Gennady Golovkin - All Time Ranking?

H2H he could hang with probably any MW ever and give them a hell of a fight. Resume wise, what can I say, he's lacking compared to the greats. That said, I rate him above Hopkins (at MW) so wherever Hopkins is drop gramps a place and slot GGG in.

 

Read this from momus


“His resume is very thin for an ATG, and his dominance hasn't carried over against the top fighters he faced(Jacobs and Canelo). I thought he won both fights, but at that level he looked more pressure fighter than destroyer. 160 is historically stacked with granite-chinned pressure fighters who were proven against tougher competition.

You have to respect the numbers and his current P4P status, and also acknowledge that his career is far from over. Before throwing him in with the top 5 at 160, I'd probably want to see him beat a borderline great in decisive fashion. The eye test tells us he is great, but his quality of opposition can be picked apart.”

 

Let’s see if he can actually dominate Canelo and beat Saunders before we talk about top 10 all time at 160

 

How can you be so sure when his opposition is weak?

That's why I think resume matters. It's one thing to look great against weak opposition another thing to beat great opposition.

 

Golovkin just doesn't have the resume.

 

I think his resume is solid enough to back up the eye test. Let's not forget that some of the greats had losses as well as wins over elite opponents. Can't say that about GGG.

 

Yes , fair is far , so lets put some things into consideration , k?

Defenses of an interim / regular belt don't count. Why? Because you can still hold a regular title and not be ranked in the Ring top 10. See Chagev and now Manny Charr and Tyron Zuge.

Tyron Zeuge is the SMW WBA regular trinket holder and he is not ranked by Ring in top 10.


Golovkin wasn't on the top Ring 10 list either when he first picked up the regular title in 2010.

It looks like this -

2010- non ranked
2011- #10
2012- #4
2013- 2018 #1

Bernard Hopkins time line looked like this -

1996- 2000 #1
2000- 2005 Ring & Lineal Champ

Hopkins defense count started when he was the highest rated MW in the division. Golovkin so far has never been the highest rated MW in the division and when he was making bogus defense of the regular title he had other champions ranked ahead of him.

All of GGGs regular defenses were against non-rankers , while the other champions were fighting and defending against top 10 rankers.

That is why its false to compare Golovkins defense count to Hopkins defense count. Everybody Hopkins defended against beside Moury Hakkar was ranked in the top 10 and he defended a real belt.
There was no other champions above him like there was with Golovkin.

 

Lack of prestigious names on his resume is his biggest (only) weakness here but I think that his consistent dominance, coupled with the eyeball test, more than outweighs it. I mean, how many truly elite prime middleweights (guys who were actually elite at 160) did Monzon, Hagler, and Hopkins beat? And at the end of the day I wouldn’t have any hesitation whatsoever about picking Golovkin at his best over the various hittable, tough-guy 5’7-5’8 middleweights of yore.

Golovkin is past his prime now so I think that whatever he does at this stage is almost a win-win for him.

Anyway, just my idiosyncratic take—I get why people disagree.

 

Momus, should read my post.

I don't disagree with this as he's saying top 5 is questionable, but top 10 should be conclusive by now.

A resume to me is not only who you fought, but also who you lost to. I think Canelo and Jacobs for example are better than fighter that Monzon and Hagler lost or drew with. And Golovkin fought them out of is prime.

So while Golovkin never had a chance to beat a great fighter ( I think Canelo will end up in the hall of fame ), that is not his fault. Besides prime for prime matches between all time greats are pretty rare. Usually one guy is slightly past or past it, and the winner is the much younger man.

 

Dino,

Did someone hack into your account and post this, it's very good. For once your acknowledging my facts. Secondary you using good data and placing in the right context. Without sounding condensing, keep this up.

One reason why Golovkin wasn't ranked in the top 10 earlier by Ring Magazine is he wasn't very visible until he appeared on HBO. He was an amazing amateur, and KO artists on the way up. In hindsight he should have cracked the top 10 earlier than 2011. Maybe 2010.

If you're throwing Hopkins into the mix, he lost to the best he fought at 160 pounds. From 1995-2005, the best middles Hopkins defeated were who? Holmes, Joppy, and Tito ( smaller welter moving up, who he fouled a bit ).
I don't think Holmes, Joppy or Tito aren't that much better than Golovkin three best opponents. I would say J. Taylor was better than these three, and Hopkins ended up 0-2 vs. him.

 

Who beat hagler or monzon near their prime? Antuefermo drew with hagler in an outrageous decision. Just because hagler and monzon lost a couple fights very early in their careers doesn’t mean much...they weren’t seasoned amateurs the way golovkin was. And golovkin was protected his first couple years while hagler was thrown to the wolves against watts and Monroe.

Who has ggg beaten whose even close to the level of rodrigo Valdez at 160?

Charlo, Saunders, Canelo are all out there...GGG gonna step up and beat them and prove his worth? Or continue on beating up the Curtis Stevens of the division? Clocks ticking.

I don’t think he has beaten enough high quality opposition to be top 5 all time 160....yet

 

If you gave me the option to be ringside for an equal number of bouts for either Golovkin or Freddie Steele, I'd take Steele in a heartbeat.

Golovkin is an extremely good fighter but I think I rank him a bit...uh... more hesitantly than some other posters. He's no top ten middleweight, that's for sure.

 

Golovkin isnt anywhere near the top 10 until he has a decisive, non controversial win over an elite guy in his division. A close controversial win over jacobs, a draw with canelo, and stopping the overrated, flat footed no-speed no-defense lemiux isnt cutting it. He whined for years no one would fight him but now that he has a stacked division he has all kinds of excuses.

His whole excuse for not moving up or down is because he wanted undisputed. Now apparently it doesnt matter and money is more important. Fine, but dont complain if the hardcore fans and historians dont rate you high after a very mediocre career.

 

What else does he need to do to Canelo? He already beat him convincingly, even if the judges robbed him. Saunders would be a much better test now that Golovkin has shown signs of slowing down. But I really, really doubt that Golovkin’s doubters would give him much of a boost for beating BJS anyway.