His careers about done, certainly the meaningful side of it so i don't think it's too early to start summing him up. The question is mostly resume/achievement based. Another poser is where you would rate Canelo at 160 given he was the lineal champion and twice defended that lineal status against GGG. GGG was there forever and has plenty of volume but a pretty bland resume excepting Canelo. Canelo however has very little volume there.
Top 5 for me but in years to come some fans may see him as the very best and I wouldn't argue with that.
Golovkin is in my Top-30, for now (so, I opted for 26-30). He could well make Top-25 (or, conversely, drift out a bit, after some further consideration). The pluses for him are almost exclusively based on his being a perennial presence in the Middleweight Division for as long as he has been. It is difficult, therefore, to imagine him not being a presence in any other era, to some variable degree. However, in his own time, he has a litany of low-quality wins, a few good ones, where he was run close, mixed in with them; none of which could be considered signature victories. Added to this are his quality losses to Canelo, which set him back significantly, in my view. What also hurts him is that his claim to having made the most defenses of a middleweight title in history is a tad bogus - based on him only owning a made up piece of a fractured WBA title - literally created for him, in 2010 - that he did not defeat an incumbent titlist until years after he was awarded the "Interim" WBA strap - when he beat Lemieux for the IBF title, in 2015 - as well as him never achieving undisputed or lineal champion status. I have no doubt that those, who favor a higher placement for Golovkin, will very much rely on the 'Eye-Test' and 'What if..?' scenarios. He was certainly a force in the division, during the teens, while the middleweight class was at a low ebb. But, while it is fun to speculate on what might have been, with fantasy match-ups, against this would-be opponent or that, the reality is that Golovkin didn't really step up in level until quite late on in his career, at which point he was made to look normal, relative to the long-running hype that had surrounded him. Great entertainment, though - and a value-for-money fighter.
I'm kind of hesitant to reply to this thread, as the last GGG thread I posted in it almost went south. But for me hes not in my top 10, if you look at the statistics of how many title defences Golovkin made. Then based on that he warrants being in the top 10. But digging deeper into Golovkin's resume you'll find theres not many big names there, and the only great fighter he fought Canelo. Who himself moved up in weight, Golovkin failed to get a W against him in 3 fights. Despite what your thoughts are on the decision the record books say 0-2-1. For me he falls into the category of a very good fighter or maybe low tier great but definitely not ATG, not getting a W against Canelo hurts his legacy IMO. You probably see my post yesterday @JohnThomas1 and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but he reminds of Dariusz Michalczewski. A very good fighter who made alot of title defences, but falls short of being a ATG. As for where I'd exactly rate him ? I'd have to have a long hard think. But off the top of my head he wouldn't make my top 10 but that's just my opinion.
Put him in with Hagler...both prime, and theres no guaranteed winner. Thats how good GGG was, and Hargler is arguably the benchmark. What aided Hagelr is he retired after the SRL robbery. GGG should have retired after the Canelo robbery.
,,I think he's around 15th. He just doesn't have the resume to rate higher. I mean, what's his best win? Jacobs?
The difference is Hagler had already cemented his legacy whether he fought Leonard or not, the same could not be said about Golovkin despite his many title defences. And regardless of how you feel about Golovkin/Canelo 1, I personally didn't feel it was a robbery. Was it controversial ? Absolutely. But is out of the realms that Canelo possibly earned a draw vs Golovkin ? And in the rematch I didn't feel like there was anything wrong with Canelo getting the nod. Again your saying Golovkin is on par with Hagler, but his performances against elite opposition say otherwise. Hes 0-2-1 against Canelo, he barely got past Jacobs and Derevyanchenko, both being close decisions with the latter being controversial.
If you know a thing about mw top 20, 15 at a stretch his best wins would be a foot note on records like monzons, haglers and Robinson and needles to say grebs.
G catches alot of bad flak IMO. I actually feel G's prime started when he was still in Germany up to the Rubio fight. As I've said befor I also think Abel Sanchez tinkered with his style a little too much. The man was ducked by Martinez Cotto Sturm and Canelo that is until Canelo thought he waited long enough for G to get old. G beat Canelo in the first 2 fights IMO so I don't hold those loses against him. You can only fight who's around and who's willing to fight you. I think G was a legit great fighter. I have him in my top 10 not sure where but he's in there.
I think I have him at #14. Certainly I have him there or thereabouts. I think he won the 1st Canelo fight and the 2nd could have gone either way, so whilst I dont exactly consider those fights wins for analysis/ranking purposes, I gave him more credit than a typical 0-1-1.
