Greater fighter: Gennady Golovkin, Vasyl Lomachenko, or Sergey Kovalev

You’re vastly underestimating Kov. Peak Kov absolutely dogged one of my favorite fighters in Pascal and brutally stopped him. Who brutally stops Pascal? Bivol couldn’t make a dent in a way more damaged shot version of Pascal. I don’t even think a prime Beterbiev stops a prime Pascal. He’d be the heavy favorite but wouldn’t be shocked at all if Pascal knocked him out.

 

Peak Kov was a savage, I rate him (don’t like him clearly though). Not a GGG/Loma level fighter at all though. You really think a peak Pascal could beat Beterbiev? Would be an entertaining fight no doubt, but seriously?

 

GGG
LOMA
KOV

 

@Flo_Raiden, high quality poll question.

In terms of achievement, as good as he was, it is easy to eliminate Kovalev. He didn't have the multi-division titles of Lomachenko nor nearly as many one division defenses as Golovkin.

After that, it depends on what you like. My guess is that this is split by generations. As an old guy I tend to appreciate the man who reigns in one division for a long time over the multi division champs. That may not have been the case in the past but there are just too many belts available and there are close to 50 men who've won titles in at least three weight classes. It just isn't that special. So for me, achievement-wise it is 1. Golovkin, 2. Lomachenko, 3. Kovalev.

You also ask about best to worst. I have to go with Loma at the top, followed by Triple G, with the Krusher a close third.

 

GGG arguably lost to Jacobs in his prime. Loma lost to Haney ffs, Haney is trash. Peak Kov not losing to fighters like that.

I said Beterbiev is heavily favored, but Pascal could clip him. Beterbiev has been dropped and hurt and Pascal is a big puncher.

 

1. Loma
2. Golovkin
3. Kovalev

All 3 have lost some highly controversial decisions in big fights but I prefer Loma's achievements.

Loma won a world title in his 3rd professional fight and is quickest 3 weight division champion in history.

Golovkin has an argument to being above Loma based on his dominance and his record number of Middleweight title defences but i just prefer Loma's achievements/resume overall.

Kovalev i don't think has any argument to being above either fighter he has less than half the amount of world title wins as Golovkin. And he has less world title wins than Loma without achievements Loma has.

 

The most clear examples of an 'upset fanboy' is you for the miserable, gremlin quitter in every single Rigondeaux thread

 

Well all three have been robbed for american (/potential) cash cows.

- Kovalev vs Ward 1 was the first robbery I ever watched, the second was the only Low Blow KO I ever saw
- GGG vs Alvarez
- Lomachenko vs Haney

And yes, not getting a close win can be a robbery, if every round you win is unambiguous. Having won 7 clear rounds or 6 plus a knockdown, you have to win the fight no matter the other rounds.

 

No one believes Loma lost to Haney other than Bill Haney & GGG clearly beat Jacobs. Keep selling it tho.. you might convince yourself one day.

& Beating Pascal ain't gunna win you the argument.. Pascal loses evey time he steps up, stoppage loss or not it's not an impressive feat beating Pascal.

Lomachenko was significantly outsized in many of his contests. Loma>Kovalev.

 

Kovalev was without question the best of the three H2H. He was probably the best fighter in the world at one point.

 

GGG as a professional. One of the most accomplished fighters I have ever seen, he won the first two Canelo fights as well. But got stiffed on the cards both times at a point in Canelo's career when his handlers were desperate to keep the 0 in his record.

Loma as an amateur.

 

Even if you had Loma winning it was damn close and a close fight against a Haney to me is a big minus to your legacy.

Many had Jacobs beating GGG in an extremely close fight. I will say Jacobs is better than Haney though.

 

No one serious had Jacobs winning. Just a few vocal PBC/AL Haymon fanboys and Canelo lovers here did. But there was no controversy with 3Gs win at all.