A Critical Look At Gennady Golovkin

Sometimes a critical eye is needed

So I've been watching old Hagler fights lately. Sometimes you just have to go back to the classics. Sometimes you also have to take a look at older fights to see if a "great" fighter was really as great as you've been told he was. For the record, there was never any question in my mind whether or not Hagler was great, as I was raised watching him on television. With that in mind, however, it's easy to forget exactly HOW great the man really was.

Wars with Hearns and Mugabi, along with that controversial loss to Leonard, give us an image of a pure warrior. And while that's certainly true, there were other aspects to Hagler which are easy to overlook, like his movement, and WAY underrated defensive skills. Let's just say it's worth considering that Hagler may have peaked AFTER his talent had already begin to wane.

Which brings me to the feared and avoided Gennady Golovkin. Like Hagler, people seem to want him to get old before they face him. All the best with that. For unlike Hagler, GGG has a style that conserves energy. Watching him critically, it's hard not to notice what a patient fighter the man really is. And what a technically sound one.

Here's a man, after all, who cuts off the ring better than anyone I've ever seen - or can at least remember. He also picks his shots with amazing precision. Indeed, this is a man worthy of much of the attention he's received. Is he as good as advertised, though? HBOs analysts would argue so, but HBO is in the Gennady business. What's more, GGG takes punches - frequently. That's a trait that was never particularly noticeable in Hagler. Sure, Hearns nailed him, but who WASN'T Hearns able to land on?

Watching Hagler and Golovkin in action back to back, there's little doubt that Hagler's herky-jerky energy and movement would stand out in a battle between the two. Having said that, perhaps neither Hearns nor Mugabi hit as hard as GGG. Golovkin makes people quit on a regular basis, after all. And that's really saying something.

So, could the lauded GGG hold his own against a great like, say, Hagler? It's hard to say. If Hagler could take those punches, though, I'd give the Marvelous One the edge. The fact that the discussion even merits debate, however, speaks very highly of GGG indeed.

Why I'm Not Too Disappointed With The Frampton-Quigg Fight

Don't look at me, I wasn't expecting greatness.

First things first - I was iffy about this fight to begin with.

Indeed, I felt both Carl Frampton and Scott Quigg  had keenly avoided, for whatever reason, the excellent Guillermo Rigondeaux. Still, I won't hate on Saturday's Frampton-Quigg bout. Why? Because it was a fight that wasn't between the best in the business. People expecting a smaller, European version of Hagler-Hearns would do well to keep in mind that neither man was Hagler or Hearns. If either one was, he would most likely have faced Rigo by now.

No, the timidity shown to Rigo made it clear that these were probably two B or B+ fighters who were going to make what they could when they could. That may not prove to be the case, of course. Indeed, both Frampton and Quigg may eventually be regarded as all time greats. The evidence from the powers that be, however, suggests otherwise.

As I've written elsewhere, Frampton - the winner of the bout - may well be on his way to becoming a decent and popular fighter rather than a great one. This is something of a let down, as I used to believe Frampton might actually be able to best Rigo some day. Barry McGuigan, Frampton's manager, however, made it clear that he himself doesn't seem to think so - and he's a former hall of fame fighter -so there you have it.

With all that in mind, Frampton wasn't the biggest problem on Saturday. Quigg was. Frampton may have been tentative, but Quigg didn't show up until the midpoint of the bout and by then it was too late. Yes, it could have been a B-level thriller. The fact that it wasn't, though, lies more with Quigg than it does with Frampton.

This fight was never, however, going to be a classic.