I consider Charlo’s wins over D-Chenko and JRock to be dominant and over a better opposition level than anyone GGG dominated. GGGs best were maybe Lemieux, Proksa, and Stevens. I feel like using the term “elite” is just a way to be dismissive of Charlo. For shared opposition (D-Chenko), Charlo is in the lead. Mayweather, Pacquiao, Jones, Calzaghe, Hopkins etc. all have dominant wins over top opposition in a way that GGG doesn’t.
Lemieux was undoubtedly top opposition. Murray was undoubtedly top opposition. Brook was undoubtedly top opposition. Geale was undoubtedly top opposition. Charlo absolutely didn't dominate Derevyanchenko, he beat him clearly, but he didn't dominate him. Golovkin would have dominated Martinez had he got the fight when Cotto did, but it wouldn't tell us anything new. Golovkin also would have dominated Cotto, but again that wouldn't have told us anything new. Dont try comparing Golovkin to greats of the past, he's a top boxer today, compare him to his peers. Out of the top ten P4P guys today, how many have dominated top opposition? In a way that Golovkin hasn't.
Lemieux wasn't top opposition. He's been outclassed in the two times he's stepped up and also lost to Rubio and Alcine. Murray wasn't either. He did half decently against an aging Sturm and Martinez, but that was years before fighting GGG. He's had every chance in the world to be a champion and failed. Brook never won a fight at 160. And he still might be GGG's best undebateable win. Geale wasn't that good. See the Cotto fight. And he still might be more accomplished at 160 than any of GGG's decisive wins. You're nitpicking to say that Charlo's win wasn't dominant. He beat him up and won decisively on any non-racist card. GGG didn't do that against a fighter as good as D-Chenko Division by Division, off the top of my head: Fury beat Wlad and Wilder. Usyk beat Gassiev Beterbiev beat Gvoz Canelo beat Smith Jrock beat Hurd Manny Pacquiao... Crawford over Postol Teo over Loma Etc. GGG never made his mark like that against a really good or great fighter. His career reminds me a little of Calzaghe and Hopkins in the way he reigned and stepped up late, but they each got better results.
I feel like you've made my argument for me. Just read back this post and look at the hypocrisy. If you want to dismiss Golovkins victories over Jacobs and Derevyanchenko as not being dominant, you cannot count some of those you have on there. Most of the remaining victories are no better than Lemmy, Murray, Brook or Geale. So out of the dominant victories who are over a better class of opposition were left with Fury over Wilder, and Pacquiao over Cotto. Again, you made my argument for me.
I didn't dismiss anything. GGG has debatable wins over Jacobs and D-Chenko, the latter being extremely questionable. If you think those wins I listed from other fighters weren't clear and that GGG's fights with Jacobs and D-Chenko were, log off. We can use the word "decisive" because you want to pull out the dictionary for the word "dominant." Again, log off if you think Lemieux, Murray, Brook @160, or Geale are equal to Gassiev, Gvoz, Smith, Hurd, and Loma...Oh wait, you're trying to say that GGG's shitshow against D-Chenko was like Teo beating Loma on 100% of judges' and viewers' scorecards. You must be drunk right now. It is New Year's.
You didn't read what I said. "If you want to dismiss Golovkins victories over Jacobs and Derevyanchenko as not being dominant, you cannot count some of those you have on there." "Most of the remaining victories are no better than Lemmy, Murray, Brook or Geale." "So out of the dominant victories who are over a better class of opposition were left with Fury over Wilder, and Pacquiao over Cotto."
