Exactly where does GGG rate at 160??

In general modern fighters are underrated in Classic. I've had plenty of discussions here and some of them were heated. But the individual you are interacting with is a particularly ... special ... case. Stick around and find out

 

These are actually good points since I do not see a clamor to rate Martinez very highly, against the All-Time Great Middleweights, when he arguably does better under the 'Eye-Test' (and under the conditions he fought) than does Golovkin.

I've seen some Golovkin fans rate his wins over Macklin and Murray very highly (which remains a bit of a mystery to me), when an undersized Martinez, at an advanced age, beat both of those two a year or more before Golovkin got to them.

A 'W' against Pavlik in his ledger is probably just a bit better than anything Golovkin has on his record - and this was the beginning of an Indian Summer for Martinez's career.

Do I think Martinez, at age 39, would have beaten the young Canelo? Not likely. But then neither did Golovkin.

And, then again, I am not sure a case could be made for a Martinez listing in the Top-30 ATG Middleweights (Though, he may do - TBC).

 

Perhaps evidence, in itself, of how entwined Canelo and Golovkin are, in respect to the question in the thread title?

 

Whilst I appreciate that it was not the main thrust of your initial post, the qualifying points you make, referring to Golovkin's size and/or age against Jacobs and Derevyanchenko, do allow for a fair comparison with Martinez - no?

 

I said 16-20 but I also don't rate guys from the pre-television era of boxing because I haven't seen enough of them and the footage is often pretty rough. I'm sure some of the boxing historians on here may have him lower.

 

I noticed that and thought it odd that the poll in a GGG thread would be about where Canelo ranks … but to some degree how one perceives Golovkin is directly related to how one places Alvarez — if you don’t rate Saul highly it’s hard to justify rating GGG when he officially didn’t beat him and if you ‘give’ him the first fight even then it’s still by a narrow margin.

 

I noted this is an article I wrote about Golovkin years back and it remains relevant throughout the sport. "Weak" divisions are normal now because they have been hollowed out by the addition and the ascension of super/junior classes. Add in the greater emphasis on weight-hopping and trinket-snatching, along with political polarization, and you begin to see why many modern fighters struggle mightily to compete with fighters of yesteryear. Even in the days of the Four Kings when 140, 154, and 168 existed, they were viewed as stopover divisions that lacked prestige. It's part of the reason Duran skipped Cervantes, why Leonard could snatch Kalule's crown in essentially a stay-busy bout, why Hagler was never pressured to go elsewhere, and why Benitez campaigned at 147, despite holding the top spot at junior welterweight.

Golovkin, and other potential greats, didn't compete in that context. Nor did "GGG" have the built-in fanbase in which to exert more political power. He had to play off another culture's financial strength to prop himself up. That's why he was put on the back-burner for so long. So I don't come down as hard on modern fighters for their lackluster competition, if they show a penchant for wanting the best. Golovkin, Lomachenko, and Rigondeaux are a few names that spring to mind. But that's what irks me about debates like these. The sport's fractured nature allows for these wide interpretations when we should know with more certainty how good these guys are. If 154 didn't exist or was seen as a less useful class and we had one champion per, Golovkin and others that will succeed him, would have a deeper range of opponents to compete against. In Golovkin's case, Lara, both Charlos, Andrade, Alvarez, Trout, etc., all get lumped into his division and no one calls it "weak". I would be interested to see if anyone besides maybe Alvarez would be favored over Golovkin from roughly 2009-2019.

Personally, I don't mind which way you go with your conclusion about Golovki's legacy because I'm waiting until it's all said and done before passing a final judgement, but I err on the side of him being a great fighter who never maximized his potential. I know it's a what-if (the sport is full of them, unfortunately) but had he been given a shot at his promotional siblings in Sturm and Zbik (or just Sturm) and beaten them in 2009-2011, he's basically the number one contender for Martinez's Championship and I don't see him waiting 7 years for a shot. I wouldn't have picked Martinez to beat him, nor would I have favored any other contemporary Lineal Champion--Kelly Pavlik, Miguel Cotto, or Saul Alvarez--to dethrone him at his best. I wouldn't have taken any contenders over him until about 2018, either. Unfortunately he never got that opportunity and wasn't given the best until he was 34+, but beating the highest ranked middleweight outside himself in Jacobs (most seemingly had Golovkin winning; it's not a particularly controversial decision) and then arguably overcoming the world's best fighter at 35+ doesn't strike me as serious knock.

With that said, it's doubtful that I will see him as a top-10 guy all-time. He would probably have to do something dramatic, like win the Lineal Championship in a #1 vs. #2 matchup against Charlo, for me to consider it. Greatness is most credible when the facts back it and the facts appear to point to Golovkin not doing enough résumé wise to warrant rubbing elbows with the most prestigious legends in his class.

 

How can anyone have GGG outside the top 10 Is beyond me.

 

In my book GGG is still Undisputed Middleweight Champion & therefore #1 I refuse to accept the Vegas mafias ludicrous scorecards

 

They jobbed him of his two career defining wins. Martinez etc never fancied him in his prime either.. a lot of could have beens with his career.. it's a huge shame he didn't get the bigger fights sooner because in his prime he was elite.

 

Better than Julian Jackson

 

I might be misremembering but there seems to be a sudden influx of "1-10" and "11-15" votes. I would be interesting to see some of them post their middleweight top 20, and for that matter where they place Canelo.