Is GGG is an all-time top 5 middleweight?

^ Opinion

 

So, you're admitting that Golovkin started late and could have had a substantially better career with a few more years pro experience? Thanks.

I agree. That's how I feel about the GGG loss to Canelo - a clear biased decision towards the money man in his home town, who has a history of favourable scorecards. But there's a difference between having a draw with canelo and one with Mercado.

So, Golovkin, in other words?

Cool. You can have an extra win over Mercado and I'll take 2 wins over Canelo for GGG, where "most" people had him winning both fights.

My opinion on those fights exists on these fora for reference.

 

Great point. Hagler knocked out Monroe in fights two and three. So although he had a bad outing in their first fight he more then made up for it in the second and third fight

 

H2H he is right up there

Unfortunately his resume doesn't cut the mustard in comparison to others of yester-year

 

I would say no and there's a very limited amount of time for him to reach that level. He'd have to do something amazing like beat canelo, charlo, and Andrade decisively.

He wasted many years of his prime and started doing some of the same diva tactics people did to him when they avoided him. Should have went for undisputed when he had the chance.

 

100%

 

No

 

I also believe that that fight was in Quito, and if it was would be a distinct advantage for Mercado because Quito is so high above sea level and the air is quite thin there.

 

Bang on Clinton.

 

Bang on mate. He was at an almost identical career stage to Marv as well was Hopkins. Slow and steady won the race for both of them as they eventually became two of the greatest middleweights in history.

 

He's already beaten Canelo twice and never got the credit for it. If he beats Charlo and Andrade they'll be reduced to only average filler by the time people are through with them. And to be honest I don't rate Charlo and Andrade that highly either.

 

No he is not top 5.
Neither is Hopkins

And yes he did arguably beat Alvarez twice, which might be seen to
put his accomplishments at 160 above those of Hopkins.
I think that's a fair argument.

 

So Tito would beat Golovkin at 160?

 

No Tito would not. Fans are quick to excuse Hagler for being a little old at age 32. Monzon quitting at 34. Greb was 32 for his last fight. Stop right there, could they do as well as GGG did in his late 30's? Interesting question. Probably not. Quitting when they did preserved their image. Keep in mind GGG's prime was probably in his low 30's, he beat Canelo when he was in decline on any card the doesn't include those judges. IMO, he would beat these legends if they were 35+ and he was at their age when they retried. That's what it comes down to, it's an unknown how he would do if he was in his prime and they were in their prime. He never lost in a sense.

 

As I've made clear many times I don't give a rats ass about hypotheticals. Tito had in actual reality proven himself more than Canelo.