fight with Golovkin and GGG has yet to even clear out his own weight class and is waiting on Alvarez, which is a much bigger fight than one with Ward. Both fighters are on different paths and may or may not meet somewhere down the line.

Sorry but where did you hear Andre chose to move away from the Golovkin fight? Than you say Golovkin has yet to clear his own weight class.

Those two statements pretty much cancel each other out. Some ridiculous posts backing the hype.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 12:47:28 PM
We're not though are we.
Stiffing decisions over in Germany (otke stopped a handful of people in his whole career), or knocking everyone out...
To say he's not entertaining isn't right, he's one of the most watchable fighter on the planet at the minute.

People watch Golovkin because they want to see him knock people out rather than because he's always in exciting 50/50 fights. Give me Mitchell v Linares and Crolla v Perez any day over GGG v sideshow bob.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 12:57:18 PM
People watch Golovkin because they want to see him knock people out rather than because he's always in exciting 50/50 fights. Give me Mitchell v Linares and Crolla v Perez any day over GGG v sideshow bob.

I'd agree with much if that, but that's really the same as Tyson in the 80s.

Also scale any of the 4 fighters you mentioned up to mw and GGG knocks them all out.
His opposition isn't mediocre imo, rather he is very very good at middle weight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 31, 2015, 01:07:40 PM
Sorry but where did you hear Andre chose to move away from the Golovkin fight? Than you say Golovkin has yet to clear his own weight class.

Those two statements pretty much cancel each other out. Some ridiculous posts backing the hype.
You need to calm down abit mate.

I was giving a fair reason why both fighters are moving in different directions. Its called being objective, you should try it sometime, it might make you sound less obsessive and bitter.

By moving up in weight, is he not moving away from a Golovkin fight? Is Golovkin not preocupied with clearing out his weight class while waiting on Alvarez?

My point was both fighters are on different paths and you can't blame either one for going for more lucrative fights else where. Ward is not going to wait on Golovkin but he can become a LW champion so it makes sense to move up now. GGG will wait on Alvarez because it makes sense to do so.
I feel embarrassed for you that I actually had to spell that out.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 01:25:59 PM
He's never claimed he would move up to light heavy and fight him instantly like a Golovkin has with regards Ward and Froch.

Plus now Ward has actually made a move towards fighting Kovalev by signing this contract and moving weight even though the super mid division has some decent fights for him. Golovkins exhausted middleweight yet for all his chat has shown absolutely zero intentions on making a move to super mid and the big fights.

Wards pretty much made Golovkin look like a bitch.

I don't recall ever seeing GGG say he'd move straight up to 168 and fight Ward immediately.

Come on mate, that last sentence is hilarious when Ward is due to face Brand next at 175. That would be an awful fight at 168 but it's even worse at 175. Not sure how you are buying 100% into Wards. I've already pointed out the obvious about Ward and contracts.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 01:27:04 PM
I'd agree with much if that, but that's really the same as Tyson in the 80s.

Also scale any of the 4 fighters you mentioned up to mw and GGG knocks them all out.
His opposition isn't mediocre imo, rather he is very very good at middle weight.

Golovkin would love to scale them up rather than move up himself  8)

That last statement I'd of said about Abraham back in his middleweight days.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 01:29:12 PM
You need to calm down abit mate.

I was giving a fair reason why both fighters are moving in different directions. Its called being objective, you should try it sometime, it might make you sound less obsessive and bitter.

By moving up in weight, is he not moving away from a Golovkin fight? Is Golovkin not preocupied with clearing out his weight class while waiting on Alvarez?

My point was both fighters are on different paths and you can't blame either one for going for more lucrative fights else where. Ward is not going to wait on Golovkin but he can become a LW champion so it makes sense to move up now. GGG will wait on Alvarez because it makes sense to do so.
I feel embarrassed for you that I actually had to spell that out.

Not sure why you keep asking people to calm down...do you read everyone's posts in an angry voice  8)

So your saying that Golovkins staying at middleweight but also Ward ran from him.....o dear.

Shame on you Ward not moving to middleweight to fight Golovkin...Coward.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 01:30:52 PM
I don't recall ever seeing GGG say he'd move straight up to 168 and fight Ward immediately.

Come on mate, that last sentence is hilarious when Ward is due to face Brand next at 175. That would be an awful fight at 168 but it's even worse at 175. Not sure how you are buying 100% into Wards. I've already pointed out the obvious about Ward and contracts.

Ward shown intent by signing a contract that ends in a massive fight with Kovalev.

Golovkins shown no intent.

The end.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 02:02:16 PM
Ward shown intent by signing a contract that ends in a massive fight with Kovalev.

Golovkins shown no intent.

The end.

There isn't actually a signed contract for Kovalev v Ward though. So the reality is there's only as much intent there as that which you ascribe to what GGG may have alluded to a few years back.

Once you are relying on a promotional contract containing Wards signature you are on a weak side of any argument. He had a perfectly valid contract with Goosen and look what happened there.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 31, 2015, 02:25:59 PM
Not sure why you keep asking people to calm down...do you read everyone's posts in an angry voice  8)

So your saying that Golovkins staying at middleweight but also Ward ran from him.....o dear.

Shame on you Ward not moving to middleweight to fight Golovkin...Coward.

Your missing the point completely lol

This is like talking to a child.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 31, 2015, 02:34:36 PM
If you can show me where I've even suggested he has... Then I won't point and laugh at you.


Are you gonna do an internet point? Lol


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 02:48:40 PM
There isn't actually a signed contract for Kovalev v Ward though. So the reality is there's only as much intent there as that which you ascribe to what GGG may have alluded to a few years back.

Once you are relying on a promotional contract containing Wards signature you are on a weak side of any argument. He had a perfectly valid contract with Goosen and look what happened there.

That remains to be seen so you're just speculating.  Im talking rafa benitez facts...Golovkin has shown no intention of fighting at super mid and recently claimed he will not drop weight for the Alvarez fight. These are his only options IF he wants a big fight and he will not entertain either.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 02:50:36 PM
Your missing the point completely lol

This is like talking to a child.

Calm Down  ;)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 31, 2015, 02:52:14 PM
You need to calm down abit mate.

I was giving a fair reason why both fighters are moving in different directions. Its called being objective, you should try it sometime, it might make you sound less obsessive and bitter.

By moving up in weight, is he not moving away from a Golovkin fight? Is Golovkin not preocupied with clearing out his weight class while waiting on Alvarez?

My point was both fighters are on different paths and you can't blame either one for going for more lucrative fights else where. Ward is not going to wait on Golovkin but he can become a LW champion so it makes sense to move up now. GGG will wait on Alvarez because it makes sense to do so.
I feel embarrassed for you that I actually had to spell that out.

But why does he need to wait on Alvarez? He's already proven himself a hypocrite and a liar by saying that fight would HAVE to be at 160, but said Ward would have to come to 164 after he said in the past he'd go to 168. I really don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Alvarez doesn't need Golovkin... In fact, there are already talks of the Cotto Canelo winner fighting Brandon Rios (assuming that he beats Bradley). Alvarez has a ton of options...Porter is huge and easily could come up to JMW or 155, Thurman I think would do it, Bradley (if he wins). Alvarez has a ton of options. People will give Saul a hard time, but will forget while Golovkin will still be sitting at 160 with his thumb up his ass. Facts are facts. He might have sold out MSG, but Cotto does everytime...so what? Had Golovkins fight sold 300-500k Alvarez might have been more interested...Golovkin isn't getting the fight with Alvarez or Cotto (who I think will win anyway).

The best Golovkin can hope for is that Lara may move up to fight him, and though Lara is better than Lemeiux in terms of skill...he might be a bit passed it.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 31, 2015, 02:55:25 PM
Your missing the point completely lol

This is like talking to a child.

Maybe you just suck at getting your point across


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 03:05:18 PM
Maybe you just suck at getting your point across

His point is that Ward has moved away from a potential Golovkin fight(debatable) because he's looking to a big fight with Kovalev. Wards a 168/175lb fighter and his toughest test over those two weights is likely to be Kovalev so imo his move to 175lb is a positive one that will set up a mega fight next year.

He also points out that Golovkin is staying at 160lb because he's waiting for Alvarez to beat Cotto to than set up a big fight. This point lacks details primarily the one where Alvarez has stated he will o lay fight Golovkin at 155lb and Golovkin(the guy who was willing to go to 154lb for Mayweather) has said no.

My points is much easier to understand.

Ward has beaten top level opposition and has now made a positive move towards a big fight. While Golovkins distanced himself from a fight with Alvarez or a move to super mid now that those two options are his most dangerous.



Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 31, 2015, 03:10:37 PM
Calm Down  ;)

Thats embarrassing man. Your on the same level as Sesame street.


But why does he need to wait on Alvarez? He's already proven himself a hypocrite and a liar by saying that fight would HAVE to be at 160, but said Ward would have to come to 164 after he said in the past he'd go to 168. I really don't know what's so hard to understand about that.


''hypocrite and a liar'' Those are strong words. Alvarez vs GGG is a huge fight, it's massive. why wouldn't he wait?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 03:19:47 PM
Thats embarrassing man. Your on the same level as Sesame street.


''hypocrite and a liar'' Those are strong words. Alvarez vs GGG is a huge fight, it's massive. why wouldn't he wait?

still not calm yet?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 31, 2015, 03:30:32 PM
I don't recall ever seeing GGG say he'd move straight up to 168 and fight Ward immediately.

Come on mate, that last sentence is hilarious when Ward is due to face Brand next at 175. That would be an awful fight at 168 but it's even worse at 175. Not sure how you are buying 100% into Wards. I've already pointed out the obvious about Ward and contracts.

Oh no, let's not misinterpret his statement. As you so conveniently pointed out to me about the article I posted being 3 years old, yeah...that's how long ago he said anyone " at 154, 160, and 168"...but give the guy time, its only been 3 years ago. Lol, love how you pick and choose.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 31, 2015, 03:38:38 PM
Thats embarrassing man. Your on the same level as Sesame street.


''hypocrite and a liar'' Those are strong words. Alvarez vs GGG is a huge fight, it's massive. why wouldn't he wait?

Lol, he's NOT getting the fightbif he doesn't drop to 155...Alvarez is the bigger name, bigger draw, and the bigger PPV sell. He's the A side. I've got news for all of them however, I'm not so sure we should have this conversation since I think Cotto will stop him. Cotto is much stronger now and though I don't like Roach as all here knows...he has got Cotto back to using his hooks and has better foot movement and now stamina than Alvarez. Either way Golovkin won't get the fight with either guy unless he comes down...period.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 03:47:40 PM
Oh no, let's not misinterpret his statement. As you so conveniently pointed out to me about the article I posted being 3 years old, yeah...that's how long ago he said anyone " at 154, 160, and 168"...but give the guy time, its only been 3 years ago. Lol, love how you pick and choose.

I don't pick and choose. Just because someone makes a statement nearly 4 years ago, it doesn't make it relevant today. Maybe Ward should have taken him up on the offer at the time instead of spending his time say on the sidelines. Or he could have gone down to 160 like he has previously said he would. Or if he is moving to 175, he could make the bold statement of fighting someone who operates in the Light Heavyweight division. Let's just hope he doesn't decide he doesn't like this contract he's signed and disappear for a few years again. It would be awful if someone took all this and decided that it made Ward a hypocrite and a liar.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 04:05:21 PM
I don't pick and choose. Just because someone makes a statement nearly 4 years ago, it doesn't make it relevant today. Maybe Ward should have taken him up on the offer at the time instead of spending his time say on the sidelines. Or he could have gone down to 160 like he has previously said he would. Or if he is moving to 175, he could make the bold statement of fighting someone who operates in the Light Heavyweight division. Let's just hope he doesn't decide he doesn't like this contract he's signed and disappear for a few years again. It would be awful if someone took all this and decided that it made Ward a hypocrite and a liar.

Ward could go awol for two years and come back to find Golovkins still yet to fight a world level opponent.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on October 31, 2015, 04:14:31 PM
Lol, he's NOT getting the fightbif he doesn't drop to 155...Alvarez is the bigger name, bigger draw, and the bigger PPV sell. He's the A side. I've got news for all of them however, I'm not so sure we should have this conversation since I think Cotto will stop him. Cotto is much stronger now and though I don't like Roach as all here knows...he has got Cotto back to using his hooks and has better foot movement and now stamina than Alvarez. Either way Golovkin won't get the fight with either guy unless he comes down...period.

Its all conjecture, what one fighter is saying now might be completely different two fights down the line. Alvarez is the bigger draw right now, i'm not disputing that, especially with that Mexican fan base but money talks and GGG's stock is rising with every fight. It has to happen, someones got to give and it will most probably be GGG but then again maybe not. Im predicting either Cotto or Alvarez will be fighting GGG in 2016.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 04:32:53 PM
Golovkin would love to scale them up rather than move up himself  8)

That last statement I'd of said about Abraham back in his middleweight days.

I wouldn't.
Abraham was always one dimensional.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 04:37:22 PM
Are you gonna do an internet point? Lol

Yep.
Virtual point at an actual tit.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 04:43:24 PM
I wouldn't.
Abraham was always one dimensional.

Easy to say now. Not many said it than.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 04:53:33 PM
Ward could go awol for two years and come back to find Golovkins still yet to fight a world level opponent.

That is a desperate attempt to defend Ward there.

Lemieux current world champ, Geale former world champ and subsequent title challenger and Murray former and subsequent title challenger at the point they fought GGG. Obviously not world class fighters.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 05:04:28 PM
That is a desperate attempt to defend Ward there.

Lemieux current world champ, Geale former world champ and subsequent title challenger and Murray former and subsequent title challenger at the point they fought GGG. Obviously not world class fighters.

I have no reason to defend Ward but the fact is he's defeated proven world level opposition and Golovkin has not. Murray wouldn't stand a chance v the likes of Kessler and Froch and may come unstuck v Abraham...all three beaten by Ward. Have you seen Lemieuxs cv..it's dreadful, just a list of canadian nobodies. You think everyone who has or has had a world title is world class? Behave.

I'm starting to think that you lot are just jumping on the GGG hype because he's a nice guy....would love to see what your opinions would be if Adrien Broner had Golovkins record.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 31, 2015, 05:19:11 PM
To be as fair and unbiased as I can be, Golovkin is a great talent, but it's a shame to see him piss it away while the years keep slipping by, this is my main reason for wanting to see him test himself vs. Ward. Like I said, he's in a position where he must chase greatness because at 160 it will not come.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 05:26:08 PM
To be as fair and unbiased as I can be, Golovkin is a great talent, but it's a shame to see him piss it away while the years keep slipping by, this is my main reason for wanting to see him test himself vs. Ward. Like I said, he's in a position where he must chase greatness because at 160 it will not come.

You see that's bordering on reasonable... I'm not sure how to respond to this side of you.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 05:27:18 PM
Easy to say now. Not many said it than.

Genuinely did.
In fact on the old Hatton forum i named him most over rated fighter in a thread.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 05:38:25 PM
Genuinely did.
In fact on the old Hatton forum i named him most over rated fighter in a thread.

I think I remember you saying it on here when he faced Froch but the majority didn't. It'll be the same with me when you lot see Golovkin get raped at super mid  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 06:56:38 PM
I have no reason to defend Ward but the fact is he's defeated proven world level opposition and Golovkin has not. Murray wouldn't stand a chance v the likes of Kessler and Froch and may come unstuck v Abraham...all three beaten by Ward. Have you seen Lemieuxs cv..it's dreadful, just a list of canadian nobodies. You think everyone who has or has had a world title is world class? Behave.

I'm starting to think that you lot are just jumping on the GGG hype because he's a nice guy....would love to see what your opinions would be if Adrien Broner had Golovkins record.

His last win against a legitimate opponent in his natural weight class was in 2011. His recent record is awful and will get worse in November.

I didn't say that did I. I named three specific fighters.

I've already said I was watching him fight in small hotel ballrooms in Germany so I'm hardly jumping on a bandwagon. It's just frustrating watching rules being invented that seemingly only apply to him whereas plenty of world class fighters stay in one division for the duration of their careers through the ebbs and flows of quality around them.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 07:17:46 PM
His last win against a legitimate opponent in his natural weight class was in 2011. His recent record is awful and will get worse in November.

I didn't say that did I. I named three specific fighters.

I've already said I was watching him fight in small hotel ballrooms in Germany so I'm hardly jumping on a bandwagon. It's just frustrating watching rules being invented that seemingly only apply to him whereas plenty of world class fighters stay in one division for the duration of their careers through the ebbs and flows of quality around them.

I said jumping on the hype not bandwagon...meaning you defend his lack of quality opposition because he's a fan favourite/marketable and the reason for this is because he's a nice guy who knocks people out.

It's not possible to not like GGG but believe me if he wasn't such a nice guy and walked around like Adrien Broner, David Haye, Mayweather etc. He would get ripped to shreds for the lack of quality on his record.




Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 09:37:07 PM
I said jumping on the hype not bandwagon...meaning you defend his lack of quality opposition because he's a fan favourite/marketable and the reason for this is because he's a nice guy who knocks people out.

It's not possible to not like GGG but believe me if he wasn't such a nice guy and walked around like Adrien Broner, David Haye, Mayweather etc. He would get ripped to shreds for the lack of quality on his record.

Surely they are synonyms? I equally wouldn't be jumping on the hype after watching him for years.

It's hardly like he's got the worst record of any champion in the sport is it? The sport has 'promoters' so things get inflated. Frampton v Quigg is being built up as huge but between them they can't muster stronger opponents than GGG has faced.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 31, 2015, 09:38:02 PM
I said jumping on the hype not bandwagon...meaning you defend his lack of quality opposition because he's a fan favourite/marketable and the reason for this is because he's a nice guy who knocks people out.

It's not possible to not like GGG but believe me if he wasn't such a nice guy and walked around like Adrien Broner, David Haye, Mayweather etc. He would get ripped to shreds for the lack of quality on his record.




this...well put!


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 09:52:32 PM
Surely they are synonyms? I equally wouldn't be jumping on the hype after watching him for years.

It's hardly like he's got the worst record of any champion in the sport is it? The sport has 'promoters' so things get inflated. Frampton v Quigg is being built up as huge but between them they can't muster stronger opponents than GGG has faced.

I believe that you have been a fan of GGG for some time but I think the hype over him is why you cannot concede that the guy should now be pushing himself after clearing out the middleweight division.

It might surprise you but I rate him very highly which is why I'm so frustrated with people who think it's ok for him to stay at middleweight fighting guys we all know he beats convincingly. Do none of you see an issue with this....don't you want to see him in the ring v the likes of Alvarez, Degale perhaps even Froch or Kessler?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 09:52:47 PM
this...well put!

It isn't really when there are plenty of personable guys with worst records than GGG not getting the ripped. But I guess once you start selling out the MSG when others can't sell out their home town, people are going to start finding reasons to dislike you.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 09:57:50 PM
I believe that you have been a fan of GGG for some time but I think the hype over him is why you cannot concede that the guy should now be pushing himself after clearing out the middleweight division.

It might surprise you but I rate him very highly which is why I'm so frustrated with people who think it's ok for him to stay at middleweight fighting guys we all know he beats convincingly. Do none of you see an issue with this....don't you want to see him in the ring v the likes of Alvarez, Degale perhaps even Froch or Kessler?

He should only move if it's the right move for him. 3 or 4 years ago he had to chase the fights, now he doesn't need to. All of those fights would generate interest but guys like Hagler, Froch and others stayed where they were comfortable.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 09:59:40 PM
It isn't really when there are plenty of personable guys with worst records than GGG not getting the ripped. But I guess once you start selling out the MSG when others can't sell out their home town, people are going to start finding reasons to dislike you.

O Yh I hate him because he sell out the MSG haha. I went to the Geale fight...they didn't even use the whole venue...so basically his wins over Geale, Murray and Monroe Jr made him a MSG sell out. Who bought those tickets is a different matter all together, I'm guessing casuals who were promised a k.o and bought into the Lemieux hype.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 10:03:08 PM
I think I remember you saying it on here when he faced Froch but the majority didn't. It'll be the same with me when you lot see Golovkin get raped at super mid  ;D

Haha. Fair play  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 10:03:25 PM
He should only move if it's the right move for him. 3 or 4 years ago he had to chase the fights, now he doesn't need to. All of those fights would generate interest but guys like Hagler, Froch and others stayed where they were comfortable.

Guys like Froch and Hagler would move heaven and earth to fight the best possible opposition they could....now the best opposition for them was at their career weight. Golovkins is not.

I don't know how to agree with your logic...should I just say ok you win I hope Golovkin stays at middleweight his whole career and doesn't test his full potential, than retires undefeated with 2000 k.o wins against fighters who I can't remember. Sounds exciting.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 31, 2015, 10:07:59 PM
Guys like Froch and Hearn would move heaven and earth to fight the best possible opposition they could....now the best opposition for them was at their career weight. Golovkins is not.

I don't know how to agree with your logic...should I just say ok you win I hope Golovkin stays at middleweight his whole career and doesn't test his full potential, than retires undefeated with 2000 k.o wins against fighters who I can't remember. Sounds exciting.

I don't think there is any agreeing with his logic, he finds reasons to disagree with every point that isn't his.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 10:11:19 PM


It's not possible to not like GGG but believe me if he wasn't such a nice guy and walked around like Adrien Broner, David Haye, Mayweather etc. He would get ripped to shreds for the lack of quality on his record.




I think there's some truth in that also... But he hasn't and that's what makes him likeable and marketable.
Choir boy knocking folk out while being respectful and polite... Boxing is s noble art filled with many many people who are anything but... GGG is a breath of fresh air when compared to the usual bragging arrogant world stars.
I like wlad for the same reasons really.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 10:19:26 PM
I think there's some truth in that also... But he hasn't and that's what makes him likeable and marketable.
Choir boy knocking folk out while being respectful and polite... Boxing is s noble art filled with many many people who are anything but... GGG is a breath of fresh air when compared to the usual bragging arrogant world stars.
I like wlad for the same reasons really.

I've seen him live twice...everything about him is likeable....interviews,fans,team. He has real potential to go down as an all time great but IF he stays at middleweight and get to comfortable knocking people out for fun we may never see him at his full potential. He's in a weak division and unless it improves drastically he will have to make a move.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 10:19:54 PM
Guys like Froch and Hagler would move heaven and earth to fight the best possible opposition they could....now the best opposition for them was at their career weight. Golovkins is not.

I don't know how to agree with your logic...should I just say ok you win I hope Golovkin stays at middleweight his whole career and doesn't test his full potential, than retires undefeated with 2000 k.o wins against fighters who I can't remember. Sounds exciting.

I'm guessing you meant Hagler. One of my favourite fighters of all time but all the biggest fights in SRL, Hearns and Duran all came to him. They moved, he didn't. Froch could have moved to 175 but fought Groves in a fight I defended but plenty slagged off.

The MSG point was because there's been much more criticism of him since the Lemieux fight which a lot of people gave both credit for before hand.

My logic is ridiculously simple to follow as it has been throughout. GGG should have the same standards applied to him as are to others. No more, no less.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 10:27:21 PM
I'm guessing you meant Hagler. One of my favourite fighters of all time but all the biggest fights in SRL, Hearns and Duran all came to him. They moved, he didn't. Froch could have moved to 175 but fought Groves in a fight I defended but plenty slagged off.

The MSG point was because there's been much more criticism of him since the Lemieux fight which a lot of people gave both credit for before hand.

My logic is ridiculously simple to follow as it has been throughout. GGG should have the same standards applied to him as are to others. No more, no less.

This Froch moving to light heavy is by far the most ridiculous comment and yet you keep stating it. Why would he move to light heavy for the final fights of his career when the world no.2 p4p. Was at his current weight and an ex opponent who he beat was being ducked by one of the champions at that weight?

Golovkin has time left in his career to move to super mid and adapt to the weight before fighting the bigger names.

What rules....the guys playing tennis without a net. What the point in being such a great professional boxer if his biggest of fans don't even want to see him tested.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 10:38:57 PM
It is entirely salient when he could have taken either of those fights but fought Groves.

The rules whereby you aren't calling the likes of Frampton for not even being willing to go near the best two guys in his division.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 10:43:54 PM
It is entirely salient when he could have taken either of those fights but fought Groves.

The rules whereby you aren't calling the likes of Frampton for not even being willing to go near the best two guys in his division.

He faced Groves because he wanted to defend his titles in Vegas against Chavez or Ward after. If Frochs best win was v Martin Murray than perhaps you have a point but we are talking about a guy who had wins over Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, Bute and Kessler.

If you're happy to see Golovkin waste his career at middleweight than fair enough but a genuine fan should want the fighters he supports to take on the best possible opposition and if he stays ate middleweight than he will not even come close to that.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 10:47:02 PM
Quote from: Tim2366 link=topic=26276.msg415695#msg415695  date=1446329966
I've seen him live twice...everything about him is likeable....interviews,fans,team. He has real potential to go down as an all time great but IF he stays at middleweight and get to comfortable knocking people out for fun we may never see him at his full potential. He's in a weak division and unless it improves drastically he will have to make a move.

Careful Tim... Your mask will slip.
I'm told on good authority you only ever watch froch.  ;)


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 10:52:14 PM
Careful Tim... Your mask will slip.
I'm told on good authority you only ever watch froch.  ;)

Yeah I've herd that few times...actually next fight I'm going to is Frochs brother haha.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 10:57:33 PM
Can't say I remember him mentioning Vegas at the time of the first Groves fight. Neither of those fights would have been dependant on him having the belts in any event.

As I said, he's facing the best available opposition in his weight class. There are world champions not even coming close to doing that in their own divisions. That's a whole lot of wasted careers for you.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 11:00:36 PM
Yeah I've herd that few times...actually next fight I'm going to is Frochs brother haha.

I've seen that advertised on Twitter.
He's the Chris Eubank of white collar boxing.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 11:10:31 PM
Can't say I remember him mentioning Vegas at the time of the first Groves fight. Neither of those fights would have been dependant on him having the belts in any event.

As I said, he's facing the best available opposition in his weight class. There are world champions not even coming close to doing that in their own divisions. That's a whole lot of wasted careers for you.

Well he mention it...quite a lot tbh.

Frampton, Froch, Quigg, Ward...why are we discussing these guys. This is about Golovkin, I've slated decisions made by Frampton and Ward in other threads.

It's clear you are not going to accept that Golovkins likely to waste his potential at middlewight, infact it seems as if that's what you want him to do.

The greatest chase the big fights. Golovkin does not.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 11:13:09 PM
I've seen that advertised on Twitter.
He's the Chris Eubank of white collar boxing.

Haha...shud be a laugh.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on October 31, 2015, 11:25:08 PM
Well he mention it...quite a lot tbh.

Frampton, Froch, Quigg, Ward...why are we discussing these guys. This is about Golovkin, I've slated decisions made by Frampton and Ward in other threads.

It's clear you are not going to accept that Golovkins likely to waste his potential at middlewight, infact it seems as if that's what you want him to do.

The greatest chase the big fights. Golovkin does not.

I honestly can't remember when he first mentioned Chavez but didn't think it was that long ago.

He won't be wasting his potential at middleweight when he's a middleweight. 

He isn't chasing the fights you think he should. There's a difference.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 11:27:25 PM
Haha...shud be a laugh.

I'd go if I was closer mate.
I reckon it will be like s wrestling villain on Saturday afternoon tv.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on October 31, 2015, 11:37:04 PM
Why is this about Froch now? Froch has proven himself, he tested himself and lost to the top elite, but beat several world class fighters who had few losses with Bute, Dirrel, Pascal, Ward, and Groves having no losses. Froch had to dig pretty deep to beat Groves the first time, but obviously there was no problem in the second fight. His 2 losses are Ward and Kessler, which he avenged the latter. I don't think one should even begin to compare he and Golovkin at this point, as all you will do is look like a moron for doing so.



Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 11:37:20 PM
I honestly can't remember when he first mentioned Chavez but didn't think it was that long ago.

He won't be wasting his potential at middleweight when he's a middleweight. 

He isn't chasing the fights you think he should. There's a difference.

we can discuss this more after they name his next opponent. if he stays at middleweight than his careers peaked.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on October 31, 2015, 11:38:27 PM
I'd go if I was closer mate.
I reckon it will be like s wrestling villain on Saturday afternoon tv.

If he doesn't come out dressed as bananaman I'll be disappointed...Lee could really put a show on.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: jimjack on October 31, 2015, 11:46:20 PM
If he doesn't come out dressed as bananaman I'll be disappointed...Lee could really put a show on.

 ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on November 01, 2015, 09:30:28 AM
Why is this about Froch now? Froch has proven himself, he tested himself and lost to the top elite, but beat several world class fighters who had few losses with Bute, Dirrel, Pascal, Ward, and Groves having no losses. Froch had to dig pretty deep to beat Groves the first time, but obviously there was no problem in the second fight. His 2 losses are Ward and Kessler, which he avenged the latter. I don't think one should even begin to compare he and Golovkin at this point, as all you will do is look like a moron for doing so.

You look like you severely lack comprehension skills if you think I was comparing their records.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on November 01, 2015, 09:33:10 AM
we can discuss this more after they name his next opponent. if he stays at middleweight than his careers peaked.

Fair enough, this is 27 pages old now. I imagine he'll satisfy the Johnson mandatory as he I'd imagine he'll be out again in February if not sooner. I certainly hope the winner of Cotto v Canelo defends against him later next year though.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 01, 2015, 05:33:55 PM
Fair enough, this is 27 pages old now. I imagine he'll satisfy the Johnson mandatory as he I'd imagine he'll be out again in February if not sooner. I certainly hope the winner of Cotto v Canelo defends against him later next year though.

Don't hold your breath


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 01, 2015, 05:37:37 PM
You look like you severely lack comprehension skills if you think I was comparing their records.

Froch's competition was brought up, thus I corrected the differences against himself and Golovkin..I don't see how that's lacking anything other than being able to understand how you can't see ANYONE'S point aside from your own...self rightous issues?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on November 01, 2015, 07:05:03 PM
Froch's competition was brought up, thus I corrected the differences against himself and Golovkin..I don't see how that's lacking anything other than being able to understand how you can't see ANYONE'S point aside from your own...self rightous issues?

But I didn't make a direct comparison between Froch's competition and GGG's. I was addressing a different point which you seem unable to grasp.

I can see Tim's point perfectly clearly, I just don't agree with it. We can have a perfectly civil debate without having to make weak insults at each other. Presumably Tim isn't self righteous for maintaining his view because you agree with him though.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on November 01, 2015, 07:41:04 PM
But I didn't make a direct comparison between Froch's competition and GGG I was addressing a different point which you seem unable to grasp.

I can see Tim's point perfectly clearly, I just don't agree with it. We can have a perfectly civil debate without having to make weak insults at each other. Presumably Tim isn't self righteous for maintaining his view because you agree with him though.

O I have debates like this with people ive known my whole life...I dont think anyone should take them personally but its always good banter to have a dig now and again.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on November 01, 2015, 07:50:27 PM
O I have debates like this with people ive known my whole life...I dont think anyone should take them personally but its always good banter to have a dig now and again.

Same here. Hence me thinking him calling me self righteous and a moron were so weak. Should have more in the locker than that  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on November 01, 2015, 08:46:56 PM
Same here. Hence me thinking him calling me self righteous and a moron were so weak. Should have more in the locker than that  ;D

personally I think you're all a bunch of C**ts  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on November 01, 2015, 09:08:01 PM
personally I think you're all a bunch of C**ts  ;D

Only statement on this thread that is categorically correct  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 01, 2015, 09:46:17 PM
Same here. Hence me thinking him calling me self righteous and a moron were so weak. Should have more in the locker than that  ;D

Asswad?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on November 01, 2015, 09:58:25 PM
Asswad?

British reggae isn't really my scene  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: GOD on November 02, 2015, 01:50:06 PM
British reggae isn't really my scene  ;D

LOL that was a good rebuttal!!!


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 02, 2015, 03:16:21 PM
LOL that was a good rebuttal!!!

That's what your mom said?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 03, 2015, 02:37:14 AM
http://www.boxingscene.com/crawford-golovkin-face-ward-due-big-risk--97653 (http://www.boxingscene.com/crawford-golovkin-face-ward-due-big-risk--97653)

Crawford knows what's up  ;D


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 03, 2015, 12:03:27 PM
http://www.boxingscene.com/golovkin-no-chance-id-go-155-156-158-canelo--97679 (http://www.boxingscene.com/golovkin-no-chance-id-go-155-156-158-canelo--97679)

OK, so now with a breakout fight on the horizon, Golovkin wouldn't even go to 158? Lol and NOW he says fights at MW or SMW? Gonna ruin his career. Now that Ward is officially moving to 175 he fights at SMW? Blatantly has ducked one of, if not the top p4p guy...joker.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on November 03, 2015, 01:20:02 PM
I think Canelos just testing the water and he will got to 160lb if he has to. Golovkin talks as much shit as Khan tbh but he gets away with it because he's mr nice guy.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tuco on November 03, 2015, 02:23:28 PM
[url]http://www.boxingscene.com/golovkin-no-chance-id-go-155-156-158-canelo--97679[/url] ([url]http://www.boxingscene.com/golovkin-no-chance-id-go-155-156-158-canelo--97679[/url])

OK, so now with a breakout fight on the horizon, Golovkin wouldn't even go to 158? Lol and NOW he says fights at MW or SMW? Gonna ruin his career. Now that Ward is officially moving to 175 he fights at SMW? Blatantly has ducked one of, if not the top p4p guy...joker.


GGG is not making sense there. He won't fight Alvarez at 158 but would go to 154 to fight Floyd? He needs to get his ego in check because thats what this is about imo. He feels hes the top dog between the two and calls the shots with Alvarez. Bollox. If he can move down for Flotd then he can move down for Alvarez too.

Too bad Ward is doing a runner to Ligh Heavy.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 04, 2015, 06:25:11 PM
http://www.boxingscene.com/sanchez-golovkin-go-anywhere-face-carl-froch--97726 (http://www.boxingscene.com/sanchez-golovkin-go-anywhere-face-carl-froch--97726)

And yet more hypocrisy from Golovkin...


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on November 04, 2015, 06:31:44 PM
[url]http://www.boxingscene.com/sanchez-golovkin-go-anywhere-face-carl-froch--97726[/url] ([url]http://www.boxingscene.com/sanchez-golovkin-go-anywhere-face-carl-froch--97726[/url])

And yet more hypocrisy from Golovkin...


All adds to the hype. Golovkin isn't stupid...he knows jumping to 168 and straight in with Froch is career suicide. The longer he stays at middleweight the more people will get frustrated with the way his careers going imo.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 04, 2015, 07:06:29 PM
All adds to the hype. Golovkin isn't stupid...he knows jumping to 168 and straight in with Froch is career suicide. The longer he stays at middleweight the more people will get frustrated with the way his careers going imo.

I think he thinks Froch is the most beatable at the weight in terms of big name because he's had a lot of fights, and is older now.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on November 04, 2015, 07:14:39 PM
I think he thinks Froch is the most beatable at the weight in terms of big name because he's had a lot of fights, and is older now.

I think Froch or Kessler could come out of retirement and do a number on Golovkin. Too big too strong. Golovkin should focus on Alvarez.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 04, 2015, 07:17:15 PM
I think Froch or Kessler could come out of retirement and do a number on Golovkin. Too big too strong. Golovkin should focus on Alvarez.

Lol yeah right...Alvarez isn't going to fight him unless it's at 155, Cotto at least has a legit excuse because the guy is small. Alvarez weighs way more than Golovkin on fight night.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on November 04, 2015, 10:00:20 PM
Lol yeah right...Alvarez isn't going to fight him unless it's at 155, Cotto at least has a legit excuse because the guy is small. Alvarez weighs way more than Golovkin on fight night.

Than Golovkin will have to go to 155lb.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 04, 2015, 10:39:57 PM
Than Golovkin will have to go to 155lb.

He will indeed because despite what people think, even if his fight sold out MSG (keep in mind ticket sales, and how many of the people were there for Lemeiux) he still only sold 125k ppvs which means people like watching him for free, but not 50.00 worth. Canelo, as I've said, is the draw. If Golovkin doesn't want to drop to 155 that's understandable, but he will ruin a golden opportunity to get more worldwide exposure, money, AND the opportunity to make more. Saul doesn't care, the word is he has options to fight the Bradley Rios winner.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on November 04, 2015, 11:09:32 PM
He will indeed because despite what people think, even if his fight sold out MSG (keep in mind ticket sales, and how many of the people were there for Lemeiux) he still only sold 125k ppvs which means people like watching him for free, but not 50.00 worth. Canelo, as I've said, is the draw. If Golovkin doesn't want to drop to 155 that's understandable, but he will ruin a golden opportunity to get more worldwide exposure, money, AND the opportunity to make more. Saul doesn't care, the word is he has options to fight the Bradley Rios winner.

Bradley and Rios would be a step up tbh....just can't bare another 1/100 walk over and the hype that goes with it.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on November 05, 2015, 09:27:27 AM
At least we have Ward starting his HBO contract to look forward to and his big fight with Kovalev.  It least I can look forward to seeing that in my retirement in 30 years time at the rate it's currently progressing.

Why on earth would Alvarez, as potential Middleweight champion, want to fight the winner of Bradley v Rios who are fighting for the Welterweight title?  Given that there are 17 weight classes in boxing now, eleven more than the traditional 8, it shouldn't be that hard to find a weight class that suits you.  It's a shame that Cotto (with Alvarez seemingly keen to take over the mantle) is conspiring to turn one of the most historically significant divisions in boxing into a joke.  Although the WBC are equally at fault for continuing to allow their title to be defended below the true 160lb division limit.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on November 05, 2015, 11:45:33 AM
At least we have Ward starting his HBO contract to look forward to and his big fight with Kovalev.  It least I can look forward to seeing that in my retirement in 30 years time at the rate it's currently progressing.

Why on earth would Alvarez, as potential Middleweight champion, want to fight the winner of Bradley v Rios who are fighting for the Welterweight title?  Given that there are 17 weight classes in boxing now, eleven more than the traditional 8, it shouldn't be that hard to find a weight class that suits you.  It's a shame that Cotto (with Alvarez seemingly keen to take over the mantle) is conspiring to turn one of the most historically significant divisions in boxing into a joke.  Although the WBC are equally at fault for continuing to allow their title to be defended below the true 160lb division limit.

All about money, Cotto brings cash to the table and therefore the WBC let him pick his weight(should not be allowed). I'm starting to think that Alavrez has taken the Cotto fight because of the scalp he could take rather than actually intending to make a move to middleweight and defend the title.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: The Hurricane on November 05, 2015, 11:59:34 AM
All about money, Cotto brings cash to the table and therefore the WBC let him pick his weight(should not be allowed). I'm starting to think that Alavrez has taken the Cotto fight because of the scalp he could take rather than actually intending to make a move to middleweight and defend the title.

All true unfortunately.  It seems ridiculous that the last time the WBC middleweight title was defended at a 160 limit was over two and a half years ago for Martinez v Murray.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 05, 2015, 01:45:37 PM
All true unfortunately.  It seems ridiculous that the last time the WBC middleweight title was defended at a 160 limit was over two and a half years ago for Martinez v Murray.

Yeah, a fight that IMO Martinez lost.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 05, 2015, 01:54:17 PM
All about money, Cotto brings cash to the table and therefore the WBC let him pick his weight(should not be allowed). I'm starting to think that Alavrez has taken the Cotto fight because of the scalp he could take rather than actually intending to make a move to middleweight and defend the title.


What's interesting is that everyone seems to be talking like Canelo is a sure win and based on styles and what I've seen from Cotto, Canelo is in for a long night, if he doesn't get stopped which wouldn't surprise me. Canelo is as flat footed as they come and gets hit clean often. He has shown poor stamina multiple times, was 168.2 at his 30 day weigh in, and was rocked by Cottos brother (a 140 lb fighter) by a similar hook that Cotto throws...he'll be in big trouble if he gets hit by that same shot from Miguel. I think Cotto is going to throw and move, use a lot of pivots and Canelo is going to have a hard time finding him all night long.

On a side note, I watched both of them vs. Mayweather and I think if Floyd wasn't a cautious fighter, he could've finished Alvarez at several points during that fight.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on November 05, 2015, 02:43:09 PM
What's interesting is that everyone seems to be talking like Canelo is a sure win and based on styles and what I've seen from Cotto, Canelo is in for a long night, if he doesn't get stopped which wouldn't surprise me. Canelo is as flat footed as they come and gets hit clean often. He has shown poor stamina multiple times, was 168.2 at his 30 day weigh in, and was rocked by Cottos brother (a 140 lb fighter) by a similar hook that Cotto throws...he'll be in big trouble if he gets hit by that same shot from Miguel. I think Cotto is going to throw and move, use a lot of pivots and Canelo is going to have a hard time finding him all night long.

On a side note, I watched both of them vs. Mayweather and I think if Floyd wasn't a cautious fighter, he could've finished Alvarez at several points during that fight.

Canelo wins...trust me.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 05, 2015, 02:52:02 PM
Canelo wins...trust me.

Guess we'll find out Timmy boy

How are you picking? SD,UD, KO, TKO?


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Tim2366 on November 05, 2015, 03:22:35 PM
Guess we'll find out Timmy boy

How are you picking? SD,UD, KO, TKO?

I can see him being RTD on stool. TKO if not.


Title: Re: GGG v Lemieux
Post by: Methodical4u on November 05, 2015, 03:48:06 PM
I can see him being RTD on stool. TKO if not.

Out of curiousity what do you base this on? Not their last opponent, Geale might have been at 157, but Kirkland was KO'd by a guy with what 6 KO's? 4? Something like that. I would say based on competition that Geale would've beaten Kirkland by KO as well.

Golovkin is still in question we agree there, but what about Canelo? His biggest win is Lara, which was a pretty close fight. Cotto's biggest is likely a much more prime Mosley (that Canelo fought when he was way passed it and had lost to both Floyd and Manny) or you could say the Martinez win, which we can argue the shape of his knees, but Sergio did say he just never recovered from the first knockdown.

Cotto flat out has better movement, not Floyd movement, but very tricky. I'm just wondering how you come to this prediction?