Exactly where does GGG rate at 160??

Middleweight, like it's companion, super middleweight, is one of the poorest historical divisions, boasting such undeserved nobodies as a guy who took heavyweight Jack Dempsey's name to get famous, and that one guy who was Calzaghe before Calzaghe because he threw all them punches but against nobodies. Grebbles. Betty Grebbles brother, probably. Anyways, GGG might rank within the top 10 of a division like that but some people saying top thirty are probably more accurate. Because Bobnard Hoskins was a former champion there and he was pretty dope.

 

I agree with you and that's what I've been saying TBH. People seem to be giving Golovkin unofficial wins to rank him higher to make up for his average resume. I don't know any other fighter who gets that treatment, when we're debating their place in history.

Look at Robin Reid he lost two controversial decisions, to the two of the longest reigning Super Middleweights in history. Just imagine we rewrite history and give him those decisions. I just feel it's the wrong way to look at things IMO, you can't rewrite history to heighten someone's resume it doesn't work like that. And it's just a biased way of looking at things, especially when Golovkin himself benefitted from some close deicisions, which people seem to be constantly overlooking for some reason. It can't be one rule for one and not the other.

 

Even without giving Golovkin the official win he deserves, that you can't erase from peoples minds, Golovkin has the title fight victories, the devastating results, that stick in the minds of people that are deciding whether he is top 10 or later. Again, Golovkins greatness doesn't hinge on whether he was robbed vs Canelo or not, thats common knowledge. Official or not, it's common knowledge. It's easy for people to pick through his record and say this guy or that guy wasn't that great after the fact just because he destroyed them so easily. Hearns could have not fought Barkley because everybody thought the great Tommy Hearns would defeat him easy, but look what happend.

 

That dosen't answer the question, but I'll stop trying because I know you never will.

 

Canelo is by far the best fighter Golovkin fought, so of course him not getting a W against him hurts his legacy, especially when the rest of his resume is average.

 

Bro, hardly anyone had Jacobs beating him. Maybe a few, but I saw very very cards in his favor.

 

He beat a ton of ranked guys/belt holders at 160. He beat who was put in front of him while guys like Cotto, Sturm and Martinez ran from him, Clenelo aged him out even by the first fight, so did Jacobs. They both waited as long as they could.

 

Plenty had Jacobs beating him just look on Eyeonthering, it has 58 percent controversy rating. It was a very close fight that could of gone either way, a debatable fight no different than the Canelo fights which were also debatable.

 

Whether or not guys avoided him is irrelevant regarding if he ranks in the top 10 Middleweights, the fact is Golovkins best win is either close win vs Jacobs, or vs Welterweight Kell Brook. That's not a great resume IMO.

 

I had both fights a draw.

It's a close fight. One corrupt judge shouldn't mean fans can overrule the other two.

 

If you think one judge scored it for GGG and the other scoring it a draw = being paid off, I don't know what to tell you. That's moronic.

 

And even with two wins over Canelo - which doesn't have, and doesn't actually deserve IMO - I had both fights draws - he still wouldn't even be top 20.

The idea he's top 5 is ridiculous IMO.

 

Average world class fighters wouldnt have ko'd all the fighters GGG ko'd in devastating fashion. An excellent fighter would be doing good to get a win over all those fighters. GGG obliterated them.

 

My historical knowledge isn't that good so I hesitate to vote here. GGG's peak is better than his legacy though, and I think the poll is really about the latter. He'd probably beat a good few historical MW greats who rank higher than him.

That being said, he does deserve some credit for being the man in the division for so long and being ducked by Sturm etc. If he had got those fights he would have had a resume close to matching his talent. I know some may disagree, but for me being ducked blatantly is something that does live on in one's legacy.

 

If Golovkin don't deserve a win then Canelo don't deserve a win. Oh, and average isn't 22-1-1 with 20 ko's in world title fights. Try as you may to discredit GGG. You sound rediculious. GGG don't need Canelo on his resume.