Will Gennady Golovkin break Hopkin's record at MW?

Felix Strum was the WBA Super Champion @ 160 until losing to Daniel Geale on 1 September 2012. There is no way in hell you can count Bumlovkin's "Regular" WBA title defenses as actual defenses of the WBA title prior to Sturm's loss. Bumlovkinites, please remove your heads from your asses...

 

By my reckoning, Bernard had 20 successful defences of a major title.

GGG has 15 successful defences of a major title.


Bernard has 6 defences of the linear title.

GGG has 0 defences of the linear title



(Monzon had 19 defences of the linear title, against better opposition than either Bernard or GGG)


For whatever all those stats mean.

 

NO.

Defending the so-called WBA "Regular" title while Felix Sturm was the WBA "Super" Champion does NOT qualify as defenses of a "Major" title. Try again..

 

You see how this will go largely ignored.

 

Debatable.

He was awarded super champion status in August 2010.

He has not lost since then, so I would count all of his fights since then.

Still, I 'm not familiar with WBA's reasons for elevating Sturm so I could be convinced otherwise.

 

Sure he can. I'm sure they already have over 10 overly matched bums lined up for him.

 

At this moment in time we have 4 different people who are claiming they are defending a MW title.

It is a totally pointless stat due to the fact he doesn't have the championship.

Admittedly he wants a fight with Canelo but until he has that MW belt he doesn't have a single defence worth talking about.

 

I know a title defence is. I'm saying it's worthless when Saunders and Jacobs can be claiming title defences at the same time.

I'm only interested in championship defences and of those Golovkin has zero.

 

Hopkins middleweight division was much thicker than the current one. While there were no big names, he at least had real blue collar contenders that could actually fight. Not these stiffs like Macklin, Geale, Monroe etc. None of these guys Golovkin is defending against would be one of the top 10 middleweight most years of the 90s.

 

No, this is not the case.

Bernard had a good run at MW and I don't care that he didn't pick up the linear title till late on, he was still a very good MW champion.

But he did NOT fight great opposition at MW.

He has no marquee victories at the weight.


Antwun Echols (twice)
Robert Allen ( three times !)
And a host of others that were far from superstars.

BHop's reputation at MW rests on his long string of victories at the weight (even if they weren't linear defences) as well as the manner in which he beat his opponents.


And his ATG status rests more on his victories AFTER MW at an advanced age (Tarver, Pavlik, Pascal) than at the string of journeymen he dispatched at 160.

Whether or not he held a linear title did not affect the perception that he was the best MW alive of twenty defences.

But none of these, including Welterwt Tito, was anything like a marquee victory.

 

Hopkins beating Tito who destroyed Joppy and was a tremendous fighter with power on both fists is what cemente his legacy.

 

So, scar, who should he fight at MW to prove he's the best MW currently ?

Which MW would give him the greatest challenge ?

Tell us.

 

Bovine excerment, lad !

Tito has no legacyy whatsoever at MW.

Joppy's best days were behind him when he met Tito, and that was Tito's only decent win at MW.

Tito's greatness was established at WELTER WEIGHT, (and using a hand-wrapping technique that Bernard exposed as questionable at best and illegal at worst, a technique his father admitted he had always used, up till that point).

Tito was not on the top three list of Bernard's best wins.