Roberto Duran vs Gennady Gennadyevich Golovkin at 160lbs

Xplosive's sadism but in reverse this time.

GGG fucks him up

 

Not sure tbh, I'd probably pick Duran, I'd need to see Gaybox in with a legit elite fighter before assessing his chances against Duran.

I'm pretty sure Hagler is better than Gaybox, and Duran almost gave as good as he got against Hagler, one of the best middleweights ever.

 

Even if Hagler were better than GGG (I don't agree) the styles differences make it irrelevant. Hagler is better than Hearns at 160lbs, if you go by their fight....but Hearns destroyed Duran easily and Hagler had a competitive fight with him. GGG punches harder than Hagler, is naturally bigger and quite frankly is more of a seek and destroy type of fighter than even Hagler was. Duran is too small to deal with that kind of animal

 

True, Hagler was more of a boxer than Gaybox, in spite of the Hearns fight. Hagler Vs Duran was more of a boxing match.

Gaybox would obviously be a tough assigment. He's an extremely good puncher, and relentless. But don't underestimate how fucking crafty Duran is, with much better defense and infighting than Gaybox.

You really think Gaybox is better than Hagler? Would you pick him head to head? I'm one of the biggest Triple Cute fans on the board, but I don't think he's as good as Hagler.

 

I have to admit...I'm a HUGE GGG fan. I think he's the real deal. I'd pick him over Hagler from what I've seen so far. I admit though we still don't know much about his chin. That's teh only question in my mind. If his chin turns out to be solid...then yes I'd say he's better than Hagler.

 

I think he's extremely legit too. So calm yet relentless, with effortless power and accuracy in both hands.

I'm just hesitant about assessing any fighter against legends, when they haven't passed a true litmus test against an elite fighter.

But yeah, though REED disagrees - "like I said before" you can just tell Golovkin is the goods, even against his limited opposition ;)

 

I was gonna give a prediction, but after hearing Sly say that GGG is better than Hagler, I'm walking out on this thread.......

 

Hagler is one of those guys, like Robinson where it is blasphemy among boxing fans to say any current fighter is better. It's silly though. Usain Bolt is faster than Carl Lewis...it's possible that Athletes today are superior to past legends. Just because GGG is part white part Asian and fights today, doesn't mean he's inferior to Hagler.

 

People....don't confuse legend with ability. Hagler will always be a legend, don't worry, nothing will take that away. Same with Robinson. But humans progress and get better, always have and always will be. It's the nature of things. Roy Jones would have done to Hagler what he did to James Toney for example. Hagler feasted on smaller fighters coming up...and even then he often struggled. GGG is a legit Middleweight....he's a Julio Cesar Chavez in a middleweight body, but with more power. Come on now! Why is it a stretch to say he's better than Hagler? Forget your boxing "religion" and accept some boxing "science".


The Sly One has Spoken!!

 

What???

 

Indeed. Humans do progress and get better.

Shawn Porter would have beaten the shit outta Ray Robinson.

 

GGG hasn't beaten anybody close to the level of Iran Barkley, who a faded fat Duran beat

 

That silly response doesn't change my point. I could say, for example, that men are bigger than women. That statement wouldn't be wrong. A similar response (to yours) to my point may involve some WNBA star vs some midget man from the pacific islands as a rebuttal.

I'm speaking in terms of trends and averages you lunatic. Obviously not every modern day fighter would beat every ancient fighter, but trending suggests that there will be some fighters than come along that would be better than past greats.

 

The talent pool in boxing overall is lower today than it was in the 80's. That's a FACT!

There are a number of fighters today who would still be good enough to compete in the golden era, and Golov is one of them.

Still doesn't mean he beats Hagler though.

Jones? Yes, I do believe Roy had the style and the physical tools to beat Hagler.

But I think if we're talking about the circa 84 Hagler, he takes GGG to school.

 

BTW - race has NADA to do with it! You're ignorant for even suggesting that. If your delusional ass still followed the forum you'd know that Kovalev and GGG are my two FAVORITE current fighters.

 

Fair enough. I take back the race comment...it was ignorant.

 

I don't know why you'd say this with such certainty. What has GGG shown that suggests that any middleweight would have taken him to school? It's not like he's Ricardo Mayorga or something. The guy has proper textbook skills. Hagler wasn't this virtuoso that made a habit of "schooling" great middleweights. IF Hagler were to have beaten GGG it would have been a competitive fight.

 

Nobody is claiming that Hagler would beat Golovkin in one sided fashion and that they don't belong in the same ring.

The Marvelous one is one of the best middleweights in history. While I feel GGG is the goods he still hasn't faced anybody in the same stratosphere as Hagler yet. That's not Golovkin's fault as the division is very poor, but until he's faced somebody at least close to the level of Marvin there is no evidence to suggest he's better or should be favoured head to head.

 

I hear this, but a fighter doesn't need to face someone close to the level of another before fight fans can make a reasonable assessment of their chances vs that other. Eubank hadn't fought anyone near Nigel benn's level before their first fight but for those of us who saw a few of Eubank's fights, we knew he'd possibly beat Nigel.

GGG has enough of a body of work already to gauge how good he is. Besides, it's not like he struggles...dude seems to wipe the floor with everyone in front of him. It shows ability when a fighter can consistently wipe the floor with the people they put in front of him regardless of who those people are. You can't tell me that he fought 30 something mexican road sweepers. Had to be some decent fighters in there.

 

I think GGG would win a decision. Too big and strong but Duran is slick enough to make it competitive and last the distance, although it'd be bad for his health.

 

Come on

 

This is where you're wrong.

 

How so? So anyone that would have picked George Foreman to beat Frazier before their first fight would have been silly to do so?

Thik about this in the bigger picture....

Larry Holmes never beat anyone on Joe Louis' level. Joe Louis never beat anyone on Larry Holmes Level. Therefore does that mean that we can't make a realistic assessment of each other's chances vs the other?

 

Sly does have a point. I do like to wait until a fighter has beaten an elite fighter before judging his chances against legends, but the fact is EVERYONE at one point was unproven.

Floyd, Pacquiao, etc etc, obviously at one point in their careers they hadn't yet beaten any elite fighters, but some people wisely picked them nonetheless, in their first tough matchups.

 

I think Hagler was too good a boxer for GGG. Too versatile. Plus that great chin.

I'd have to see GGG beat a top guy first. And he'd probably have to do it at 168 at the very least because if he were to fight and BEAT Miguel Cotto, that is not enough of an indication to me that he'd be able to beat a top 160 pounder like Hagler.

 

I think the real question here is does Floyd Mayweather have a better shot at beating GGG than Marvin Hagler

 

completely agree

 

still waiting for GGG to fight someone

 

But with the same token, the great fighters Hagler beat were moving up from lighter divisions (Hearns and Duran). Hagler never beat a full fledged Middleweight that was as good as GGG.

Beating Hearns was impressive...but Hearns was chinny and had stamina problems. GGG has neither.

 

My thoughts exactly.

Duran UD