Wow, I am a big Golovkin fan and I am hard pressed to find "good wins" from a quality of opponent point of view. From am eye test POV he has looked great against a lot of guys but his resume is definitely thin. I'm not one who counts losses as wins (Canelo) so I believe his best three wins are Daniel Jacobs, Martin Murray and ....... I would like to say Kassim Ouma but he was past his prime by then so I will go with Daniel Geale.
To have a brace of wins over ''the greatest fighter of a generation'' when you're well past your prime, giving away a significant amount of weight, whilst they're jacked silly on PEDs is impressive no matter how you swing it.
I meant Andrade and the Charlos. Jermell used a drained Rosado as a measuring stick and decided to stay at 154 after he couldn't stop him whereas Canelo waited til Golovkin reached 35 and looked more vulnerable vs Jacobs to call him out.
These types of critiques are always laughable with GGG. First of all, he was the top fighter so it's hard to face the elite fighter when you are it. And when the other elites like Cotto, Martinez, Saunders and then Canelo swerve you it's also hard to get that ''elite killer'' record. People also like to forget the way he destroyed top contenders who at the time were matching champions in very close fights, or were former champs, guys like Macklin, Murray, Geale, Lemieux for instance. People now act like these top fighters were nothing because they weren't hall of famers. Even Brooke, he was naturally a 154 fighter so he came up one division really, and got smashed. These fights were unbelievable beatings.