Highly impressive. He would be in the conversation if not leading contender for fighter of the year with Bivol (depending who Bivol fights later in the year). Even he does KO Alvarez though, I can already see the future arguments on why his win doesn't mean as much as it should.
A lot of people will say a lot of bad things about Golovkin but dammit we've all had a whole lot of fun arguing about him. I think that's what makes a true HOF'er. That plus multiple big name wins and stuff. But mostly it's about arguing.
He would have corrected all the wrongs done to him and lived up to his full potential in one fight. It would also justify why he was trying to preserve himself, so he would have enough left for this one very important fight.
He holds the all time middleweight title defense record along side Hopkins. To my knowledge the all time middleweight title defense KO record, he's a world famous renowned knockout artist. All the things the HOF likes. He's 12 -1 -1 (10) by KO vs Ring Magazine top 10 fighters. 22 -1 -1 (20) KO'S in world title fights. Have you been living in a cave the last 10 years?
If GGG wins somehow and retires he will go down as having his best win against a fighter coming off a loss. The cold hard truth.
If GGG somehow won and retired, his best win would be a fighter he went life and death with twice probably three times while an old fighter and a fresh fighter beat him with ease. The cold hard truth.
I think you needed a 4th consecutive post to consolidate your point and really get your opinion across.
Fighting Allen and Echols five times makes him better? Who should Golovkin fight five times to match that resume? And which welterweight champs moving up to 160 besides Brook should he have beaten like Trinidad and De La Hoya?
