GGG claims his run at MW was better than Hopkins

[FlowchartRog]

That is actually my all time favorite fight. I feel I am one of the biggest Bhop fans on here. Floyd and Bhop are my favorite fighters. Bhop vs Tito is my favorite fight, followed by Floyd vs Canelo. Bhop vs Pavlik is another one of my favorite fights. Not the most action packed fights, but proof of what hard work and dedication gets you. Reminds me of Shaolin Monk type stuff to be on that next level, even among other professional fighters.

Surprised you're that high on Hopkins - Tito. Nard is great and it was a good performance, but for me he simply did what I expected - dominated a plodding, limited welterweight. A guy who was smaller, overrated, and was completely befuddled by a jab and movement.

Floyd whitewashing Canelo age 36 was very impressive, as was Nard dominating Pavlik, as they both defied the odds to some extent, especially given their ages in those fights. Again taking age and weight into account, pretty much all of Hopkins' wins at 175 were more impressive to me than him beating a limited, plodding welterweight.

 

[XThe GreatestX]

I actually think when you consider just how old he was, the pascal fights are damn impressivr

 

[XThe GreatestX]

Surprised you're that high on Hopkins - Tito. Nard is great and it was a good performance, but for me he simply did what I expected - dominated a plodding, limited welterweight. A guy who was smaller, overrated, and was completely befuddled by a jab and movement.

Floyd whitewashing Canelo age 36 was very impressive, as was Nard dominating Pavlik, as they both defied the odds to some extent, especially given their ages in those fights. Again taking age and weight into account, pretty much all of Hopkins' wins at 175 were more impressive to me than him beating a limited, plodding welterweight.

I sorta agree about tito tbh.....

I just happened to have watched that Oscar fight again and I think I gave Tito one round after 9.......

Seriously he looked COMPLETELY lost in there

 

[FlowchartRog]

I sorta agree about tito tbh.....

I just happened to have watched that Oscar fight again and I think I gave Tito one round after 9.......

Seriously he looked COMPLETELY lost in there that night

Precisely. Lost is an apt description, against just some good old fashioned boxing and moving from Oscar.

Why anyone thought he'd beat Hopkins after the Oscar fight is bizarre. He has feet like lead, like he's moving underwater, and gets dominated by a good jab and defence.

It goes to show what hype and some impressive KO's can do, even in the eyes of the bookies. Having seen him get schooled by Oscar, the idea of him KOing big, strong, skilled, tough as nails and HIGHLY crafty Hopkins was just absolutely insane.

 

[FlowchartRog]

I actually think when you consider just how old he was, the pascal fights are damn impressivr

Absolutely. The guy was fucking old at that point, and Pascal was a solid, capable guy at world level. Strong too.

As a long time Nard fan I was really happy with some of those wins at 175, Tarver, Pavlik, Pascal and even the Beibut win.

 

[FlowchartRog]

Oh and just for the lolz, here is another guy Tito fought with a good jab and defence. In case you didn't guess, he kinda won the battle of the jabs

 

[DeJulez]

Eh. Oscar was all time robbed in that tito fight

But yes hopkins did embarrass jim

I agree but Felix was one of the best in the sport at that time

 

[DeJulez]

Surprisingly bad posts from you @DeJulez

You were impressed with Nard's win over a 160 pound Oscar who had no business at the weight, in a fight that looked like a business transaction? Really?

And Trinidad too? I have always been a big fan of Hopkins and was one of people who firmly believed Hopkins would beat the shit out of Tito, and that Nard being a 3 to 1 underdog just proved how fucking overrated Tito was.

Hopkins beat up a 1 dimensional, overrated welterweight, just like he should have done. It was far from his most impressive win.

I agree with @Queen B I'm actually far more impressed with Hopkins wins post MW, he defied the odds in beating some the of the guys he did in his old age and at higher weight divisons, he simply did what he should have done in beating two welterweights who had done absolutely nothing at middleweight.

I would actually be confident in picking Hopkins over Golovkin, it's a really tough style matchup for Gennady. Hopkins was an expert in neutralising punchers, and his combination of range, speed, movement, defence and chin would be too much for Gennady to overcome.

Having said that, if Golovkin beats Charlo there is no doubt in my mind he'd have a better MW record. Jacobs, Canelo and Charlo are better middleweights than Joppy, Tito and Oscar.

I said Oscar was past his weight and prime but is still a big win.
Tito was a strong win as well. Undefeated, and was favored heavily.
And everyone would agree that BHops best and signature wins came after MW but in arguing GGGs resume vs Hopkins MW resume, Hopkins is better.
Let's not forget that GGGs best win is Kell Brook who is not a MW.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Surprised you're that high on Hopkins - Tito. Nard is great and it was a good performance, but for me he simply did what I expected - dominated a plodding, limited welterweight. A guy who was smaller, overrated, and was completely befuddled by a jab and movement.

I dont disagree with any of that. The reason it is my favorite fight has more to do with my own personal story and how it impacted me. I could write an essay about it really. In short tho, I was new to the sport of boxing at the time, one of the first major fights I ever saw. The HBO build up and the fight itself motivated me a lot, to make several personal changes at the time, which have influenced me ever since.

 

[FlowchartRog]

I said Oscar was past his weight and prime but is still a big win.
Tito was a strong win as well. Undefeated, and was favored heavily.
And everyone would agree that BHops best and signature wins came after MW but in arguing GGGs resume vs Hopkins MW resume, Hopkins is better.
Let's not forget that GGGs best win is Kell Brook who is not a MW.

I disagree it was a big win. Just like I don't think Brook is a big for Gennady, he did what he was supposed to - beat the shit out of a good welterweight, and he actually did it more easily and brutally than Hopkins beat his welters.

Tito arguably was a big win, rightly or wrongly, it was a big fight with a big build up, a lot of hype and Tito was indeed favourited to win (mindbogglingly).

But with Oscar the feeling at the time was it was a gimme for Nard, it wasn't an interesting fight, and afterwards most people thought Oscar basically looked for a place to lay down in a fight that looked like a business transaction.

It also seems to me you're kind of looking to shit on Golovkin, for whatever reason, I guess you just don't like him.

It just so happens I'm a big fan of both guys, two of my favourite fighters from their respective eras, so I am objective with them.

So yeah I completely disagree Brook is Gennady's best win. The Canelo fight was not a draw, I consider that a win as should any sane person, and Canelo is a much better fighter than Brook, especially at middleweight. Jacobs would also batter Brook, so that is a better win.

You proved your bias against Golovkin when you acted like the Canelo draw was fair and that "people had it going both ways". That's utter bullshit.

The media scores were incredibly one sided, just look http://www.mmadecisions.com/decision/8418/Gennady-Golovkin-vs-Saul-Alvarez

21-1 ffs! That's ridiculously one sided for any big fight that's at all competitive. The vast majority of fighters thought Gennady won too. Canelo landed some flashy counters, but other than just backpeddled, fought quite negatively, and simply got outlanded and controlled by Golovkin. The fact that the best Golden Boy could come up with was a draw says it all, and they were over the moon with that draw. If it was really a close fight, they probably would have had Canelo winning 118-110. We're talking about a guy who one judge had him at a draw in a fight he lost every round against Floyd

 

[FlowchartRog]

I dont disagree with any of that. The reason it is my favorite fight has more to do with my own personal story and how it impacted me. I could write an essay about it really. In short tho, I was new to the sport of boxing at the time, one of the first major fights I ever saw. The HBO build up and the fight itself motivated me a lot, to make several personal changes at the time, which have influenced me ever since.

That's fair enough, and interesting it had that much impact for you

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I’m a huge fan of GGG, but no.

 

[DeJulez]

I disagree it was a big win. Just like I don't think Brook is a big for Gennady, he did what he was supposed to - beat the shit out of a good welterweight, and he actually did it more easily and brutally than Hopkins beat his welters.

Tito arguably was a big win, rightly or wrongly, it was a big fight with a big build up, a lot of hype and Tito was indeed favourited to win (mindbogglingly).

But with Oscar the feeling at the time was it was a gimme for Nard, it wasn't an interesting fight, and afterwards most people thought Oscar basically looked for a place to lay down in a fight that looked like a business transaction.

It also seems to me you're kind of looking to shit on Golovkin, for whatever reason, I guess you just don't like him.

It just so happens I'm a big fan of both guys, two of my favourite fighters from their respective eras, so I am objective with them.

So yeah I completely disagree Brook is Gennady's best win. The Canelo fight was not a draw, I consider that a win as should any sane person, and Canelo is a much better fighter than Brook, especially at middleweight. Jacobs would also batter Brook, so that is a better win.

You proved your bias against Golovkin when you acted like the Canelo draw was fair and that "people had it going both ways". That's utter bullshit.

The media scores were incredibly one sided, just look http://www.mmadecisions.com/decision/8418/Gennady-Golovkin-vs-Saul-Alvarez

21-1 ffs! That's ridiculously one sided for any big fight that's at all competitive. The vast majority of fighters thought Gennady won too. Canelo landed some flashy counters, but other than just backpeddled, fought quite negatively, and simply got outlanded and controlled by Golovkin. The fact that the best Golden Boy could come up with was a draw says it all, and they were over the moon with that draw. If it was really a close fight, they probably would have had Canelo winning 118-110. We're talking about a guy who one judge had him at a draw in a fight he lost every round against Floyd

I like Jacobs and he will be GGGs best win if his career continues to shine. But at this moment Kell Brooks is his best win. He didn't beat Canelo. And if he had it would change this conversation greatly.
At this moment a stoppage over Tito and Oscar is bigger than a close win over Jacobs and a stoppage of Brooks.
Also let's not forget Joppy.

 

[BoxingMMA]

Perhaps GGG is basing his remarks on the fact that he never got literally butt sexed in the ring?

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Surprised you're that high on Hopkins - Tito. Nard is great and it was a good performance, but for me he simply did what I expected - dominated a plodding, limited welterweight. A guy who was smaller, overrated, and was completely befuddled by a jab and movement.

Floyd whitewashing Canelo age 36 was very impressive, as was Nard dominating Pavlik, as they both defied the odds to some extent, especially given their ages in those fights. Again taking age and weight into account, pretty much all of Hopkins' wins at 175 were more impressive to me than him beating a limited, plodding welterweight.

Was new to boxing, and based on what I was reading, Trinidad was a god. He was actually a 3:1 favorite over Bhop for that fight. He actually bet like $100k on himself with those odds to. But more important to the win was the built up, and learning about how Bhop turned his life around by dedicating himself to the sport. I was also reading a book called Psycho-Cybernetics at the time, which is all about programming your brain through visualization. Bhop talks a LOT about stuff like that.

With Pavlik, he was +425, and I knew he was going to school him. I Made a lot of money that night.

 

[FighterFirst]

Welllllllllll I love both guys BUUUT, Hopkins two most notable wins were against welterweights. GGG doesnt have a super impressive resume, but there wasnt anyone super impressive to fight either. He beat Canelo, he beat Jacobs, just because he didnt knock them out people thought it was "close." Most of Hopkins fights were not as dominant, although due to styles, but still.

Also, GGG is still undefeated, while Hopkins lost his strap to Taylor, I dont know that we can for sure say anything was more impressive about that run. I'd say they're both equally as legendary at middleweight.

 

[Blazeblack]

Welllllllllll I love both guys BUUUT, Hopkins two most notable wins were against welterweights. GGG doesnt have a super impressive resume, but there wasnt anyone super impressive to fight either. He beat Canelo, he beat Jacobs, just because he didnt knock them out people thought it was "close." Most of Hopkins fights were not as dominant, although due to styles, but still.

Also, GGG is still undefeated, while Hopkins lost his strap to Taylor, I dont know that we can for sure say anything was more impressive about that run. I'd say they're both equally as legendary at middleweight.

Both Taylor fights were about as close as Golovkin’s fight with Jacobs...

 

[Blazeblack]

GGG had a better MW run, but Hopkin's best performances (besides Trinidad) came AFTER his MW run

Tarver, Winky, Pavlik, Cloud, Shumenov, Murat all came after his MW run

I just have a hard time agreeing with the notion that GGG fought better opposition than Hopkins. Both of them bested roughly 6 or 7 title holders or former title holders during there reigns the noticeably difference being that half of those on GGG’s end were “interim” champions. GGG’s most notable victories Brook, Lemieux, Jacobs (who he arguably lost to) against Bernard’s in Joppy, Keith Holmes, and John David Jackson on the surface those are comparable. The real deal breaker for me is that Golovkin struggled to get a draw with Canelo, Bernard dominated then stopped his Canelo (Tito). Hopkins was able to rise to the challenge and proved himself in a legacy fight at mw so far the same cannot be said about GGG.

 

[GordoBarraBJJ]

i'm a huge GGG fan but I'd say the win over Trinidad puts Hopkins just a bit ahead.

Either way an amazing accomplishment by both fighters.

and people forget that Hopkins resume is littered with cans himself. Nostalgia and blind hate towards GGG seems to breed selective memory.

 

[Seano]

Surprised you're that high on Hopkins - Tito. Nard is great and it was a good performance, but for me he simply did what I expected - dominated a plodding, limited welterweight. A guy who was smaller, overrated, and was completely befuddled by a jab and movement.

Floyd whitewashing Canelo age 36 was very impressive, as was Nard dominating Pavlik, as they both defied the odds to some extent, especially given their ages in those fights. Again taking age and weight into account, pretty much all of Hopkins' wins at 175 were more impressive to me than him beating a limited, plodding welterweight.

Thats revisionist history. Overrated my ass. Trinidad was destroying everyone he fought and fighting pretty solid competition at that.Trinidad was the favorite in that fight.