Robinson against ATG Middleweights

[The Old LefHook]

I know Golovkin beats any middleweight in history, but I think he beats a silverback gorilla, too, on his power edge. The grizzly bear I cannot decide on. It may come down to who lands first.

I know one thing--Golovkin is invincible. He has shown it over and over. Why are people worried over a little thing like being tested when this guy is obviously, I mean obviously, an all time great and likely the greatest of them all? I can only roll my eyes at these dumb naysayers...I'll tell ya. Can you imagine people wanting him to prove himself when he has already knocked out more scrubs than their pea brains can count?

[Humean]

I know Golovkin beats any middleweight in history, but I think he beats a silverback gorilla, too, on his power edge. The grizzly bear I cannot decide on. It may come down to who lands first.

I know one thing--Golovkin is invincible. He has shown it over and over. Why are people worried over a little thing like being tested when this guy is obviously, I mean obviously, an all time great and likely the greatest of them all? I can only roll my eyes at these dumb naysayers...I'll tell ya. Can you imagine people wanting him to prove himself when he has already knocked out more scrubs than their pea brains can count?

Well i'll stick my neck out and say he is one of the best middleweights in history right now and then at some date in the future when he has proven it to your satisfaction (assuming that is possible) you can then agree with me.

[The Old LefHook]

Well i'll stick my neck out and say he is one of the best middleweights in history right now and then at some date in the future when he has proven it to your satisfaction (assuming that is possible) you can then agree with me.

Or you can agree with me that it was way too early for such an assessment. I am one who wants you to be right. If he has the spirit to be a real champ instead of a cherrypicker, how could I root against him? You won't make me do that. If he turns out to be another cherrypicking wonder, then I want him KO'd promptly and out of the picture

[Humean]

Or you can agree with me that it was way too early for such an assessment. I am one who wants you to be right. If he has the spirit to be a real champ instead of a cherrypicker, how could I root against him? You won't make me do that. If he turns out to be another cherrypicking wonder, then I want him KO'd promptly and out of the picture

Even if he turned out to be a cherrypicker he could still be as good as I am suggesting and should he defeat a string of worthy opponents that would only confirm he was as good as i'm saying, but he'd be just as good now without having fought them. I'm not saying he is right now one of the greatest middleweights because obviously he hasn't achieved enough for such a high estimation, i'm saying that I think he is one of the best in terms of his quality/ability in the ring. I might be wrong about that but I don't see why we always have to be so conservative about claiming how good an active fighter is.

[The Old LefHook]

I might be wrong about that but I don't see why we always have to be so conservative about claiming how good an active fighter is.

Because saying I think he will be an all time great is different from saying he already is. Mediocre opponents do not prove much. Look around the division rankings. There are all kinds of fighters who KO everyone mediocre and then step up and look perfectly human.

Most of the time when we pick someone to be an all time great we are wrong, since there are not that many, is another good reason.

More power to him. I am very impressed so far.

[Humean]

Because saying I think he will be an all time great is different from saying he already is. Mediocre opponents do not prove much. Look around the division rankings. There are all kinds of fighters who KO everyone mediocre and then step up and look perfectly human.

Most of the time when we pick someone to be an all time great we are wrong, since there are not that many, is another good reason.

More power to him. I am very impressed so far.

Who is saying Golovkin is an all time great? I'm saying he is one of the best ever middleweights but that is not necessairly the same thing as saying he is an all time great.

David Lemieux has knocked out a lot of mediocre fighters but you can see from watching him that he isn't anywhere near as good as Golovkin. Surely there are more ways to tell you how good a fighter isthan just looking at who a fighter has or has not defeated. Lemieux is Lausse, Golovkin is Hagler.

[The Old LefHook]

Who is saying Golovkin is an all time great? I'm saying he is one of the best ever middleweights but that is not necessairly the same thing as saying he is an all time great.

Let's analyze what you have said so far. Golovkin is one of the best middleweights ever, and you make him a favorite over Robinson. You have him as favorite over the recognized king of all time greats, but that does not make him an all time great himself? You don't just give him chances. A middleweight favored over 1951 version of Robinson would have to be an all time great himself. Is Robinson ill?

Surely there are more ways to tell you how good a fighter is than just looking at who a fighter has or has not defeated.

More ways, but not better ways. You learn how good he looks, I learn how good he is.

[Humean]

Let's analyze what you have said so far. Golovkin is one of the best middleweights ever, and you make him a favorite over Robinson. You have him as favorite over the recognized king of all time greats, but that does not make him an all time great himself? You don't just give him chances. A middleweight favored over 1951 version of Robinson would have to be an all time great himself. Is Robinson ill?

There are surely many different ways you can measure greatness? I could say that Golovkin is a better fighter than Robinson but that Robinson is greater because he was greater relative to his own time than Golovkin is to his, or that Robinson is greater because he achieved more and did so for longer, or that his cultural and historical significance is greater etc. I don't really recognize Robinson or anyone else for that matter as the greatest of them all, I think all those claims end up coming from bias. I certainly consider Robinson one of the best and greatest middleweights but I probably do not consider him amongst the 10 or so best. I think the best middleweights of the last few decades are superior to the best from the previous decades. I think they are more skilled, although that may be up for debate somewhat, but they are unequivocally stronger and more powerful.

More ways, but not better ways. You learn how good he looks, I learn how good he is.

I disagree, it is always possible that when a fighter defeats a more recognizably elite fighter that said fighter, for whatever reason, wasn't as good as he usually is on that night. Placing so much value on any individual fight is a mistake.

Besides, to take my example of Lemieux and Golovkin, Golovkin has beaten some better fighters than Lemieux but if you just watch the more equivalent level of opponents they have both beaten, the real fringe contenders type, surely you can tell the difference in quality between them just by watching how they perform?

Just out of curiosity who would Golovkin need to defeat to convince you that he is a better middleweight than Robinson?

[The Old LefHook]

There are surely many different ways you can measure greatness? I could say that Golovkin is a better fighter than Robinson but that Robinson is greater because he was greater relative to his own time than Golovkin is to his, or that Robinson is greater because he achieved more and did so for longer, or that his cultural and historical significance is greater etc. I don't really recognize Robinson or anyone else for that matter as the greatest of them all, I think all those claims end up coming from bias. I certainly consider Robinson one of the best and greatest middleweights but I probably do not consider him amongst the 10 or so best. I think the best middleweights of the last few decades are superior to the best from the previous decades. I think they are more skilled, although that may be up for debate somewhat, but they are unequivocally stronger and more powerful.




I disagree, it is always possible that when a fighter defeats a more recognizably elite fighter that said fighter, for whatever reason, wasn't as good as he usually is on that night. Placing so much value on any individual fight is a mistake.

Besides, to take my example of Lemieux and Golovkin, Golovkin has beaten some better fighters than Lemieux but if you just watch the more equivalent level of opponents they have both beaten, the real fringe contenders type, surely you can tell the difference in quality between them just by watching how they perform?

Just out of curiosity who would Golovkin need to defeat to convince you that he is a better middleweight than Robinson?

When a student cannot learn, you flunk 'em.

[Humean]

When a student cannot learn, you flunk 'em.

Does 'learn' mean agree with everything you say? At least answer my last question, i'd like to know the answer.