I'm not sure, why you believe, we can come up with some sort of template - that we can use to make "accurate" all-time lists? Surely, it's all a matter of personal opinion! Some think Corbett and Fitz look great on film - while others think they look like ****. How is it possible to come up with something, we can all agree on?
Well those aren't really the same thing, mark. I'd expect whoever is ranked 15th all time at middleweight on a given list to "give any top 5 MW a good fight". Most of a top 5's best and toughest wins are unlikely to be higher than about there anyway. There's a lot of daylight between GGG hanging with a top 5 and giving them a run for their money (which I agree with), and being top 5 himself.
Talking strictly about greatness in an achievement and resumé sense, I don't see a case for GGG in the top 5. I think the top 4 of Greb, Robinson, Monzon and Hagler is hard to crack. Then you've got a guy like Bernard Hopkins who could potentially be following those guys directly after so he's an interesting point of comparison with GGG as a recent fighter and the last clearly great middleweight the division produced (if we're not including GGG as 'great'). Who would you say achieved more between Hopkins and GGG?
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting it was necessarily close... just comparing someone (Hopkins) who is considered a top 10 middleweight by most people who could also theoretically crack the top 5 as a point of reference to the OP's question.
If you see an argument for Hopkins in the Top 5 at MW then I see an argument for Golovkin, because GGG > Hopkins at MW.
