Zarate at this stage, for one simple reason. Both guys suffer in varying degrees from the same problem; being dominant knockout punchers, but in (relatively) talent-sparse divisions. The difference is how they got on in their defining fights, the fights in which they had the chance to finally remove any lingering doubts about their divisional superiority. Zarate's was against the 26-0 (26) Zamora, Golovkin's was last weekend against Canelo. Zarate conclusively knocked out his opponent in a brutal thriller, whereas Golovkin (though I think he deserved the nod) didn't utterly stamp his authority on matters and, as a result, couldn't get the result to totally validate his claim as the top dog at 160. So has to be Zarate, for me. Just utterly dominant throughout his Bantamweight reign which was only ended by a horror verdict against Pintor. It Golovkin can do a number on Alvarez in a rematch, I'd have to at least reconsider.
But is it fair to compare a 35-yo Golovkin to a 26-yo Zarate? I'd also argue that Canelo is a much better fighter than Zamora.
Ooof that question is well pitched. It's a very very good advertisement for why you maybe need to wait for a guy to retire. You could make a very good argument for Golovkin at this stage. But this is in part because when Zarate moved up he struggled compared to how he did at bantamweight. Then again, imagine running into Gomez at 122? Bit like running into Roy Jones if you're Golovkin. Anyway, we've no idea how good Golovkin will be when he moves up. Then again, Golovkin is pretty old moving up so he's a strong argument for just being old if he's awful (i personally think he'll get a new lease of life). If Golovkin retires tomorrow, that's a hell of a run and he's got a good case.
That's a fair enough point, although 35 years old isn't quite the eye-popping age it once was. Not uncommon in recent times for some of the best fighters in the world to still be looking fresh as a daisy and putting in career-best performances at that age. But yep, I'll concede that Golovkin is a little long in the tooth and, judging by his past two or three performances, is starting to look it in the ring as well. I'd put Canelo ahead of Zamora as well, but that gap could be offset in relative terms by how much better Zarate was against him than Golovkin was against Alvarez. I guess I just take Zarate here because he was an utterly dominant, no-argument-brokered champion at his weight, whereas Golovkin hasn't quite got there yet, having never got the Martinez fight and, so far, not having beaten 'the man who beat the man who beat the man'. But it's close.
Carlos Zarate was a far better fighter and had much more skill than Gennady Golovkin. In fact, Zarate was an all-time great in the bantamweight division. Moreover, there was quite a bit of depth in the bantamweight division at the time that Zarate ruled the roost. - Chuck Johnston
Was Godzilla or Shamu The Killer Whale pound 4 pound the most ferocious or was Babe Ruth or Michael Jordan pound 4 pound the most popular or was Bernie Madoff or Donald Trump pound 4 pound the biggest con or is Kim Kardashian or Jennifer Lopez pound 4 pound the biggest butt. . . .MY GAWD . . . P4P questions and debates are nonsensical!