Yes, well, fair enough.
But, hereís the thing . . . .
Post #2 within this thread . . . .
Even despite how its delivery (particularly the content that exposes some of the real and commonly overlooked disparities and uniquenesses that exist between Floyd and Triple) is sometimes a little abrasive.
Is not really a post that has been purposefully designed to shoot Gennady Golovkin down.
That said . .
I do appreciate that as the facts and truths swirl and grind their way around the accretion disk of post #2ís astronomical content and also take part in the overall larger journey to steadily progress forward and ultimately manifest themselves as the heavenly bodies they were always destined to be; that view can become increasingly more open and available to the reader.
Still, regardless of that and how powerful/uncomfortable the perception and/or view may actually be, I can honestly say that within post #2 there is absolutely no deliberate intention to shoot Gennady Golovkin down.
I genuinely like him and what heís done.
Itís interesting how it all works . .
But, with reasonable confidence I can say that any real/imagined impact and/or decrease of Gennady Golovkinís boxing credibility that inadvertently arises from the discussion within post #2 is quite simply nothing other than a byproduct of facts.
For not I, nor even post #2 itself, forced the hands of K2 promotions to manage Gennady Golovkinís career in the financially shrewd manner that they have.
In fact, one can be absolutely certain that neither myself nor post #2 took anyoneís innocent hand and forced it into a leather boxing glove and unwanted combat with cleverly discounted opponents, whom themselves may not necessarily (particularly in the event where the true manner in which they approached contests with those of whom we speak were to be subjected to an evaluation of even half the intensity and purpose as some other fighters) serve to bolster the extended winning/knockout streaks in quite the same ďastonishingly impressiveĒ manner as that which we first were led to believe . . . .
Back when all that seemed to matter was the ominous/looming achievements of an upcoming Kazakhstan knockout artist and just how spectacularly intoxicating his feats (irrespective of how the KOís were achieved) had become.
At the end of the day, (one philosophical axiom is that) no person can truly be humiliated with facts and/or lose credibility from those same facts unless they have misrepresented themselves and/or engaged in some other equally questionable or disingenuous act.
So, in this way we see that an author can potentially/legitimately distance himself from almost all of the powerful forces that may be associated with even the most devastating of impacts created by the facts that he speaks of.
And, he does so by attributing and/or transferring the energy and force (which, otherwise could have been thrust inwards upon himself and/or strapped around his own neck for an eternity) thatís created from the publication of those same powerful facts - across and into the negative spaces that the facts themselves;
A) Not only, sought out and exposed.
B) But also, performed the task of explaining quite neatly too.
What it all means is that, even if the intention of post #2 really was to *shoot Gennady Golovkin down (and, I assure that it is not); even then, in order for that *pursuit to be genuinely considered unreasonable and/or unfair, someone would still have show how the facts within post #2 that ultimately led to that (diminished) *outcome (for Golovkin) were themselves unreliable.
And, it is no accident that no-one has done that; as the facts within post #2 are quite sound.
Furthermore, if not serving as the main and/or primary intention of post #2, then certainly one of the more significant intentions of it is to evaluate and compare (as best, directly, and reliably as possible) how Floyd and Gennady have travelled through their respective careers; within the context of their achievements, opponents faced, and other relevant metrics.
Long story short; the insurmountable problem that Gennady Golovkin always faces when heís included in an exercise like that - particularly alongside a boxer like Floyd - is that, compared to Mayweather (and as the fact substantiate) Triple only does a very small set of things as good as and/or better than Floyd.
And, even when youíre being generous the tally of those ďthingsĒ (that Triple does as good as and/or better than Floyd) has great difficulty scaling numbers that describe half of the first double digit on an integer line.
And, as sure as that has a strong relationship to why Gennady Golovkinís opponent selection appears far more calculated, deliberate, and consistently cautious than, say, that which Floyd has been routinely ridiculed for, thatís the bottom line.
But despite it all . . .
Yes, you (and your last post) may still also be right.
Triple still may well be the best middleweight that we have.
And, thatís the strange thing about all this.
You see all the above-mentioned and often ugly things that post #2 reveals about how many of us simply looked the other way when Triple did things that we didnít dare even consider giving Floyd a free pass for; solely because Triple knocks guys out and we like that . . .
Well, they can (and do all) coexist within that above-mentioned collection of astronomical analogies; and facts.
Triple is still really good.
He excites people.
What's more, even though his KO winning streak is, in part, obviously a product of crafty investor/matchmaking design and manufacture . .
The fact remains that itís still no easy task to reliably bowl over and stop such a high percentage of guys in the devastating fashion Gennady Golovkin usually does.
Itís really only when you start looking closely and comparing Gennady Golovkin to someone (like Floyd) that is just better in almost every respect; that you start to see the facts crawl over Tripleís body of work and raise those above-mentioned and powerful questions about how it all really worked and happened.
But . . .
Just as the very same logic seemed to steadfastly apply to all those (and there have been a few of them) that openly said Floydís achievements were seriously undermined by his cherry picking ways . .
What happens when you take all thatís currently within post #2 . .
And, then put it alongside of and/or apply the same above-mentioned super steadfast cherry picking logic that Floyd has been (albeit, at times, questionably) held to account with?
When you do that itís not so cut and dry as to whether Triple is the best middleweight.
Not in the least, as one could easily mount an argument that (as post #2, to some extent does) describes how a large portion of Tripleís professional career has, quite literally, been stuffed with the kinds of deceptively vulnerable and limited opponents whom themselves were probably far better suited to the originally intended purposes of the above-mentioned and misplaced comments that Mayweather has been unfairly in receipt of.
After all, after you read just what has been uncovered within (the incomplete) post #2, how can anyone really be sure that Gennady Golovkin truly is the best middleweight?
Donít get me wrong, I like the guy too.
But facts are facts.
And (as post #2 accurately reveals) as Triple has climbed to the top there certainly have been a few opponents overlooked and opportunities missed.
Personally, I think Carl Froch, Ward, and a few other middleweights probably tested themselves in more difficult and stern ways (than Gennady Golovkin has) as they climbed through the middleweight division.
I also think, had Froch, Ward, and possibly a few others regularly fought opponents whom had noticeable deficits in weight and/or experience to complement their already existing recent losses; well, then, they too probably would also possess an unbeaten record replete with a similarly long KO streak on it.
Just like Triple.
But, Froch and Ward et al didnít really do that to the same extent did they?
And, I guess some would say that they didnít go down that path because, as good as a long ďwinning by KO streakĒ is;
A) It was not their style to pad their records to such a great extent.
B) To some extent the exercise is devalued, if in order to sustain the achievement, your opponents must be as I (and the facts) describe in post #2.
And, these are just some of the considerations post #2 and itís facts raises.