Is GGG is an all-time top 5 middleweight?

Top 10 to 15 for me.

H2H he would be better but I don't think he would beat any of the top 5 prime for prime.

Those guys had a lot more fights in a simpler time with less belts and more competition.

If GGG had started earlier as a pro and wasn't avoided like the plague on the way up he would have ranked a tiny bit higher.

The reality is he's had his biggest fights well into his 30's which gives the appearance of not being quite as dominant. Sp age has to be taken into account.

The fights would be competitive nothing to show he would get blown out as his chin is A+ grade.

 

You are missing mine i suspect. I am looking at things from a resume based perspective and no-one is giving allowances because a guy had 350 amateur fights when it comes to ratings. Does Donald Curry get leeway in the ranking for having 400 odd amateur fights?

By concentrating on age you are skewing things.

Monzon fought professionally for 14 1/2 years. He had 109 fights. GGG was right at the 14 1/2 year mark, the same as Monzon fought, in his last actual fight but has had only 43 fights. So in professional fighting years they are at exactly the same stage now but Monzon has had more than twice as many fights. There's the real story without any shucking and jiving right there.

Hagle retired at the 14 year mark yet has had 67 fights to GGG's 43. He's had more than 1.5 times the fights GGG has had. GGG not only hasn't been doing anything they were but he's had a truckload less fights.

Regarding GGG vs Monzon for title defenses well Monzon was the lineal title holder for 7 years. He also held all the titles for all defenses bar a few in his reign. GGG was more of a paper titlest guy for much of his so called "reign". Whatever number of so called defenses he had is bogus just like Wilder's is.

While i'd agree Monzon's opposition is certainly below what his most avid fans try and convey it's just as certainly above what GGG fought.

GGG isn't in the conversation for top 5 or possibly even top 10 when all is weighed up. He's stronger H2H than resume based.

 

You'd have to be awful desperate to somehow summise that from what i said but if it makes you feel good then knock yourself out.

Golovkin was in his 38th fight. Hopkins was in his 29th. GGG had been a title holder for years while Hopkins was yet to win one. The importance of career stages have always been out of reach for you whether purposely or......worse.

GGG was decidedly unlucky against Canelo in the first fight. The second fight was close enough to be no robbery.

Yes Golovkin got it done as well, absolutely. He's a damn good fighter. He just got it done against lesser guys than Hagler, Monzon and Bhop. No shame in that.

I don't need the win over Mercado when all is taken into account. Not near as much as you'd need Canelo.

If you ever stumble accidentally into an Arguello thread be sure to mention he lost 2 of his first 5 fights. It will be a real game changer for you

 

Top 5. Head to head he is goat.

 

Your point is that Hopkins had to build a career and hence took a while. My point is that GGG had no time to build a career and was already old by boxing standards when he jumped into the pro game.

Golovkin was old. Hopkins was young. The importance of age seems to elude you for some reason.

That doesn't change the basis of my reasoning. You feels that Hopkins should have a W instead of a draw against Mercado because most people (in your words) felt he did enough to win. On the same basis GGG would have 2 wins over Canelo.

We're talking about Hopkins. And the quality of his opposition at 160 vis a vis GGG's is debatable. Echols x3?

1) that's your opinion
2) The draw to Mercado looks a lot worse than the draw to Canelo.

If you ever stumble into a Hopkins thread be sure to mention his epic win over Segundo Mercado.

 

^ This guy DKSAB

 

Then why did you mention Golovkin's amateur career as being of benefit to him? It can easily be seen in another light: his amateur career robbed him of years of pro fights while being younger.

 

Golovkin was 23 when he turned pro. Hopkins was the same. Golovkin had a better foundation to build from. Golovkin was not old by boxing standards due to his amateur career. Don Curry had more am fights. It's not like GGG hung around the ams till he was 30. Despite his solid amateur grounding he was moved quite slowly for many years.

Hopkins was soon to hit his straps. GGG had been prime for some time. GGG was closer to his very best than Hopkins by a considerable margin. There's that career stage. GGG was 35. At 35 Hopkins was peaking and dominating the division for another 5 years. When he was "old".

Yes. Again Canelo is far more important to GGG. Hopkins in his rematch belted the bejesus out of Mercado where as GGG went the other way and was less impressive.

Sure, fixating on one guy will get you off the hook. It's commonly accepted Hopkins has the better record at 160 and has been debated strongly that way for years. When GGG faced the better guys he struggled - At an age when Hopkins was still very very much firing.

Context. No-one talks about the draw with Mercado where as Canelo is often brought up. The loss more so than the draw.

Well he was pretty dominant in the rematch. Well that and he has so many other wins worth mentioning, not to mention the wins at higher weights when he clean skipped a division to beat the best 175'er and then became lineal another 5 years later at the age of 46. Lets see how GGG is going in another 7 years time.

Here's a tip - put your efforts into proving he was better than guys like Tiger, Williams, LaMotta, Steele, Giardello and Fullmer and don't worry about the top 5.

It gave him a good grounding. His fundamentals are extremely good and he was quite classy from pretty early. The guy turned pro at 23 and malingered for ages so lets not pretend he missed out on all these years in the pro's.

 

No one ever bothered to prove Hopkins was better than those guys, or top 5.

 

Hopkins place has been talked about for years. He's top 10 and indeed comes in at #5 for many people. The vast majority have him well ahead of GGG.

McGrain has him #7 ahead of said others.

 

People will talk about GGG being top 10 as well, but I don't agree with them either.

Too many great middleweights to have either of them rated so high.

 

You are always keen to talk lists (Duran might not be a top 5 lightweight, Leonard a top 5 welter etc) but have no lists and usually revert to the above. Not much substance in that.

 

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to debate Golovkin's merit in head-to-head scenarios, rather than this accomplishments-based analysis? I think that is where our energies would be best directed, as there is obvious high regard for his talents.

There's a case for him in H2H. Even if that's not the intended purpose of the thread, I think it would lead to a more engaging discussion. Thoughts from those who have him outside of the top 5?

 

Show me your top 10 middleweight list then. You always seem to appeal to others' lists.

 

He'd already retired and had an eye taken out by the time he died. He wasn't gonna have any more fights.

Although that's besides the point. Greb lived a fast life and had a far more arduous career than pretty much anyone in any era. He lived in an era where getting to adulthood was a struggle in its own right and he might have had the quintessential young man's style. Tbh, given what happened to the people around him, making it to 32 was probably unexpected.