Is GGG An Alltime Great?

No, you did not, I even said it right after in the post you just quoted. Mocking three of Hopkins's lower rated opponents while not saying anything about how GGG's opponents compare is not ''adressing'' them. Neither is repeating the stuff I have said but somehow to GGG's favor. So, are you going to do it ? Or will you just adress and cut half of my post while ignoring the rest of it like you've been doing for half of this back and forth ? What is it that you see in GGG's resume that is so clearly ahead of Hopkins's ?

 

Their resumes are broadly comparable.

What puts Golovkin ahead of Hopkins is the fact that he ravaged his opposition and put most fights beyond question.

He doesn't have any losses beyond Canelo at an old age, and he never had a tough time against nonentities like Segundo Mercado. Even when GGG has been under the weather physically, he came through for the win and usually KO. You'll never see a picture of Golovkin sat on his ass.

Golovkin is physically much superior to Hopkins in that regard. Nobody avoided fighting Hopkins because Hopkins wasn't likely to cave your head in and send you to hospital. There was an air about Hopkins that he was beatable. Prime Golovkin walked into a room and all the fighters dived behind the couches.

 

It was a robbery because the cash cow was protected at the expense of the winners victory. Don't forget that the ringside media had GGG winning the 2nd fight by 30 for GGG, 15 had it even, and 2 had it for Canelo. So it wasnt just the imagination of the GGG fans. It was an extremely competitive but well deserved win for the old warrior, and they stole it from him, plain and simple.

 

But the others did right? Brook was stepping in for Eubank who lost his pen. You can look at Brook as a martyr who saved Eubank from a severe beating.

 

Trinidad was P4P number 2 and 40-0 when Hopkins beat him, and was actually the favourite to beat Hopkins because he recently destroyed Middleweight champion William Joppy.

Kell Brook on the other hand had no resume above Welterweight, and everyone believed it was a mismatch.

 

Actually, Golovkin hasn't been at his best since the 2nd Canelo fight, age and Banks seemed to have ruined him. That being said, he still nicked Derevyanchenko while being ill and took out an extremely determined Murata, as well as keeping Canelo honest thoughout the entire trilogy fight and winning 5 out of the 12 rounds.

 

They were ranked by the Ring, period. Don't make stuff up.i am a collector of the Ring magazine since the 80s.

 

Golovkin says to Brook - you want street fight? Come, I show you street fight.

He fight Canelo with ultra defence fight. Thsts what bullies do, they back down against guys who fight back

 

Because the notorious Vegas judges voted Canelo ever really beat GGG doesn't mean its the truth. The vast majority of boxing experts fighters & fans , myself included , that Canelo lost both fights to GGG. He barely scraped a win over a 40+ GGG only by GGG not starting to fight earlier at the final bell Canelo was exhausted he'd never have been able to go 2 more rounds. The state commissions are at fault too NOTHING is ever done
to improve the quality of officiating they just turn a blind eye . Its all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

It's far easier to do it against lesser competition and when you are a big puncher, that doesn't make you the better or the greater fighter. Foreman had a greater aura of invincibility between Jamaica and Zaire than Ali ever did. He made Ali's two hardest opponents fly into orbit. But look at what happened in Zaire and how Ali is remembered in comparison. GGG's opposition is just extremely lacking, could he have done the same things he did to a Trinidad or an Oscar level fighter ? Maybe, but no one truly knows. H2H is hypothetical, it's not valid criteria. You may think the answer is obvious but then it turns out that it's not. Look at Ali vs Foreman, Duran vs Barkley, Marciano vs Walcott etc. Those examples aren't even of the losers being past their prime, just the winner proving himself the superior. What they accomplished in their actual careers is what matters in the end. And Hopkins just clearly outclasses GGG in that regard.

 

During his prime he fought who he could and kept busy. In the process was mowing down Ring mag contender after Ring mag contender.

 

The Ring mag lost all credibility when Oscar took over. All the good writers & reporters were removed it just became a Golden Boy rag . I dread to think what Nat Fleicher would say what he did to it

 

Yes Ive seen it now. I guess we all have opinions on the those results & that's as it should be. I'm just saying the vast majority of people think GGG won those first two fights. You must admit my friend some of those cards the Vegas judges turned in have been hilarious. Still they do nothing to better the situation sadly. It breaks my heart to see how bad it is today

 

There's nothing about Hopkins' competition that is more impressive than Golovkin's. People like to big up Hopkins wins like Trinidad but he's still just the smaller guy going to a bigger division. If Trinidad impresses you then you'll love Kell Brook as a win for GGG.

Unfortunately - at middleweight - Hopkins does not outclass Golovkin in career. Golovkin has more defences. Golovkin doesn't have losses to nobodies and draws with Segundo Mercado.