Is GGG An Alltime Great?

The Hopkins-GGG argument reveals the importance of the details. Holman Williams beat five guys from my top fifty at the weight: Cocoa Kid (#49), Jack Chase (#47), Lloyd Marshall (#31), Berty Lytell (#27), Charley Burley (Top Ten). This is what his status rests upon. Hopkins meanwhile beat 0. GGG beat 0. The problem is that Hopkins was lineal from 2001-2005. GGG was lineal for 0. Deciding that Golovkin beat Alvarez - have you now decided that he was the lineal champion of the world, and do you count all the fights he's won since then as successful defences? Because such things matter for legacy. What is your decision regarding Hopkins-Taylor? Did Hopkins also retire MW champion of the world for you, and how does that affect his standing?

It's very very complicated to start overturning fights where you disagree with the decision. For me it is much easier. I scored the first fight to GGG but 115-113 and 116-112. No robbery. I scored the second fight 114-114 and 115-113 Golockin. Not a robbery. For me, it is a bad look that GGG never got the nod in one of those three fights, he definiteliy deserved one, but he was not at any time robbed.

The problem is, if you want to argue Golovkin great, you have to do so without a true title reign and without beating anyone that good. Jake LaMotta is borderline great for me - there are argument both ways - and the guy beat ****ing Sugar Ray Robinson. Tiger Flowers is not a great middleweight for me. The guy beat ****ing Harry Greb twice (people might decide to change one of those decisions without having even seen the fight though, idk). The point is: ATG status in boxing is different. It requires a burden of proof that I have to say Golovkin never met. He is not clearly a great fighter. Nobody that thinks he was one is an idiot. Nobody who thinks he wasn't is an idiot. But in truth, that probably means he wasn't in the strictest of terms.

Nobody ever argues about whether Joe Gans or Stanley Ketchel are all-time great fighters.

 

Yeah, GGG doesn't get close to this numerically, but he did do good work in the top 5. I don't think the case for GGG>Hopkins is serious specifically because they are kind of similar but Hopkins as the true reign, and the deeper resume of ranked men.

 

There's a difference between winning a few close/razor-close decisions (and he was past or well past his prime by then), which we all of the ATG greats have, and losing ones which pretty much the entire world considers shameless robberies.

But what's GGG's best win doe?

He's a hype job

He ain't all that he ain't beaten anyone

Yadda yadda yadda

Er. he clearly beat the supposed greatest fighter of this generation, twice in the vast majority of fan's eyes, the second time when they were juiced to high heaven, both times when he was already past his best after not only having been shamelessly ducked by said greatest fighter of a generation when he was in his prime but by countess other top MWs and MW champs for years even though he offered to and would've fought each and every one of them in their backyards, was very reasonable at the negotiating table, and would sign on the dotted line for relative peanuts, even for literally nothing one time.

Prime GGG was one of the most ducked and avoided fighters in recent memory and the most ducked in the sport at the time. I remember it all very well

He didn't have the huge luxury of being able to fight exclusively out of his homeland his entire career with a home ref and three home judges like so many of his privileged peers and greats did from other parts of the world and then be awarded a medal of honor and treated like a living breathing god if he did dare use his passport just once. He literally fought in every country on the map, perhaps in even more countries than there are on it

What the hell is wrong wit chu people?

Ya'll just hate to see a Eurasian King shine and a Soviet brother soar but we gonna shine like the sun and soar like the eagle regardless and there ain't nothing ya'll can do about it. Come see me anytime if ya'll want that smoke with a real Eurasian King. I don't run from the smoke I am the smoke.

Now ya'll better get the hell out of here quick fast because I'm about to lose my poop

This content is protected

 

I'm afraid this isn't true though.

It's true here. In the echo chamber of this forum, these fights were robberies. The why of that, I leave to others, but it's not the case in a wider sense. Here is the GGG-Alvarez Eye on The Ring entry for the first fight:

https://www.eyeonthering.com/boxing/gennady-golovkin-vs-saul-alvarez

The fans on Eye on The Ring, as an amalgamation, score the first fight extremely close. There is no agreement on any single round (This is rare). They have the fight 115-113 but they have round 10/11 a coin toss. This is nowhere near robbery territory. Here is the same exercise carried out by Boxrec:

https://boxrec.com/en/scoring/2160855

It's a wider card, 115-112, but still absolutely nowhere near true robbery. Pacquiao-Bradley I was 117-111 by the same exercise.

Media scorecards from ringside don't find for Alvarez very often, but i've never seen so many drawn cards from ringside. The data-driven captures make it clear it was a very close fight. The ringside reportage makes it clear it was a very close fight. It's only certain corners of the internet that find these to be all-time robberies that "most of the world" agree were such. It is not the case, and never was.

That said, I do think that it stinks that GGG never got a nod in any of these fights. It's wrong, it's unfair. But I don't think he was ever robbed. Not once.

 

Yeah, i mean they'd be different weight classes (Ketchel was 154 even at MW for most of his career) And come from different eras. If Ketchel turned pro now it would be at lightweight. I, too, would pick GGG to beat him.

If you want to say GGG is above Ketchel on a h2h list, no problem, but also kind of meaningless tbh given the size difference. If you want to say GGG should be above Ketchel on an ATG list because he would beat him in a fight, I disagree.

 

I have no idea who or what this Eye on The Ring business is and they can get it too if they want that smoke

I don't dispute most had the second fight very close. A robbery by my definition is that the wrong guy. the guy who just did not win enough rounds to do so, got their hand raised. Close but clear and the vast majority had GGG winning both times on both forums, social media, and ringside media. Granted it wasn't as overwhelming for the second fight and more had that one a draw or scored it for Clenelo than the first one for sure

But when people try to dismiss GGG as a hype job and play this silly little ''what's his best win'' game whilst ignoring the fact that GGG at, very worst, should be 1-1 (1-2 if you include the geriatric shell of their last fight) against Clenelo, losing the rematch by a single point, they're being very disingenuous.

 

It's a site where loads of people score the fight and they use those scorecards to draw out an average scorecard. The average scorecard on the site is very close for GGG-Alvarez I.

The point is that many ringsiders had it a draw. The data gathering shows a close fight. These both point to the fight being scored a draw as reasonable. That's my position. I scored this fight twice and both times I got it for Golovkin - close. I have no problem based upon what I've seen with a draw. You do. We see different things when we watch this fight, which is normal. Looking to the data: very close fight. Looking to the ringsiders: lots of draws and close cards. A draw is ok. It's not some stunning robbery. That's not to say your card is bad (I think it's good) but if you're saying that everyone who saw the fight from ringside had bad cards, we part company.

Yeah, Golovkin is not a hype job, that's silly. And there's an argument for his greatness without changing what occurred IRL.