Gennady Golovkin, One Of The Best Ever?

First topic message reminder :

Gennady Golovkin, One Of The Best Ever? By Connor Mack

 http://goo.gl/oB1At0

Look forward to seeing what Trussman has to say after reading this article

Agree with Truss on this one. At Froch's age, with such a long layoff and having admitted that he's got one eye on retirement, any fight for Froch is a pretty big risk for him now. Think he'd rather risk a possible loss to Golovkin than Degale, even though I suspect the bookies and writers might have a Degale fight as the marginally more winnable one.

I think losing to Degale would hurt Froch a bit more and eat away at him in his dotage. Whenever Froch has been asked about Golovkin he's always been very complimentary about him as a fighter and what he brings to the table, and acknowledged that he'd be a real threat against whom he'd have to produce a top, top performance to win. On the other hand he's often been quite dismissive of Degale's abilities and has driven the point home that he just couldn't get motivated for such a relative no-name who carries a lot less weight with boxing fans the world over than someone like GGG.

Rightly or wrongly Froch thinks of himself as and styles himself as the top man at 168 in the world - going from that to suddenly not even being the top 168 pounder in the UK if he were to lose to Degale, a fighter he's been dismissive of, would be coming back to earth with a bump. It's a fight destined to be in a UK ring as well, whereas Golovkin could potentially be that Vegas fight he apparently craves, and definitely brings a bit more money to the table as an added bonus.

I don't particularly think either fight is likely to happen but if I had to predict one taking place I'd be inclined to say it'd be the Golovkin one. Very early days but in the immediate aftermath of Saturday night both Degale and Hearn seem more interested in steering themselves towards the Groves rematch if he can beat Jack for the WBC title, and personally that's the route I'd prefer as well.

Not so sure Chris, now that DeGale has beaten Dirrell, Froch can say that was a top top performance which really impressed me.

DeGale is now a legacy-enhancing fight (is it not?) and one he can now get up for.

Agree that GGG will come first though.

I somehow don't think Hearn is going to want to destroy his long term earnings by risking Degale against Froch, makes more sense to aim for Groves.

Hearn, as a businessman, has to go DeGale /Groves first then Froch/DeGale, so therefore Froch/Golovkin seems very likely. Very simple really.

If froch fights on, then GGG is his legacy fight. If degale wins a groves 'unification' in a fight at around the same time, then he has the chance for one last huge payday afterwards if he wants it.

If Hearn can get DeGale against Froch and hope DeGale wins...he has a new superstar.

Only thing in it is the money. Froch DeGale is as big as Froch Golovkin and the money will be kept in house with Froch getting the largest share. Im sure Froch thinks he can still win it

Degale however will want the rematch with Groves, against Froch whether he's the champion or not he'll be getting a far small share of a slightly bigger pie whereas against Groves he'll get half the pie.

As a side, the Groves win(s) is now looking a lot better for Froch since DeGale's win on Saturday.

Another good win on his hall of fame career.

Beat Golvkin and DeGale and that might be enough to take him past Joe. It most suredly would actually in my book.

Also I wouldn't mind betting DeGale would prefer Froch over Groves first- for the prestige rather than the money.

Is the Groves fight a bigger money spinner than a Froch fight? Honest question as I have no idea.

Like it or not, Froch did knock out George Groves in front of 80 000 at the Wembley (intellectual property of Carl Froch). That's the public's last memory of the man. Wouldn't it be bigger?

Well it'd definitely give him a better win column than Calzaghe at least, Herman. Right now in terms of good wins I think they're close but with an edge to Calzaghe, the trade off obviously being that Froch has accumulated his wins in a much, much shorter time span and hasn't faffed around for years wasting time on defences against the likes of Starie, Pudwill, McIntyre and Manfredo in the middle of all that.

If Froch were to defy expectations again and do that (stay on to beat Golovkin and Degale) I guess the never-ending debate about his resume compared to Calzaghe's would hinge on how important Joe's '0' is to you, along with his status as being a clear, undisputed divisional number one, something that Froch has yet to be despite all the distinguishing moments in his career. Unbeaten records aren't the be all and end all but in this case I think a lot of people will understandably point out that Calzaghe beat Kessler at first time of asking where Froch failed to do so, and even though Froch got it right second time out it was against a slightly faded (but still good) version of Kessler. Even then, a case can be made that he didn't beat that slightly faded version of Kessler as well as Calzaghe beat a peak, 28-year-old unbeaten version, albeit that's borderline and probably splitting hairs.

The Kessler results don't automatically serve as a tie breaker for their resumes, but they maybe give boxing fans an idea about who the better fighter was peak for peak.

Think Froch would probably pip Calzaghe if he beat both of them . Can't get past feeling that Calzaghe would do a Lacy on him and find it hard to put him ahead when they are competing directly for the 2nd spot

Always a difference obviously between who has the better record and who was the better fighter.

I genuinely don't see froch ever beating Calzaghe head to head, barring a Hail Mary. If he beat ggg and degale you can certainly make a case for his record being better... Though much would depend on what else groves, degale and golovkin go on to do afterwards.

It's hard not to use Kessler as a yardstick as it's the only common opponent but given the old styles and fights I guess we have to tread carefully on drawing too much from it.

He should be able to get up for these two. He could stay where he is and retire tomorrow and still make the hall.

But the gain from these two fights is enormous both financially and on a spiritual level. The money ain't too shabby but getting to pip Joe might just give him the longer-lasting pleasure. But only Froch himself knows if he can get up. I'm quietly confident it's going to be Golovkin next, I think Carl's got plenty left.

I think the noises for Golovkin fight are promising. The rhetoric in the last couple of weeks has been pretty positive, and while Forch has been playing hard to get on his retirement plans, I think Matchrrom will be hoping for at least one more big event. I dont see why they would ratchet up interest in a Golovkin fight of late if the liklihood is that Froch would retire. It sounds like Golovkins team are on standby, Matchroom want to push through and its down to Hearn and Co to cajole Froch into making it happen.

Would love to see this - on paper it looks a mismatch on size but it would be great to see if GGG can step up to 168.

Fair play to both fighters if they take this one on and to Eddie Hearn for putting together something worth paying for, for once.

Herman Jaeger wrote:

Beat Golvkin and DeGale and that might be enough to take him past Joe. It most suredly would actually in my book.

Without question!!

88Chris05 wrote:Well it'd definitely give him a better win column than Calzaghe at least, Herman. Right now in terms of good wins I think they're close but with an edge to Calzaghe, the trade off obviously being that Froch has accumulated his wins in a much, much shorter time span and hasn't faffed around for years wasting time on defences against the likes of Starie, Pudwill, McIntyre and Manfredo in the middle of all that.

If Froch were to defy expectations again and do that (stay on to beat Golovkin and Degale) I guess the never-ending debate about his resume compared to Calzaghe's would hinge on how important Joe's '0' is to you, along with his status as being a clear, undisputed divisional number one, something that Froch has yet to be despite all the distinguishing moments in his career. Unbeaten records aren't the be all and end all but in this case I think a lot of people will understandably point out that Calzaghe beat Kessler at first time of asking where Froch failed to do so, and even though Froch got it right second time out it was against a slightly faded (but still good) version of Kessler. Even then, a case can be made that he didn't beat that slightly faded version of Kessler as well as Calzaghe beat a peak, 28-year-old unbeaten version, albeit that's borderline and probably splitting hairs.

The Kessler results don't automatically serve as a tie breaker for their resumes, but they maybe give boxing fans an idea about who the better fighter was peak for peak.

Joe's '0' is irrelevant to me, as it was largely built up on chaff. Similar the Ward loss/JC undisputed divisional #1 piece, as JC never fought or had anyone in his division close to Ward's quality.

It's the Kessler fight that still distinguishes the two for me. Can't get past JC looking superb and beating a better version of a guy Froch lost to (which ties into my thought that JC would win a head to head more often that not).

JC's two fights againt Lacy and Kessler give him the edge for me aswell.

Lacy might of been overhyped but the clinic Calzaghe put on him was something else. Also he beat an undefeated dangerous champion in Kessler.

Also can't ignore the win over Hopkins. Personally I scored it for Hopkins at the time but it could of went either way. You only have to look at what Hopkins has achieved since then, to see how big that victory was over him.

Froch has more good wins but Calzaghe has a couple of great wins and that gives him the edge in my opinion.

Equally you could say that Keesler isn't quite top class and obviously not Lacy and maybe people are dwelling too much on Kessler as a distinguishing mark between the two.

The Hopkins win was a good win though but that was at light heavy and we all saw what happened with Hopkins when he came up against a proper light heavy.

I have no problem with people rating Calzaghe higher or he wins a head to head. As things stand I think it's correct to rate him higher(even if he manipulated the closing stages of his career but many a great fighter has done that have they not?)  Carl obviously beats him around the time of their respective fights with Pascal and Hopkins, Joe clearly past his best by then and losing ambition, the question is how far do we go back, which is the version to beat Froch? Which fight was Joe last at his best? And doesn't every great fighter need a quality post-prime performance win or lose on their ledger?

Tricky thing with Lacey is, was he actually good and JC amazing or was he just a classic Yank hype-job??

The fact he never went on to achieve a thing suggests the win was, retrospectively, maybe a tad less impressive.

I think the Hoppo win, purely in comparing to Froch, arguably counts against JC. As he barely scraped past him, on work rate alone, which leads me to feel he'd never have beaten Ward either.

And if we're talking about Froch taking on, and beating, GGG - then that's a vastly more impressive win over a former MW than Hoppo was for JC.

I think the Lacy win is comparable to Froch's over Bute. You can argue all day about which of those you prefer, I guess.

Despite Bute coming perilously close to ballsing it up in that first Andrade fight, I'd argue that his body of work before testing the UK shores was actually better than Lacy's was before he came over to fight Calzaghe. Lacy had bigger promotion than Bute and the 'mini Milke Tyson' lines (the same ones used for McClellan back in the day) aided that but Bute had shown just as wide, if not wider an array of skills against arguably better guys, too. But of course, the Andrade nightmare gave Bute a hint of vulnerability in terms of how fragile he might be which didn't exist around Lacy at that point.

In terms of significance, Calzaghe's performance was more of a revelation as it was his international breakthrough. On the other hand, Froch had made a decent profile for himself across the pond already and everyone already knew what he was about before he faced Bute, but it carried the pressure of being make or break for his career. Big pressure on both of them.

So it maybe comes down to which performance you preferred. Froch just steamrolled Bute whereas Calzaghe put on more of a boxing clinic against Lacy. Both great to watch in their own ways and both accentuated the respective strengths of Froch and Calzaghe. So once again, hard to put one emphatically over the other.

Lacy did absolutely nothing afterwards and, thus far, neither has Bute. Makes it difficult to get a proper reading on how much of their reputations before Joe and Carl got hold of them was legitimate and how much of it was hype. Unless Bute's career has a bit of a revival I think it'll be hard to ever make a confident call on which win was better than the other. My best guess is that, while the pair of them were a little overrated coming in to those fights, they were both still good fighters, but who had it all sapped from them in those demoralizing defeats.

Lacey got a beat down and became a shell....Wonderful performance by Joe..

Bute was ordinary and always will be....Slobodan Kacar eat your heart out !!

No comparison between the wins....

Think Calzaghe's 0 is very relevant when comparing him to Froch...

Think whatever Froch  does he'll be rated lower.....Kessler is very significant...also!

I think its really hard to tell whether guys were all hype or whether they just had their self belief taken by a better fighter. Sometimes you have to look at their performances in the actual fight as much as those before and after... Whilst mitigating that some guys just have your number.

Was Mugabi hype or did hagler just drain his self belief? He hadn't beaten anyone of real note but his performance in the  actual fight would suggest some of the latter at least.

Personally, before the fights I felt bute was a good boxer but an accident waiting to happen. Lacy I was undecided on.

Both were destroyed and did nothing after (to date at least in bute's case). Were they overhyped? I think the two fights showed they were. Were they as bad as they looked afterwards? Hard to say, but most likely not in my view.

Kessler has a win over Froch. Yes he lost the rematch but he still beat Froch first time out.

Calzaghe beat Kessler in a pretty competitve fight, however there was no doubt who the winner was. Think I had Calzaghe winning 8-4, can't remember, been a while since I watched it.

Actually remember it was a decent fight, might view it on youtube later

AdamT wrote:Kessler has a win over Froch. Yes he lost the rematch but he still beat Froch first time out.

Calzaghe beat Kessler in a pretty competitve fight, however there was no doubt who the winner was. Think I had Calzaghe winning 8-4, can't remember, been a while since I watched it.

Actually remember it was a decent fight, might view it on youtube later

According to Kessler, Calzaghe promised him a rematch in Denmark, a broken promise which still rankles the Dane to this day.

Would have to regard Bute as a better win than Lacy; more proven at world level having beaten a few fringe guys and probably a better boxer to boot, the beatings both received did curtail their careers quite badly.

Froch has a better chance of beating golovkin than he does degale

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lacey got a beat down and became a shell....Wonderful performance by Joe..

Bute was ordinary and always will be....Slobodan Kacar eat your heart out !!

No comparison between the wins....

Think Calzaghe's 0 is very relevant when comparing him to Froch...

Think whatever Froch  does he'll be rated lower.....Kessler is very significant...also!

Shock horror, Trussman places over-significance on an '0' .

As Chris says, there's absolutely diddly squat to suggest Lacy was any better than Bute before their respective humblings (ironically both of which were for the IB belt), and they've both gone on to achieve as littel since. If anything I'd say Bute's CV was quite a lot better than Lacy's, it'st just not being a Yank he a) will never get the same level of hype; and b) will never get Trussman to praise him unconditionally.

I thought Lacy would beat Joe but thought Froch would beat Bute.

Quite even and you knew watching them that neither fighter would be the same again. Lacy though did at least try to come again.

Hypothetically, if it was the other way around with Froch fighting Lacy then I don't think Froch leaves him get to the second half of the fight. Joe should have stopped Lacy and I don't tink he could have stopped Bute. Not that it matters.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lacey got a beat down and became a shell....Wonderful performance by Joe..

Bute was ordinary and always will be....Slobodan Kacar eat your heart out !!

No comparison between the wins....

Think Calzaghe's 0 is very relevant when comparing him to Froch...

Think whatever Froch  does he'll be rated lower.....Kessler is very significant...also!

Shock horror, Trussman places over-significance on an '0' .

As Chris says, there's absolutely diddly squat to suggest Lacy was any better than Bute before their respective humblings (ironically both of which were for the IB belt), and they've both gone on to achieve as littel since.  If anything I'd say Bute's CV was quite a lot better than Lacy's, it'st just not being a Yank he a) will never get the same level of hype; and b) will never get Trussman to praise him unconditionally.

I wish I was as interested in your opinion .....as you are with mine.

I wasn't really following things too closely at the time so can't really evaluate his form coming into Calzaghe fight but just instinctively I'd say Lacey is the better win.

Although Bute had rectified the loss, the chin had already been cracked off Andrade so I think Froch was finishing off the Mexican's work. Even if Bute could perhaps be said to have the slightly better work behind him, I think Lacey came in as a real dangerman and full of confidence.

Would love to see the Calzaghe circa Reid against the Pascal circa Froch, I think Pascal was a lot sharper at super middle and less muscle-bound.