Is GGG being overrated?

Oh - f#kk why bother. I assume when you say anybody - you mean 'a name I'm familiar with'.

OK. Kovalev has fought ex-champ Campillo, who but for robberies against Cloud, Shumenov and Murat would probably still have been a champion.

Cornelius White who was at the time (off the top of my head) ranked 4, 5 and 8 by the ABCs, 9 by boxrec (10-12 by me)

Nathan Cleverly, unbeaten WBO LHW champ.

Ismayl Sillakh - highly regarded amateur standout and fringe contender.

Golovkin has fought and beaten - Matthew Macklin - highly regarded MW contender and 2 time title challenger who had been considered in the MW top 5 for about 3 years. Gabriel Rosado JMW interim titlist, Kasim Ouma former NABA and NABO titlist at LMW and multiple title challenger.



Deontay Wilder has fought no-one even close to the heavyweight top 30 - unless you feel the need to call Audley Harrison a top 20ish fighter.

Golovkin and Kovalev have fought exclusively in the top 20 (depending on how you'd rank Sillakh - but the consensus had him better than Bellew) and mainly close to or within the top 10 over the last 12 months. Both have proved themselves against fighters at or very close to the pinnacle of their divisions and at a high level cosistently. I know we all fuss that Golovkin isn't having the 'big' fights, but aside from Maravilla there ain't much better than Macklin.

I'm assuming you don't actually follow the higher (160+) weight divisions or you'd know these things already. To even compare the resumes of Golovkin and Kovalev (who are both titlists and have therefore either faced champions or mandatory challengers) to that of Wilder is just bizarre to say the least - but I suppose they all KO people a lot so they most be sorta like the same hey?

 

using belt holders is a back door excuse though - you should know this
belts are like water in boxing, and rather than credit fighters who have one but never fight the top contenders, you should be judging a fighter's career based on who they fought and when

I agree there isn't much at MW for golovkin, but that wasn't my point

my point was that out of golovkin, kovalev and wilder they are getting a lot of publicity for making highlight reels, and it really doesn't matter who they get them against

they are only "sorta like the same" because they have this in common, but at least golovkin being contracted to HBO shows that he wants big fights, kovalev demolishing a paper champ in cleverly shows hes willing to step up, but wilder is none of the above

 

So, who is the top ranked fighter that Wilder has fought? Not even one...........Wilder ran like Hell from Chisora and Thompson...........

 

Not at all. Do you guys even watch boxing?

 

I can kinda take your point, but the fracture line seems to have developed between those who feel that GGG is fighting a lower level of fighter deliberately in order to get the KOs - and those who feel that he's trying to get the bigger fights but is unable to do so.

The Macklin fight showed Golovkin is more than capable of getting the flashy KOs against the 'names' of the division - so why would they choose not to? Certainly not because they don't think he has the ability.

 

Macklin is not all that good..his claim to fame was going 11 rounds with the sloppy and overrated Martinez.

Dude couldn't even beat Sturm....A totally washed-up featherfisted Javier Castillejo totally detroyed Felix.

 

154 is the better division, 160 once had huge potential

 

It fits their agenda to pretend 160 is a deep division stacked with talent.

 

154 has a high proportion of US and Mexican based fighters and fights tend to get made more easily and have a lot of US exposure.

160 is very much an international division with significant names based around the globe. It and it's fighters have received less US attention in recent times partly because of this. If Barker, Geale, Soliman, Sturm, Murray, Lee, Macklin etc were all US based fighters, the perception might be different. Add in Maravilla, Golovkin, Quillin, Rubio, Jacobs, Truax, Stevens, Vera, Mora, Korobov and there's plenty of depth there.

Of course FMJ fights at 154 and GBP have a great deal of depth from 140-154 which tends to make matchups in the division both marketable and easy.

Overall, if I look down the names in the divisions on Boxrec down to the top 20 or 30 I'm still seeing plenty of recognisable and fairly decent fighters in both divisions - I think the difference is largely a matter of perception - aided of course by the fact that the sports 2 biggest superstars have fought at 154.

 

Do you think that warrants a response?

 

you don't have the amo to respond.

Macklin is a solid fighter nothing more nothing less.

 

It's stacked with B level boxers, I'm well aware. Martinez is the only boxer with an A level resume on that list and he's old by know. Golovkin might have A level potential but no the resume to back it up and I won't give him credit for knocking out mediocre MWs and LMWs. Resume is the only thing I go by - knocking out poor boxers, having a fantastic amateur career and a high KO% means very little to me unless you have faced someone with a pulse and that is yet to happen.

LMW is stacked with A level:

- Alvarez
- Floyd (P4P #1, ATG level)
- Lara
- Trout
- Cotto

B level:

- Angulo
- Kirkland
- Molina
- Ishe Smith
- Jacobs
- Bundrage
- Demetrius Andrade
- Martirosyan

Bro, it's not even close. MW is reasonably close talent wise which makes for tense fights and I acknowledge that but so is the CW division and the talent there is far below average. MW is barely above average at the moment too unfortunately.

edit: All right, I admit that Golovkin might be considered A level already considering that he beat Macklin who did well against Sturm and Martinez. Two A level boxers against five is still a pretty clear advantage in favour of LMW.

 

Of course he' overrated by his fans, but that's natural for an up and coming champion. He has not fought one capable guy with a skill set to beat him.

 

GGG has a way better amateur background and resume than Floyd does, not to mention oscar also, minus the gold but he did win silver, which is still better than Floyd. So what you say? Its amateur. Well guys who convert well into the pro's from such a deep successful amateur career usually know how to box. And add in the ridiculous punching power, the fact he can obliterate you up and downstairs, the guy is a very special fighter. Throw out the fact he already has the best KO percentage in history at middle, I don't see anyone stopping him. My only criticism is he could be a bit quicker, but at the end of the day for someone with his boxing skill he makes up for it and knows how to set his bombs up and isnt in love with h is power at all. He meticulously breaks fighters down, beating them up way before they taste the canvas usually. The truth is he's a throwback to the 80s and 90s fighters and would fit right in there vs. Oscar, Tito, Vargas etc and I wouldn't put anyone elses name in with those 90s fighters except floyd and Bhop

 

Have you seen the tape of the fight Floyd "lost" in '96?