Is GGG An Alltime Great?

He had 3 losses at Middleweight, one to RJJ and two to Taylor. Against RJJ he was definitely pre-prime, but against Taylor although he was 40 that was arguably close to his prime, as Hopkins arguably peaked in his late 30s / early 40s as rare as that is. Look what he went on to accomplish in his 40s after the losses to Taylor.

Yeah the loss to RJJ can pretty much be thrown out, as GGG never fought anyone like that. But on the flip side, the losses to Taylor are very comparable to GGG's draw and loss to Canelo. Hopkins was 40 when he fought Taylor twice, while GGG was 35/36 when he fought Canelo the first two times, but Hopkins was arguably closer to his prime at 40 than GGG was at 35/36. Further, although many thought Hopkins deserved to win the two Taylor fights, the same could be said for GGG over Canelo. And GGG did officially get a draw in one of those while Hopkins didn't against Taylor.

Further, Canelo is seen as a much better opponent than Taylor, so if you throw out the RJJ loss, GGG's two performances against Canelo are arguably better than Hopkins against Taylor. In addition to that, Hopkins also had the draw to Segundo Mercado, and GGG had a much higher KO % than Hopkins. So there's plenty of reasons to argue GGG had a better MW run than Hopkins. But that still doesn't mean he should rank higher on the ATG scale as Hopkins, as Hopkins went on to have significant success at higher weights at older ages than GGG.

 

You are right. Fair point.

 

The poll and 13 pages says it is up for debate.
Is Crawford ATG? Arguably a better career than GGG. Its debatable if he's an ATG.
Carl Froch. First ballot hall of famer. Beat better opponents than GGG. ATG? Its debatable.
Canelo? Debatable.
Andre Ward? A lot of people would definitely argue Ward is not an ATG. He has better win's than GGG. Dared to be great. Took challenges against a guy who was meant to murder him. . Undefeated.

GGG had a career similar to Tim Bradley. HOF , but not ATG.

 

Brook was very highly ranked at welter, however. He also was heavier than Golovkin at the weigh in. You're asking for opponents ranked by the Ring magazine and I gave you one.

Both of whom, however, are smaller guys that Hopkins dragged up. Brook is a decent win but Golovkin's greatness doesn't rest on beating him. Take away these two from Hopkins' resume and suddenly he looks downright pedestrian.

Opinion^

Alas I proved to you already that this was not the case. So sorry.

 

This I agree with. Hopkins is imho lower than GGG at middle but his overall career is certainly higher.

 

Are you really that perverse ? I am talking about ranked Middleweights, it should be obvious that a fighter who was only ranked at Welter is worthless.

Take away the Jacobs and Derevyachenko wins for GGG and the rest is worthless if we don't count Canelo. The rest of his resume isn't just pedestrian, it's outright embarassing. Brook, a career Welter has as good an argument as any for belonging in his top 5 wins and he has 0 wins over Middleweights, that's how bad it is. Proksa? Macklin ? Stevens ? Murray ? Willie Monroe Jr ? Those guys aren't even the men of their house. Geale's only worthwhile win is an over the hill Felix Sturm, who proceeded to win 5 of his next 10 fights against incredibly mediocre opposition. Lemiuex's only worthwhile win is over Hassan, whose only notable wins are close fights against the unporven Murray and Murata. Speaking of Murata, his only decent win is only over Hassan, when he was old. GGG beating him at 40 is not the same as Hopkins going toe to toe with Taylor at 40. Who did the likes of Murray, Lemiuex, Murata and Geale beat in order to be so clearly above Joppy, Holmes, Eastman and Allen ? Who let me clerify, are far from the creme de la creme of Middleweight contenders, and are actually quite weak historically. GGG's opponents have not been proven to be better than that even.

*facts. And calling something an opinion is not an argument.

When ?That's it, I'm done with this.

 

Of course he is. Golovkin was at or near the top of the middleweight division for practically a decade.

I'd take Golovkin over all-time greats like Rocky Graziano and Tony Zale.

 

LOL Prowler offered to spar with Lou but Lou threatened to set his family on him Lou is like your boxing idols I think. He has to have back up in place cant do it without help. Is that right ? lol

 

So we've gone from insisting on Ring ranked fighters to calling a guy who was #1 ranked by Ring "worthless". Gotcha.

Take away Trinidad, Oscar and Joppy and Hopkins' resume at MW is underwhelming. Think about it. He built his legacy on little guys.

You clearly DKSAB

All good wins. Let's put it like this, they'd turn Antwun Echols inside out, and he's a guy that Hopkins basically fought as a career option. Or should we be amazed by Hopkins fighting Allen three times At least when GGG fought somebody 3 times it was against a very dangerous fighter in Canelo, who would run through Hopkins' resume at middle like a tsunami.

I guess you're forgetting Mundine, who, by the way, solidly beat perennial Hopkins victim Allen

Stevens, Tapia, Rosado and o Sullivan don't exist?

Educate yourself

This content is protected

Eastman rotflmfao. Holmes never beat anybody worth a damn. Joppy was ok but lost calamitously the first time he stepped up in class which basically goes to show how padded his resume was. Joppy got annihilated by Bute, who GGG sonned in the amateurs. There's levels to this.

 

Tell me more

 

LOL @resumes- Hagler didn't have the best resume either. Like Golovkin, he fought whoever was in front of him that was willing to take a fight with him, and they weren't great by any means. Based purely on attributes I'd love to see Hagler vs. Golovkin, I think it would be a war on the scale of when Mugabi fought Hagler, only Golovkin would do better than Mugabi because he is a natural Middleweight and had a better skillset. I'd say Hagler 7-5 or 8-4 in rounds, but very close rounds.

 

You know very well that I meant Ring rated Middleweights. Nice dodge.

Take away his entire resume why don't you ? You still haven't made a case on why GGG's overall opposition is greater based on actual resume. I have proven multiple times how mediocre GGG's resume is, even in comparison to Hopkin's, which is also not great.

I beg to differ, given how basically no one agrees with you here except m.s, who is such a loyal GGG admirer that he replied to every single post against him in this entire thread. My posts have been liked by both McGrain and Rummy, both of whom are greater Boxing minds than you. Don't even get me started on the crap you spouted on the GGG vs Toney thread when I first joined, like Michael Watson being a poor man's version of Murray. And yet you have the audacity to claim someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

Would have, could have, blah blah blah. All of it is negligible nonsense and purely hypothetical. No one out of them beat anyone worth something in real life aside from Canelo, who GGG never officially beat. Even if you use the robbery argument, that only applies to the first fight, the second fight was a pick'em and could have reasonably gone to Canelo, I had it a draw, so did some of the best posters in the forum like McGrain and George Crowcroft. And GGG clearly lost the third one. Thus he didn't win the series against his best opponent.

Got to love how you claim IDKSAB, and yet you don't even know who Mundine beat. He beat Echols, not Allen. A simple visit to Boxrec would have been enough. Congratulations on beating arguably Hopkin's worst title fight opponent who lost to anyone with a pulse. The only reason I even brought Echols up was just to use him as a statistical number, I never claimed he was elite.

Oh yeah they do, they're just garbage. 26-17-1 Rosado ? Gatekeepers Tapia and Sullivan ? Is that the career you would classify as that of a ''wonderful fighter '' like you said in the GGG vs Toney thread ? Have to hand it to you though, your sheer confidence in the stuff you say is so great that you can always make ignorant people believe you, even if what you're saying is completely stupid.

Rob Brant never beat anyone outside of Murata himself. If you consider old Hassan to be worse than Brant, then Murata's best win's only good win is Murata himself.

A middle aged Joppy who would only ever beat one fighter after the Bute fight, and a crap one at that. Nobody aside from Jacobs and Derevyachenko if you gift him unofficial wins has proven himself superior to Holmes, Joppy and Allen. Let alone Tito and Oscar. You're either intellectually dishonest, or you just don't know what you're talking about. I won't bother responding anymore, there's no hope for you.

 

Not an all time great but a very good fighter and champion.

 

lol you’re crazy old man cj! All you do is repeat yourself.

 

Lou would’ve slapped your boy prowler up silly..