The first 10 , yeah. I think Macklin and Proska were the only 2 guys ranked in the top 10 until he fought Geale for the full title
James Toney had great skills. He didn't only take 1-2 rounds off of Nunn, and he wasn't at all lucky. He'd turned the fight around at that point. And we're talking here about a prime version of Michael Nunn. A 6'3 southpaw with a huge 77" reach, with great speed and skills. GG has never seen a fighter like Micheal Nunn before. We don't know how that fight would have played out. He's never fought a tricky southpaw like Reggie Johnson either. Mike McCallum might have been faded, but he was still a great fighter. Who's GG fought with those technical skills? Mike had more skills than Canelo. Having close fights with guys of that calibre shouldn't be criticised. They were all top level opponents. Regarding Barkley, you're confusing him with someone else. James easily beat Barkley and it was at SMW. Regarding Tiberi, yes, James was honest enough to admit that he'd lost that one. But he was only young and he was fighting every 2 months at that stage of his career. I think they should have had a rematch. James was far more proven at the weight. He fought better fighters and encountered more styles. Unless he'd not have trained, I don't see why he couldn't have followed GG's exact timeline and replicated those same results. The only thing stopping him would have been a lack of focus and still being able to make the weight at an advanced age. But look who he fought at the higher weights. He beat guys like Barkley, Littles and Jirov at CW. Many people thought he'd won at least one of the Griffin fights. There's none of GG's opponents that I'd pick over James. And if they'd have both fought each other whilst they were both at their best, then I'd pick James everytime. James was better than what Canelo is.
Do you call top ten Ring Magazine raked opponents, cans to be crushed? Yes or no?. Its still duck season with you, because as you know the truth doesn't agree with your opinion. So give me an answer. Hopkins didn't fight great opposition during his title defenses. He had some name welters moving up and a regular group of contenders for the most part with Don King pulling strings for him.
You call it a draw. Okay buddy, do you call Monzon's draws and Hagler's draws a draw, or do you actually watch the fights to see who won it? I've seen you redefine draws, and sometimes you have a point, but with GGG, you won't. Sure, nice to be objective. No draw in the history of boxing has media cards this lopsided. Once again: The cards from people covering or in boxing. GGG vs Canelo 1. 116 = GGG won 021 = Draw 009 = Canelo won [includes 2 Golden Boy promoters] 116/146 = This content is protected had GGG winning the fight. 021/146 = 15% had a draw. 009/146 = This content is protected had Canelo winning the fight. It was a robbery.
Criticizing Nard for facing Welters while at the same time propping up GGG for trying to fight Welters. Pitiful double standards exposed.
You missed my point Dino. Did Mayweater, Pacquaio, or Cotto dare face GGG? Nope. They would have beaten badly and wanted no part of it. But Tito ( Welter ) and De La Hoya ( light weight / super feather weight ) jumped up in class to meet Hopkins.
No. Although, even some of the ranked opponents he has beaten have not really gone anywhere. It was a low period for the division, but something has to fill the vacuum, right? Added to that - How many Ring-Rated opponents did Golovkin actually beat in his 19 successful defenses? I'd wager that it numbers less than half of those defenses. And this, in one of the shallowest eras for some time. This^ is worrying, almost. I haven't ducked any question from you, so it isn't "still" anything. Why are you insisting on this type of posturing? For someone, who has tried to rewrite history in this thread, I find it very strange that you would come out with something about me knowing "the truth doesn't agree with [my] opinion". Whereas you have most definitely declared your opinion as fact (Golovkin, according to your mind, has 20 successful defenses), because you can't accept the truth that he lost to Canelo... ...Seriously, these are not good signs. Overall, Hopkins beat better opposition than Golovkin. He also became the undisputed middleweight champion. Yes - because it was indeed a Draw. Hagler's record stands at 62-3-2 Monzon's record stands at 87-3-9 So - Yes No - you haven't. You've seen me state that there's no accounting for the accuracy of the Judges scoring. I don't care what you think it was. The result was a Draw; ergo, it cannot be classed as a win. But the debate over the Golovkin/Canelo Draw has been nothing but a distraction, because it's not really what I initially took issue with... ...It was this: Bumping up the number of Golovkin's Title defenses, regardless of the actual results. That is just you being ridiculously dishonest with yourself - it's not even funny anymore.
If you can show me media cards that show a larger robbery that was a draw, that would be very rare. Bad decisions are part of boxing, but knowledge fans or historians don't hold a bogus draw against a fighter. That's the standard that should apply. I gave 100 media cards to prove it, and all of them overwhelming say GGG won that fight. OR Okay, Monzon has 9 draws, and not one of them were against a fighter as good as Canelo. Our pal Man_Machine might refer to these opponents as "cans " Let's apply the same standard and then ask, would any of these 9 who drew with Monzon have a chance vs. GGG? No is the answer.
How do you know? I'm probably not the only one, who thinks in these^ terms. It's hard to tell at what level a lot Monzon's early opposition was. Monzon didn't Draw in any of his Title fights. In fact, after his last Draw, in '69, he went over 30 fights without any losses or Draws, through to '77. I'm not sure what your question above, regarding Monzon's pre-Championship opposition, is supposed to establish.
Given that it's recent, you're obviously gonna find the media cards easier. Lewis/Holyfield 1 was a worse robbery. I've never seen anyone argue that as a draw or a Holyfield win. People argue Canelo won everyday. You mean YOU don't. Plenty of knowledgeable fans, and boxing historians go by official results, no matter how ridiculous. Ok? He beat better fighters than Canelo anyway... Well for a start, Briscoe would be GGGs best win, don't know how you're acting like he's a no-one. And you know full well man machine never reffered to Canelo as a can, rather a good 5 of GGG's 9 title defences. Then his entire career before Geale. What you've just done, in a round about kind of way, is admit you base GGGs ranking on what you think he can achieve, not what he did achieve.
Nard fought Tito and Hoya when they were MW Champions. There's a big difference in Nard fighting ranked title holders at MW , than GGG trying to fight welters who never even had a fight at MW , never mind a ranking or a title. Those guys were never going up to MW , yet you bash them for "not daring" to fight in their 5th or 6th weigh class. Did GGG dare to fight Callum Smith , Ward or Billy Joe Saunders just one weight class above his own? All those 3 opponents were available to him.