If GGG retire with undefeated with no trademark win can he still be called ATG?

Well I'm sure at some point Canelo will have to fight him or vacate. I see no reason for Golovkin to leave the division permanently when he hasn't yet cleaned up at MW.

Jacobs, Saunders, Canelo, Cotto, Lara, 5 guys right there that he can try to fight.

168 has DeGale, Hopkins, Groves. I wouldn't put any of those 3 top of the list he can face at 160.

If rather he unify fully at 160, rack up some defences and bow out with a fight against the LHW champ be it Kovalev, Stevenson or Ward at that point.

 

considering he beat more top 10 contenders than anyone else

 

Could he even be an ATG by destroying Canelo. That guy was already shutout by a slightly over the hill Mayweather who's the smaller guy too.

GGG's biggest shot at becoming ATG was to fight Andre Ward at 168. He didn't even have to win the fight. Just fight the guy man.

 

Danny Jacobs is the true #1 contender @ 160 behind champion Canelo Alvarez..

 

there are several undefeated fighters who are not anywhere near atg, like terry marsh and cowardzaghe.

To be ATG you need to step up in a distinguished "great" way. 3G can still do it, but he hasn't done it yet when his best (and sadly only one of two he has at the top level) is former champ danny geale.

Tbf 3g hasn't claimed to be a atg, its just some of his fans that do it and ruin his legacy by doing so.

 

We finally agree on something.

 

He's got 16 title defenses. If he gets to like 25-30 that's all time great status just on the number of successful defenses or top 10 opponents he's faced. Sugar Ray Robinson and Archie Moore had about 45 and they sit at the top of the heap. Once you pass twenty victories over top 10 ranked opponents you are sitting in some very rare company. A lot of all time great fighters don't have that many and they make up for quantity with quality signature wins, but both are important measures of talent. Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, Manny Pacquiao, and Floyd Mayweather are all around 30 I think, but each of them has signature wins on top of that, which means most people rank all four of them among the top 50 all time great fighters. Basically, if you are dominant for a long enough time, you make a certain number of defenses, and get some good but not great names on your record, then I think you deserve to be considered great.

 

This is a great question/thread because its a scenario that has a realistic chance of happening

 

He had to win. You don't get points for losing. But you are right, that was his big shot at greatness. That one victory would be qualitatively worth as much as the rest of his pro career to date. However, I would heavily favor Ward in that match up. Stylistically, and because of Ward's greater size, he's just a nightmare for Golovkin. Now, Froch on the other hand would have been ideal.

 

I think Calzaghe is an all time great. He's one of the top guys at super middleweight, even though that weight class has only been around for like forty years. Roy Jones and Bernard Hopkins were both well past prime when he got them, so that waters down the victory but he's kind of like Rocky Marciano or Floyd Mayweather in that regard. Ricardo Lopez is probably an all time great too. Lopez and Calzaghe don't have signature wins but they were obviously a cut above their competition and led fabulous careers.

 

Marquez and Castillo have been getting points for decades for almost winning. And one of them is a no doubt ATG.

 

I think GGG already beat Lee in the amateurs. Lee doesn't impress me in the least. I'd rather see GGG fight Amarillo, Saunders, Jabobs, Eubank Jr, Quillin, or N'Jikam. My interest in a Lee fight I place about at the level of a Murata, Khytrov, or Korobov fight.

 

hes just a bumbeater

 

Fair point. I guess it does have something to do with making it close or the manner of the fight. Marquez stock rose for his close controversial and exciting fights with Pac. Castillo's rose for being robbed by Mayweather. Maidana's rose for what could have been a draw against Mayweather. And Morales gets high praise for his controversial loss to Maidana. Same goes for Martinez' and Lara's controversial losses to Paul Williams. But it's all about how close things are and if it's a good fight, I think. Trinidad didn't win any glory fighting BHop, and Morales got nothing but the money for fighting Danny Garcia. Pacquiao's stock fell considerably when he lost to Mayweather, etc. It's possible for a fighter's stock to rise with an ambitious or exciting loss to a quality opponent, but if Khan get's blown out of there in one round against Amarillo, he won't be doing his legacy any favors.