Well, let's see: Dino thinks Golovkin can't handle movers, guys that use angles. Geale was a mover. Monroe was a mover. Golovkin used his footwork to close them down whichever frickin angle they tried to create and destroyed them. Now, yeah, Hopkins is better than those two guys. But the argument that a cute slickster boxer automatically holds the key to beating GGG is completely erroneous. History has proven that Golovkin is quite comfortable with fighters that try to use angles and movement on him. You want the sort of fighter that could beat GGG? I pick Hagler from Hagler / Hearns. Somebody with an iron chin, iron body, that isn't afraid to go to war on the inside, robbing Golovkin of his space to create leverage and pushing Golovkin back, and who has a big punch himself. Golovkin's fundamentals are too sound for Hopkins, and Hopkins doesn't have the punch to command GGG's respect.
No. Pavlik was the definition of a sound fundamentalist. Imagine Brook vs Pavlik. lol. Brook wouldn't land a glove on him. Hop in his prime during the 90's was a hueavy handed hitter. Watch him lay the feared Trey Lipsy out cold in just the 4th round. That Hopkins was simply too varied and too tactical for the straight forward Golovkin.
Pavlik doesn't have Golovkin's footwork, nor does he hit as hard as him. Joe (not Trey) Lipsey was a can-crusher supreme. He could dish it out but couldn't take hits from a high level boxer. Hopkins destroyed him and rightly so. Nevertheless, we're comparing the punching power of a guy with a less than 50% KO ratio with a guy with a 92% + KO ratio? Really? You're pointing out that Hopkins was a great fighter. That's granted. The real question is whether he matches up well with Golovkin or not. I don't think that he does.