Felix Trinidad vs GGG 160lbs

Bombs away

 

GGG is the stronger, more durable, harder hitting guy at that weight. Hard to see Tito winning. He may even get stopped. My guess would be that GGG wins a dec (dropping Tito along the way, of course) due to being just wary enough of Tito's power to not go all out.

 

Trinidad's gets stopped mid-way by Golovkin who's a clear, solid guy at that weight and has heavy hands.
Trinidad didn't make much of an impact at 160lb at all.

There was a period circa 2000-01 when people where all over Tito as 'The Second Coming' cos he'd blasted-out Vargas and , Joppy.
The hangover-after-that-party that followed was pure hilarity on the boxing forums.

 

Im not so sure. Joppy was probably better than anyone GGG faced (dont say Lemieux), and tito destroyed him. Thinking about it, i would actually pick tito to win this one

 

Joppy hadn't faced anyone of any note though. I distinctly remember him being called out as one of the then, 'Paper Champions' with his startling win in the mid-90s against.....whoever it was.

Plus, Joppy was the first Tito opponent to mention something about 'handwraps'...

 

At this point, I'd have to make Golov the favorite.

HOWEVER, it's not a foregone conclusion. Tito was miles better than LeMoo. Tito was also miles better than Crapnelo.

 

GGG's looked like a killing machine at mw and Tito looked vulnerable, but Tito would fuck up anyone GGG has fought at mw just as impressively as Golov did IMO.

It's just too soon to say since we really haven't seen GGG tested, chin or otherwise. Just seeing GGG get wobbled in a fight would dramatically change how people view his chances against Tito because he's so unknown.

 

Also Jr. Middle Tito and mw GGG are about the same size. I don't think Tito put on the extra weight for middle well. I think he happened to move up at the end of his physical prime and was kind of panchy at mw but I'd take the Tito that fought Vargas over GGG.

 

I don't think GGG would have obliterated Joppy AS impressively as Tito did. Trinidad was a more devastating/explosive puncher. Golov's power is more of the thudding type. He would have given Joppy a methodical beating rather than destroy him.

On the other hand, I think Golov would have been more competitive with prime Hopkins than Tito was. HOWEVER, prime Hop beats Golov by a clear margin. It just wouldn't have been the same kind of wipeout that Hopkins-Tito was. Still would have ended with Hopkins outclassing Golov though.

 

I don't think Hopkins would have "outclassed" GGG but he would have beaten him fairly clearly.

 

I know REED will be pleased to hear me say this.... but I find Golov overrated when compared to the greats.

I don't have much of a reason to believe he could deal with a Hopkins, Jones, Hagler, Monzon, ect.

I just think he'll smash mediocre ass Crapnelo.

 

i like to see fans doubting ggg's abilities. until proven otherwise (in the ring), it must be assumed he is not on the level of a hopkins or monzon. i know this is obvious to most of us, but there seems to be a willingness among some of us to assume that beating weak opposition impressively is sufficient to be called great (it may be necessary, but it is definitely not sufficient).

 

Well, Monzon was a bit methodical himself.

But in terms of Hagler/Hopkins, I just don't think Golov matches up well against them stylewise.

Especially not Hagler. Golov seems easier to nail against southpaws. I think Hagler's piston right jab and accuracy would have been too much for Golov.

 

i guess it is not blasphemy to pick ggg to beat an all time great in a mm (such as monzon). presumably, such a pick would be based on some amount of logic and deductive reasoning. my point is, any case for his doing so should take into account that his abilities have not yet been tested against top opposition. for example, ggg may be faster and more fluid than monzon. but so was joppy. and given the right opposition, joppy too had some dominant performances. ggg's lack of meaningful wins should leave a lot of doubt right now about his prospects as a truly deserving p4p star.

 

Ohhhh. I read your initial post wrong.

I agree. There's no way to compare him to atg's when his best win is Lemieux.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan. And I think Golov's a DAMN good fighter. But I'm not yet convinced he's amongst the elite MW greats.

Not even beating Canelo will convince me of that. I mean, let's be very honest.... Monzon, Hagler, and Hopkins would have beaten that shitty Ginger within an inch of his life.

 

I'd take GGG over Hopkins because of his footwork, jab and work rate. Even if Hopkins boxes great GGG would just keep putting himself in position to work and keep working.

I'd take Tito over GGG because while Golovkin has better footwork he mainly seems comfortable using it to stay at mid range and that's Tito's wheelhouse.

 

What evidence is there at all that GGG is durable or more durable than Tito? That's insane.He's taken the odd shot from guys that were suppose to be punchers but he's never really been in a rough fight with a decent fighter. Tito was a certified warrior.

 

You're lost your mind.

Prime Hopkins beats Golov. NO DOUBT in my mind about that.

 

I don't see Hopkins being quick enough to totally befuddle Golovkin and when that's not happening he's losing. Hopkins whole thing is controlling pace and distance. Golov is great at controlling and closing distance, and he can throw a lot of shots behind the jab which was is the bane of Hopkins boxing.

 

Against LeMoo, Murray, and Macklin...

I know REED will pleased when he reads this, but.... GGG is getting overrated. He'll look like a killer if he fights that little Ginger, but prime Hopkins is a different animal.

Hopkins in his physical prime was quicker and more athletic than many might remember.

I just feel Golov is too straight forward and hittable to win.

He's a DAMN GOOD fighter, don't get me wrong. But he has weaknesses. Weaknesses that bum ass Canelo won't be able to expose, but that Hopkins would expose.

 

Like he exposed Jermain Taylor? Lol

 

Yeah, because the Hopkins of 97-02 was the SAME version as the 05 Hop that fought Taylor...

 

The problem is, what if Golovkin was the "proven" guy (despite Hopkins' 160 resume being absolute DICK), and Hopkins was the current fighter with the opposition GGG has in front of him. Would it then be as clear-cut?

 

There is no incontrovertable evidence, as they don't have a common opponent. Also, GGG hasn't faced the level of opposition that Tito has faced. In this situation, one can only surmise. GGG simply looks incredibly strong & durable at that weight, & Tito did not (even though he faced a better lvl of opp), as much to me. There's no question, however, that Tito was a warrior. I couldn't possibly dispute that.

 

A much missed point. Hopkins in his 'prime' fought almost non-stop absolute rubbish. Between losing to Roy (which he gets a pass for by almost everyone as he was 'green') and losing to Taylor (which he gets a pass for by almost everyone for being 'old') his best wins in this 'prime' are against a career welterweight, a fixed fight against another welterweight, a guy who arguably lost to Howard Eastman and the bloke who went to war three times with Clinton Woods.

MTF

 

Exactly. Career wise Hopkins has a very good resume but people seem to conflate that with his long middleweight reign. There was a lot of garbage in there. That shouldn't be surprising though. Unless a fighter is lucky enough to be in a golden era there's always going to be a bunch mediocre guys getting title shots, especially when you stay in one weight division. It's not Bernard's fault there were so few good contenders. Often times all a fighter can do is take care of the opponents in front of them. That's what Hopkins did and it's what Golovkin is doing now.

 

Strong? Sure. But how do you "look durable" while barely getting hit?

 

Hopkins best wins pretty much all came after he lost his MW title.

MTF

 

He's not a Mayweather/Whitaker type who's nearly impossible hit flush. He's an offensive fighter who's had 35 pro fights so far and got hit plenty and never once appeared hurt. I think it's fair to say he's durable. That doesn't mean he's Marvin Hagler.

 

No he's GGG who destroys guys with little to no resistance. I haven't seen him "hit plenty" at all. I've seen him take maybe 4 punches that look like they could hurt a world class fighter. I've seen Terry Norris and Amir Khan stand up more hard punches than GGG. Lol