GGG is overrated.

More to the point is that, regardless of the number of defenses his fans want to claim he made, Golovkin never truly took possession of the "middleweight crown". Though, the claim of him having made the most defenses in history is also somewhat bogus.

Golovkin picked up a minor belt when the WBA was pretty much giving various of its trinkets away. He was effectively 'awarded' an interim strap, marked by his win over Milton Nunez (Who? You might well ask.) Nunez was not even ranked in the WBA's own Top-10, let alone anywhere near the Ring-Ratings and his opposition had, to that point, a combined record of 72-89-4.

Soon after this minor title ceremony, the WBA decided to promote that strap from 'interim' to 'regular'. The problem was that Sturm held the Super WBA Championship. Only when Sturm lost to Geale and, subsequently, Geale was summarily stripped in November 2012, did Golovkin become the WBA Middleweight Titleholder.

So, unless boxing fans want to endorse there being two champions from a single governing body in the same division (as if countless alphabet bodies wasn't already bad enough), Golovkin's first five so-called 'defenses' cannot be considered legitimate. This means his first genuine defense came against Gabriel Rosado - and, bear in mind that Golovkin was still, at this point, to actually win a belt from an incumbent champion. That wouldn't happen for another two years, after the Rosado win, when he faced and beat Lemieux.

But, to the original point, Golovkin was never, at any time during his tenure, considered the Lineal Champion and the record for the most number of Middleweight defenses still belongs to Hopkins (who was also an Undisputed and Lineal Middleweight Champion). As for quality of opposition - Well, that's another story altogether... ... ...

 

1) Fact is:

"Gennady Golovkin made his record 21st defensive of his middleweight titles Friday night, knocking down previously unbeaten Kamil Szeremeta four times before their fight was stopped after the seventh round. Golovkin (41-1-1, 36 KOs) surpassed Bernard Hopkins' division record for title defenses and retained his IBF and IBO 160-pound belts with a one-sided victory in his first fight in 14 months."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...a-sets-middleweight-defense-record/115187040/

2) Hopkins' defences were simply not that impressive to me. His opposition was so-so and comparable to Golovkin's. Actually, GGG's defence of his crown against Canelo surpasses Hopkins' best wins in quality.

 

Losing a title defence to Canelo doesn't add to his ranking, it's all about the W as you know. And statistics as I said only tell you so much, you have to look at the context. Which is why guys like Michalczewski, Hill, are not in the top 10 regarding Light Heavyweights despite their many title defences

And whilst not all of Hopkins title defences were against amazing opposition, fighters like Trinidad, ODLH, Eastman, Joppy, Holmes, Echols, Johnson. Are still better than 90 percent of Golovkin's resume.

 

I'm on board with virtually all of this and I'm a Golovkin fan. The only time I have seen the WBA "regular" belt elevated to some legitimate historical standing is in the context of Golovkin's defenses when it should be scoffed at, just as it is elsewhere. We can't revise history just because he was hard done by politics, which is largely the motivation for it. With that said, had Golovkin participated in a fair sport and been given his shot in a timely fashion, he may have won the Lineal Championship and pounded out a ton of defenses. There aren't many guys in middleweight history who had to wait that long to get a shot at "the man".

My only issue here is that, just as I don't buy GGG's WBA "regular" defenses, I don't put Hopkins' alphabet soup defenses on par with Monzon's or Hagler's, as they were THE Champions during their entire tenures, while Hopkins didn't earn that accolade until the Trinidad fight. For me, that gives Hopkins 6 defenses, half of Hagler's total.

 

A draw is a successful title defence.

 

Yes but he went 0-2-1 against Canelo, so I don't see how that adds to his ranking or legacy. If anything I'd say it's a knock against him, because its the only great fighter he fought in his entire career and failed to beat him.

 

When it comes to Hopkins we can at least say his IBF defenses were legitimate. But, yes, of his 19 defenses (often erroneously counted as 20, by including an No Contest result), only 6 were for the Lineal, Undisputed Middleweight Championship, as you point out (which is still pretty darn good).

To be fair, however, most reasonable observers - even Hopkins' fans - acknowledge that distinction and give more weight to the Championship tenures of Hagler and Monzon, as should be the case.

 

I repeat: a draw is a successful title defence. FFS they count Hopkin's NC as a title defence So yes, he defended against Canelo.

 

Nobody here is claiming that GGG is greater than Hagler or Monzon. There is, however, a strong case for GGG being a top 10 middleweight, and in my view that is especially if you highly rate Hopkins as a middleweight in the top 10.

 

That's not what I'm saying read what I said again, you brought up the draw against Canelo like that's a feather in the cap for Golovkin. What I'm saying is Golovkin never got a win vs Canelo, and is 0-2-1 against the only great fighter he fought. And for me that should definitely effect his ranking when your talking about ATG Middleweights.

You keep focusing too much on the statistics of title defences, @Man_Machine already gave you the context of those defences. And as I've pointed out fighters like Hill, Michalczewski, made loads of title defences at Light Heavyweight and no one rates them in the top 10.

Golovkin's opposition at Middleweight was poor, and despite his many title defences. I don't think he warrants being in the top 10 personally. But if you have him in the top 10 that's your opinion which your entitled to.

 

That's the nub of the matter - And, since I have noticed it implied, elsewhere in this thread, that a Top-10 spot for Hopkins should equate to a similar placement for Golovkin... ...at least BHop beat his 'welterweight' (Trinidad) for the Undisputed Middleweight Championship, and Lineal honors.

Big, big difference.

 

Matter of opinion. Did you hear about the time that Roy Jones lost in the Olympics? Man he got the stuffing beaten out of him for gold. Facts.

People rate Hopkins in the top ten and his opposition was relatively poor. In fact I think Golovkin's was the same or better. Golovkin is far better than Dariusz because he actually tried to make the fights that mattered. Is it his fault the opposition was hiding behind the furniture?

Canelo would turn Trinidad inside out. That's an even bigger difference.

 

It's not a matter of an opinion the record books say Golovkin went 0-2-1 against Canelo which is a fact, was the 1st fight controversial ? yes. Was it a robbery in the same vain of Jones vs Park ? definitely not no. Fight 2 was close but i had no problem with Canelo winning the 2nd fight, and the 3rd fight most people had Canelo winning fairly comfortably. Again the only great fighter Golovkin fought he failed to get a W against him in 3 fights which is a fact.

It's a matter of an opinion that Golovkin is "far better" than Michalczewski, infact i would say they're very comparable. I'm also not sure what you mean by Golovkin being better than Michalczewski because he tried to make fights that mattered, Michaelczewski chased a fight against RJJ for years you know the guy that was the best P4P fighter on the planet. I'd also be curious what big names avoided Golovkin at Middleweight.

Tell me the names that Golovkin "beat" that rate higher than Hopkins's opposition.

How is that a bigger difference ? Golovkin never beat Canelo so that point is moot. The fact is i believe Trinidad was the betting favourite against Hopkins, he was ranked P4P number 2 and was 40-0, and whilst Trinidad was more known for his Welterweight feats. Still going into the Hopkins fight he'd destroyed William Joppy and won WBA Middleweight title. And finally does Golovkin have any win on his resume that is close to beating Felix Trinidad ? absolutely not.

 

I don't know what you are talking about. RJJ got schooled. The judges said so.

Show me who rates Dariusz in the top ten then.

Here's somebody making a case for GGG at #7

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/box...ovkin-canelo-alvarez/qbsee6xsqdhqgng0iaayuiwc

Read the thread.

Better than Antwun Echols, who is apparently one of Hopkins' best wins? Let me put it to you that if GGG fought Allen 3 times instead of Canelo three times he'd still be undefeated

GGG defended the belt against Canelo, full stop.

Trinidad's record at middleweight is virtually non existent. It's kind of hard to assess a guy that had a single MW win before losing to Hopkins. He's a good win, but not quite as good as you think.

 

Not sure why you keep bringing up RJJ vs Park ? how is that comparable to what we're talking about ? RJJ vs Park is widely considered as a robbery. Golovkin vs Canelo 1 was a controversial fight but a competitive one, not even close to being in the same vein as Jones vs Park.

And what does that prove ? so your basing your argument on 1 person's opinion ? i'll show you an article aswell which doesn't have Golovkin in the top 10.

https://www.thefightcity.com/top-12...r-sugar-ray-robinson-jake-lamotta-harry-greb/

I would say Michalczewski and Golovkin are very comparable, Michaelczweski retired at 48-2 making 23 title defences holding the WBO, IBF, WBA, lineal Light Heavyweight title. And also has a victory over Virgil Hill which is better than any win on Golovkin's record by far. Not sure why you think Golovkin is so far ahead of Michalczweski on a P4P basis i'd rank them fairly similar.

I have read the thread i have yet to see you come up with any real argument, on why Golovkin's Middleweight resume is better than Hopkins.

Your throwing shade at Hopkins fighting Echols and Allen, but again show me the names Golovkin beat. That proves your argument that Golovkin has a better resume than Hopkins overall ?

Golovkin never "defeated" Canelo so again i'm not sure why you keep bringing it up, like it's some feather in the cap for Golovkin. Had Golovkin defeated Canelo it would of been a good win on his resume, but the fact is in 3 fights he failed to get a single win. So as i said before if anything it should count against him.

Trinidad was P4P number 2 40-0 and had recently destroyed a world class Middleweight in William Joppy. It's a very good win and by far better than any victory on Golovkin's resume.