Who had a better MW title reign: Hopkins or Golovkin?

If Golovkin beats Canelo and Jacobs in a rematch, he'll have a strong case. Right now he just isn't there. It would've been a large boost to his resume if he beat Pirog.

 

Brook was a pretty serious win for GGG. Roughly on par with Hopkins' win over Holmes. Vanderpool (huh?) and Johnson were both inferior wins for Hopkins.

 

Speculation. Whats it based on? Brook has zero wins at 154. Its a total uncertainty how he does at the weight. Hoya is proven at 154.
Brook is simply not a good win for GGG same as Khan is not a good win for Canelo. Trinidad blitzed his opponents at 154 before moving up and blitzing Joppy.
What did Brook do? Nothing. . Its not a good win and shouldn't even be factored into the discussion.

Johnson fought a lot of fights on the road and was robbed in other guys back yards. He beat Ottke by a hair and was outright robbed against Branco and Sheika - two top fighters in their day.
Perspective isn't your strong point. Nobody ever beat Johnson the way Hopkins did and after the loss he went on to become the unified LHW Champion.

Vanderpool was a tricky southpaw , active and very athletic - things most of GGGs opponents were not. He dominates Brook and Johnson would destroy him. Way too big and way too strong.

 

Fixed it for ya

 

Come on. He was always a dirty fighter, but he was way superior in that fight - dirty or not.

Or he would have lost to Martinez and we wouldn't even have this discussion. Golovkin didn't after all separate himself from the best he has fought so far - Jacobs.

I wouldn't. He would still be short of top wins with Canelo and Jacobs - and he hardly even won over Jacobs.

We're discussing reigns here, and the loss to Jones and draw to Mercado were both before Hopkins's reign (and Jones was also so much better than anyone Golovkin has fought that it isn't even funny).

If Golovkin is fighting at LHW in ten years time, then we can compare his performances there to Hopkins's against Calzaghe and others at the weight, but it is totally irrelevant for this discussion.

 

Bokaj: Come on. He was always a dirty fighter, but he was way superior in that fight - dirty or not.

This content is protected

Bokaj: Or he would have lost to Martinez and we wouldn't even have this discussion. Golovkin didn't after all separate himself from the best he has fought so far - Jacobs.

This content is protected

Bokaj : I wouldn't. He would still be short of top wins with Canelo and Jacobs - and he hardly even won over Jacobs.

This content is protected

Bokaj: We're discussing reigns here, and the loss to Jones and draw to Mercado were both before Hopkins's reign (and Jones was also so much better than anyone Golovkin has fought that it isn't even funny).

This content is protected

 

Golovkin for me.

Based on Golovkins reign you consider whether or not he's one of the best MW fighters ever. If he beats Canelo convincingly and then maybe a BJS and a Jacobs I think most will class him one of the best ever without argument.

For me Hopkins never really convinced me of his greatness until his LHW reign.

It's a tough one, Hopkins was ranked number 1 for a decade. G has been ranked number 1 for a fraction of that time. That being said G looked like a monster and Hopkins didn't.

My opinion changes if Canelo beats Golovkin obviously.

 

I more or less agree with this. Ggg doesnt have a single name better than trinidad, joppy, or oscar.

Unifying with saunders and canelo would indeed make it more even. Maybe beating a charlo and/or andrade would arguably put him above hopkins.

 

I'm pretty sure Jacobs is better than those three.

 

This content is protected

 

Lol. Jacobs is good but not that good.

 

You're giving Golovkin points for hypothetically winning fights. That won't wash. The pure fact is that he has stepped up in class once really and that was a fight that could have gone either way.

Hopkins beat a larger number of the top fighters during his reign. Actually, just about all of them. None of these fights were close.

This just can't be said of Golovkin.

 

I'm surprised by the closeness in the poll here. This kind of bias is usually reserved for the older fighter.

If Golovkin hung up his gloves today, it would be laughable in a couple of years time to suggest his reign was better than Hopkins's.

Hopkins clearly proved himself to be the best MW for a decade. Golovkin hasn't even coclusively proven himself to be the best for this year with the Jacobs fight a toss up and the Canelo fight yet to be fought.

 

Completely agree.

 

I think Golovkin's reign so far is more comparable to Hopkins's before the tournament. I e before the Holmes fight.

So if Golovkin comfortably beats all the best MWs over the coming five years before losing very narrowly to an up and coming contender his reign will definitely be comparable to Hopkins's. But that's a big if.