Wow. That really isn't how that works at all. So every fight should end in a draw because your guy losing hurts your feelings? GGG dosen't deserve a win because he literally didn't win! if he won the 1st fight it would still be 1-2-0 with Canelo, who if he beat 3 times still wouldn't be worthy of top 10. Not impressive as far as MW legends go. In the era of 4 belts and 2 lineal orgs that means he was a good fighter not a legend like Joe Louis. His title challengers were obviously weaker than other eras of the division, and he struggled when he stepped up to fighters that would be blips on the radar of actual MW ATGs, like Canelo and fighters less than Canelo himself. Relative to the true greats of the division that is very average. To firmly remain outside the top 20 if not 30? I agree.
Keep in mind that Canelo gave up his belt to age GGG. AS you may have forgotten, his first two fights were at 35 and 36 years old. Then Canelo aged him 4 more years tell 40 years old for the 3rd fight. What was the other greats doing at 35 to 40 years old? He fought Murata at 40, and Derev at 38 and took it easy on Canelo at 40, and still almost ran Canelo out of the ring in the final 4 rounds.
That's because Clenelo got farked up in the second fight. Clenbuterol fans the world over like to pretend he won but the fact is that in #2 GGG landed not only more than Alvarez but also better. At least in #1 Clenelo could say he landed the best shots of the fight.
Eye on the ring is a small sample size my guy. Even if so, 58% rating? Just over half, a swing fight. I have no issues with swing fights. I have issues with people who think GGG and Clenelo Part I being a swing fight when it was anything but.
Collectively, his body of work was impressive. I also take into account he was the boogeyman and those names I mentioned were afraid to fight him. You don’t beat that many ranked fighters if you’re overrated.
I don't think Golovkin is overrated regarding the eye test, he was a fantastic fighter and a fighter I enjoyed watching. I just don't think his body of work quite matches up to that is all. To give you an example I think Terence Crawford is a fantastic talent, but his resume right now is a forgettable one at this moment.
As I've already said his best wins are over Jacobs, Brook, your calling it ridiculous and bringing up stats without context of the opponents. The fact is the list of opponents is a very forgettable list of opponents, especially when your best win is a close win vs Daniel Jacobs. So how is my post hating on Golovkin ? What part of my post isn't true ? Is it not a fact that those are his two best wins ? And lastly that's a silly comparison, a fighter can win a fight legitimately. Even if you win an unpopular decision previously, and the 1st fight wasn't even a win for Canleo it was a draw. The fact is Canelo vs Golovkin 1 was a close fight and a controversial one, the 2nd fight was also controversial but Canelo did better in the rematch and landed more power punches. You seem so fixated on these unofficial Canelo wins, but constantly ignore Golovkin's own "controversial wins". Which to me sounds like one rule for one and not the other.
My point is it was a debatable decision and a controversial decision, Golovkin has 2 controversial decisions in his career. And 2 controversial losses in his career, you can't just look at the Canelo fights and give Golovkin unofficial wins. And then ignore Golovkin's own controversial decision wins. Because as I said to the other poster that's saying "one rule for one and not the other".
I for one rate Derevyanchenko and Jacobs highly. I feel that GGG beat Jacobs 7-5 + KD and Derevyanchenko I had a draw with the KD being the difference. I feel that Derevyanchenko has a decent claim to having the win. I do not think Jacobs does. Golovkin's power was the difference in these I felt. Regardless, consider that we are watching the work of an old fighter in these. Guys like Hagler etc were already long retired at the same age.
But as I said to you before a fighter like Hagler had cemented his legacy already, his list of opponents were much more impressive than Golovkin's. To me I think Golovkin was a fantastic talent, but he falls into the category of being very good or low tier great rather than ATG. His body of work just don't match up to the talent he had IMO. And that's how I feel about Terence Crawford at this moment.
The only thing controversial about fight #1 is why the clear winner only got a draw. With fight #2 ringside media had GGG winning 30 for GGG, 16 had it a draw, and 2 had it for Canelo. The bottom line is Canelo fans love to say GGG'S best win is Jacobs, while Canelo's best win is Golovkin. When in reality Golovkins best win is Canelo along with his spectacular KO run as middleweight champion.
So what? Again so what? he has the resume he has, that's it. And still this thread is fixated on the Canelo fights. Not one of you have proved that beating Canelo even three times would land GGG inside the top 20. If that's the GGG camps only argument, that should be telling, as far as true ATGs go.
How highly? On which top MW ATG resume would those two be their best win? Why? When you could just compare the resumes?
