GGG vs The Brit fab four !! (Benn, Eubank, Watson and Collins)

The fact I give all of these guys a better chance against GGG than the current crop of Brit middle tends to tell you how much respect I have for the former and the latter...........

I think Collins may struggle and Watson............. However I'd love to see GGG attempt to unlock the enigmatic Eubank who could box well, bang and was very durable....

Eubank by decision............

Also would leave to see GGG on the back foot against a bobbing and weaving big hitter like Benn to see If he could cope...........He's a great stalker a bit like Louis..........But would Louis have stalked Frazier or Foreman........I doubt it..........GGG doesn't seem that elusive to me....Pushing Benn back offers it's own problems when you don't move your head !!

Pickem.........

GGG ko 11 Watson..........
GGG w12 Collins....

I think GGG will end up P4P number 1............So it's not really a pop at him ....He is a very good fighter !!........Just think like Bruno most of these guys would be dominant now in this one..

I would pick Eubank to win a decision. Tough chin, could handle GGG power.

Benn could ko him and if GGG went in stalk mode, with a low guard, that would happen. Though if GGG boxes I think he could stop Benn Late.

Watson could win a decision, but think GGG would ko him.

Collins probably losses the decision but not a forgone conclusion. GGG obviously a better boxer but perhaps a bigger collins could bully him and score a decision. Unlikely but possible.

I know Calzaghe isn't a middle but if he were, he would beat GGG rather easily imo with his speed, fitness and natural size.

AdamT wrote:I would pick Eubank to win a decision. Tough chin, could handle GGG power.

Benn could ko him and if GGG went in stalk mode, with a low guard, that would happen. Though if GGG boxes I think he could stop Benn Late.

Watson could win a decision, but think GGG would ko him.

Collins probably losses the decision but not a forgone conclusion. GGG obviously a better boxer but perhaps a bigger collins could bully him and score a decision. Unlikely but possible.

I know Calzaghe isn't a middle but if he were, he would beat GGG rather easily imo with his speed, fitness and natural size.

I picked Watson to beat McCallum.....He fought the wrong fight......Think he'd probably do the same here..

Saw a recent interview with him where he didn't rate MCCallum and basically hinted he screwed up............

Think though the McCallum struggle may have contributed to his condition............A real sapping fight and great one..

Watson could fight that's for sure. My said he probably was the pick of the bunch as far as ability is concerned compared to Benn and Eubank.

He certainly had Eubank's number and Benn's...........

Should have beaten McCallum though............

Should have had a better career..

Bit like Herol Graham. Should of and would of. Two fantastic talents.

AdamT wrote:Bit like Herol Graham. Should of and would of. Two fantastic talents.

Seemed to lose his head in big fights.................Wouldn't give him a prayer against GGG..

He would be chinned.

Here is one for you Truss. Hearns vs GGG.

Could Hearns get him out of there before he is chinned himself?

GGG would have a punchers chance like everyone else..........

Got to get past the jab and brutal body work..

I guess we need to see ggg in with someone who will look to push him back and/or really go for him before we can give a better educated answer. What we do know is that among that lot you have two real durable tough guys, a serious gunslinger and a good allrounder.

I actually think ggg would beat them all, but, in different ways, they would all present more of a challenge than anyone he's fought to date.

I'd love to have see benn golovkin.

Collins would have zero chance at all, IMO. Would be knocked out after 6 or 7.
Watson would be stopped late.
Benn would be knocked out or knock GGG out in a blood bath
Eubank would be the only one who could win on points, IMO. IF that Eubank chin held up, he'd have a chance.

Collins was a tough mofo seany.

With Eubank I suspect it's whether his ribs held up. I'm fairly confident his chin would. Just don't think he'd be active enough to win on points.

A lot of supposition though... We haven't seen ggg with anyone who gives him something to think about defensively. I think all four of them are a step up for him.

Collins never got stopped off some serious operaters, who is to say GGG would nail him.

GGG is a joy to watch and a very good fighter but he is being rated a tad high in my opinion. He is the best middle at the minute but as far as I am concerned the jury is still out on how good he really is.

His competition is bad compared to past eras. People say Wlad isn't an atg because his era sucks.

Then why does GGG get a free pass? Is it because he is exciting to watch and Wlad is boring?

By the way I like Gennady, he is a breath of fresh air but he hasn't the competition at Middle. If nobody will fight him, then perhaps he should fight at Super middle.

If he is better than the 4 above him, then he should have no problem north of Middleweight and should get the big fights his talent deserves.

I don't know if I'd have the stomach for Benn GGG! It'd be ferocious, you know you'd be watching a career shortening fight for one or possibly both.

Remember Uncle Truss saying GGG hasn't fought anyone and thus these mythical matchups should be discarded.

But as it's Friday:

Loses to a Gman version of Benn in a totally and utterly hideously brutal war via 11th round KO

Watson outboxes him all night long to a 118-110 sort of UD

Eubank whethers some storms to win by 116-112

Collins loses by late KO or points.

Bit hard to guage not only because GGG has never had to fight anyone in the class of these 4 but also because all 4 of the boxers are inconsistent, they all have their strengths and all have their weaknesses

If anyone goes to war with GGG they are in trouble as hes a huge puncher and while the head shots may not do em its the body attack of GGG that could wear any or all of em dow depending on how they approach it

Coxy001 wrote:Remember Uncle Truss saying GGG hasn't fought anyone and thus these mythical matchups should be discarded.

But as it's Friday:

Loses to a Gman version of Benn in a totally and utterly hideously brutal war via 11th round KO

Watson outboxes him all night long to a 118-110 sort of UD

Eubank whethers some storms to win by 116-112

Collins loses by late KO or points.

I said it about Joshua 11-0 against Tyson..........GGG is a little different....

Muppet..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Remember Uncle Truss saying GGG hasn't fought anyone and thus these mythical matchups should be discarded.

But as it's Friday:

Loses to a Gman version of Benn in a totally and utterly hideously brutal war via 11th round KO

Watson outboxes him all night long to a 118-110 sort of UD

Eubank whethers some storms to win by 116-112

Collins loses by late KO or points.

I said it about Joshua 11-0 against Tyson..........GGG is a little different....

Muppet..

"Good luck to Lee...however GGG may be overrated"

"Haito I don't thing GGG is the real deal yet IF he ever will be.."

And my personal favourite

"GGG has never beaten anybody.."

on the Lee vs GGG thread.... https://www.606v2.com/t51650p50-ggg-vs-andy-lee

How exactly does that back up your initial post Coxy? Grow up.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:How exactly does that back up your initial post Coxy? Grow up.

Hammersmith, Truss decided to call me a muppet even though I said we (based on his criteria) aren't really in a position to make a call as GGG hasn't fought anyone.

He's been quite vocal on GGG not fighting anyone, so was just reminding him that he has in fact said just that.

Just being a tool again then Coxy by needlessly trying to point score.

There's a rather big difference between Anthony Joshua fighting nobody at 11-0 and Golovkin not fighting anybody great as a world champion with 13 world title fights under his belt, although i'm sure you already know that.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Just being a tool again then Coxy by needlessly trying to point score.

There's a rather big difference between Anthony Joshua fighting nobody at 11-0 and Golovkin not fighting anybody great as a world champion with 13 world title fights under his belt, although i'm sure you already know that.

I didn't bring AJ in to this...?

And I gave my opinion on the fights, albeit with a little dig at Truss for his "GGG hasn't fought anyone" stance. Quite why you decided to get involved is a bit beyond me.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Just being a tool again then Coxy by needlessly trying to point score.

There's a rather big difference between Anthony Joshua fighting nobody at 11-0 and Golovkin not fighting anybody great as a world champion with 13 world title fights under his belt, although i'm sure you already know that.

He's just trying to wind me up..................and failing miserably..

You bit..................anyway..........moving.........on......;

Shame GGG didn't come along 5 years ago, would've had him move up against Froch by now. Would've been a cracker that. Also reckon pre-effed-hands Calzaghe would've also been a decent scrap, possibly better than Froch as there wouldn't the ugly bargy wildness Froch sometime brings.

He did come along five years ago....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He did come along five years ago....

If you're going to be pedantic then at the mainstream/elite level he's at today.

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He did come along five years ago....

If you're going to be pedantic then at the mainstream/elite level he's at today.

He had a World title in 2010............What more do you want....

Manny, May, Rigo are at elite level...............We are still waiting for GGG to get there..

I don't think we know enough about Golovkin. From what we've seen, he would be too good for the middleweight versions of either of them. One result can change everything, though. Probably better to wait until a man's career is over before evaluating him.

hazharrison wrote:I don't think we know enough about Golovkin. From what we've seen, he would be too good for the middleweight versions of either of them......

"We've" seen..

I haven't seen anything but a come forward stalker.....Albeit a good one..

GGG smashes all four.  Only Collins and Eubank can survive 12 rounds but they would be well beaten.

This fab four were basically fighting domestically.  I would more see GGG as being in the category of top 1980's middleweights.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He did come along five years ago....

If you're going to be pedantic then at the mainstream/elite level he's at today.

He had a World title in 2010............What more do you want....

Manny, May, Rigo are at elite level...............We are still waiting for GGG to get there..

Holding a belt doesn't give a fighter elite level status nowadays Truss.

Prov, Quigg hold belts and you think they're awful as one example. More neutral examples would be Rees, Maussa etc.

Agree on GGG, problem is getting a guy who wants to fight him. Not helping himself by fighting in Monaco etc.

I think GGG beats them all.

Benn loses by KO or stoppage too wide open and gets tagged early.

Watson loses Pts, good boxer would give good account of himself.

Eubank loses Pts, outworked, could be lazy in many fights.

Collins  loses Pts, limited but tough tough man with a solid chin, could see him making this a scrappy fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I don't think we know enough about Golovkin. From what we've seen, he would be too good for the middleweight versions of either of them......

"We've" seen..

I haven't seen anything but a come forward stalker.....Albeit a good one..

Point being?

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He did come along five years ago....

If you're going to be pedantic then at the mainstream/elite level he's at today.

He had a World title in 2010............What more do you want....

Manny, May, Rigo are at elite level...............We are still waiting for GGG to get there..

Holding a belt doesn't give a fighter elite level status nowadays Truss.

Prov, Quigg hold belts and you think they're awful as one example. More neutral examples would be Rees, Maussa etc.

Agree on GGG, problem is getting a guy who wants to fight him. Not helping himself by fighting in Monaco etc.

When have I ever said Quigg is awful ??................Think he has a chance against Donaire, Frampton and down the road an aging Rigo....Not sure I'd pick him to win against the latter two but he'd have a decent chance......

Certainly a class above Rees, Maussa and Provo..

I think Eubank would be too cute for GGG and I'm not sure GGG would be able to deal with Benn's swarming style early...........Certainly have to show better defence than he has so far.....at 160........Chances would increase the longer it goes...

Benn was a different monster at 160.......power wise....

Think we'd all concede that Macklin, Murray aren't in the same league as any of the fab four..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Think we'd all concede that Macklin, Murray aren't in the same league as any of the fab four..

Nah, murray's a better opponent than manny.

If a respected journalist say's he is...............He is !!!!!!!!!!

Always funny to read fantasy predictions like, "We don't really know how good fighter X is, so I'm predicting he loses". Schrodinger would be turning in his grave.

... Just caveating raf. I gave my view that he beats them from what I've seen of him, With the rider that there's always doubt when you have an unbeaten fighter who hadn't fought top drawer fighters yet. Same call on the Tyson Joshua thread.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He did come along five years ago....

If you're going to be pedantic then at the mainstream/elite level he's at today.

He had a World title in 2010............What more do you want....

Manny, May, Rigo are at elite level...............We are still waiting for GGG to get there..

Holding a belt doesn't give a fighter elite level status nowadays Truss.

Prov, Quigg hold belts and you think they're awful as one example. More neutral examples would be Rees, Maussa etc.

Agree on GGG, problem is getting a guy who wants to fight him. Not helping himself by fighting in Monaco etc.

When have I ever said Quigg is awful ??................Think he has a chance against Donaire, Frampton and down the road an aging Rigo....Not sure I'd pick him to win against the latter two but he'd have a decent chance......

Certainly a class above Rees, Maussa and Provo..

I think Eubank would be too cute for GGG and I'm not sure GGG would be able to deal with Benn's swarming style early...........Certainly have to show better defence than he has so far.....at 160........Chances would increase the longer it goes...

Benn was a different monster at 160.......power wise....

Think we'd all concede that Macklin, Murray aren't in the same league as any of the fab four..

At middleweight Benn had stamina issues from draining himself to make weight. He was buzzed by Anthony Logan, Iran Barkley; dropped by Doug DeWitt and stopped by Watson and Eubank.

Golovkin has been in with men of a similar calibre and hasn't so much as blinked when caught. I fail to see a way for him to beat Golovkin. Benn was a much more well-rounded fighter at 168 after he ditched Ambrose Mendy and knuckled down under Tibbs and Saunders.

It's less a critique and more a bugbear, Milky. Certainly one I can understand... But not one I subscribe to. It wouldn't make sense in any other walk of life - imagine comparing cars and deciding the Corolla must do better mileage round the city because the Focus sedan's highway mileage looks a little too fantastic.

Golovkin hasn't been in with any one of the calibre of Barkley, Watson or Eubank that's the point, he hasn't really been in with a decent puncher yet either. I haven't seen anything yet to suggest he could withstand an early Nigel Benn onslaught, dodgy chin or not he's a class above a Martin Murray.

You've also seen absolutely nothing to show he couldn't. To then decide he can't flies in the face of logic

Eubank and Benn were great characters and were in some fantastic fights but the English do frightfully over rate them.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Golovkin hasn't been in with any one of the calibre of Barkley, Watson or Eubank that's the point, he hasn't really been in with a decent puncher yet either. I haven't seen anything yet to suggest he could withstand an early Nigel Benn onslaught, dodgy chin or not he's a class above a Martin Murray.

Barkley? An average fighter at best according to you when Duran beat him. Benn faced a lesser version and now you're citing him? Eubank and Watson may have been better middles than Murray (there's a debate there) but Nigel was stopped by both while Golovkin beat the living daylights out of Murray and so offering an early Benn win is typically one-eyed.

It's called an opinion and there isn't much debate at all that they're better middleweights than Murray. Barkley was fairly average but he's still better than Murray, Geale or Macklin.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's called an opinion and there isn't much debate at all that they're better middleweights than Murray. Barkley was fairly average but he's still better than Murray, Geale or Macklin.

You claimed he was worse than average.

I don't know, a Hopkins fan who complains Whitaker and Golovkin are boring. Hypocritical arguments. Wild, baseless picks that end up being wild off the mark. Sooner or later you'll need to reevaluate this priggish, pretentious attitude.

Humble pie?

Did benn beat a lesser version of barkley than duran? Given that barkley dropped a split to nunn inbetween them and the form he was in during that period ( in another wise erratic career) I'd say they both got prime barkley.

It was to prove to be a very good era for middle/ super middle. Given he beat some and lost to others barkley may have been relatively average in terms if the premier guys in his era but he was still a tough fighter. Though, I realise your beef here is more with hammy's description of him than whether he was any good or not.

Strongy has a point that Brits tend to over-rate Eubank benn Watson etc, but they were still good fighters.

Genuinely find it hard to see what it is you see in Murray, haz. If you take out the martinez performance when there are a lot of caveats over the state of martinez, you have what I and a fair few others think was a gifted draw against sturm. He's fairly well organised and very brave, but not elite in my book. It doesn't detract from ggg in the slightest that he broke him down, but it gives the impression, rightly or wrongly,  that you big Murray up in the way truss gets accused of doing to mayweather opponents.

milkyboy wrote:Did benn beat a lesser version of barkley than duran? Given that barkley dropped a split to nunn inbetween them and the form he was in during that period ( in another wise erratic career) I'd say they both got prime barkley.

It was to prove to be a very good era for middle/ super middle. Given he beat some and lost to others barkley may have been relatively average in terms if the premier guys in his era but he was still a tough fighter. Though, I realise your beef here is more with hammy's description of him than whether he was any good or not.

Strongy has a point that Brits tend to over-rate Eubank benn Watson etc, but they were still good fighters.

Genuinely find it hard to see what it is you see in Murray, haz. If you take out the martinez performance when there are a lot of caveats over the state of martinez, you have what I and a fair few others think was a gifted draw against sturm. He's fairly well organised and very brave, but not elite in my book. It doesn't detract from ggg in the slightest that he broke him down, but it gives the impression, rightly or wrongly,  that you big Murray up in the way truss gets accused of doing to mayweather opponents.

Barkley was horribly weight-drained against Benn. He'd undergone eye surgery for a detached retina that put him in the garage (meaning he had to shift an absurd amount of weight). He managed to put it altogether for Duran - that was the best of him.

I'm not as high on Murray as I'm being made out to be, however, he performed admirably against one of the best middleweights of the last 25 years. I'm merely counteracting the view he's a pudding (which he clearly isn't). He fought at a higher level at 160 than either Benn or Eubank managed.

I'd take both over Murray but they'd be close fights (at 160).

Ahh, yes weight drained. The effects of the weight draining left him unable to duck in the first 10 seconds of the fight? Or just made him chinny? He may well have been weight drained but its the excuse of choice for the beaten fighter... Wasn't he weight drained against toney too?

Murray fought at a higher level at middle than Eubank or benn? Well he lost to a higher level of opponent than they fought at middle I guess, even if one of the two was shot. I'm not sure he demonstrated an ability to fight at a higher level than they did.

I don't think  murray's a pudding.. He's a reasonable technician and game as hell, I just personally think he's probably nearer Henry wharton level than benn or eubank's. Same for barker and macklin.
Maybe that's Dewey-eyed nostalgia on my part.

milkyboy wrote:Ahh, yes weight drained. The effects of the weight draining left him unable to duck in the first 10 seconds of the fight? Or just made him chinny? He may well have been weight drained but its the excuse of choice for the beaten fighter... Wasn't he weight drained against toney too?

Murray fought at a higher level at middle than Eubank or benn? Well he lost to a higher level of opponent than they fought at middle I guess, even if one of the two was shot. I'm not sure he demonstrated an ability to fight at a higher level than they did.

I don't think  murray's a pudding.. He's a reasonable technician and game as hell, I just personally think he's probably nearer Henry wharton level than benn or eubank's. Same for barker and macklin.
Maybe that's Dewey-eyed nostalgia on my part.

He lost something ridiculous like 50 lb. after surgery. It looked legit in this case.

Yep. He fought at a higher level than Eubank or Benn (forget super middle). Martinez wasn't a shot fighter. Wear and tear had started to show but it's a stretch to imagine Chris or Nigel could have acquitted themselves any better.

Murray is a better fighter than Henry ever was - as much as I loved "Sweet Bred" (Bread?). Henry was all left hook - he was a good European level fighter. Murray is a touch better.