Fighters you are astounded are considered ATGs?

I had Canelo winning the second one, Golovkin winning the first.

I also dont agree that he beat the best middleweights since the best in his prime were Martinez and Pirog.
Its not his fault those fights didnt happen, nor the Cotto fight.
But to rank him an ATG based on the extremely close Jacobs win and the Canelo fights is questionable. Its based on speculation, subtracting whatever you feel he lost in ability from his actual prime to when he actually fought good opposition.

I rate him higher h2h than Spence at his best but I see his resumee somewhat parallel to his. Unified one division but lost to the last man standing (probably because it happened too late)

I give him credit for trying to get those fights earlier but in terms of who he actually, in reality ended up beating its just not that much.

If you give him both Canelo decisions then yes, but Norton, Reggie Johnson and many others would also be rated much higher if they had gotten those close calls.

 

He beat Canelo once and Jacobs, both pretty good wins also has a number of other good wins like Lemiuex, Murray, Dereyvanchenko etc overall great fighter I don't think his resume is worse then someone like Hopkins at middleweight.

 

I forgot about derevyanchenko, you're probably right.

 

But that was controversial that's the thing with people on this forum, they bring up the controversial Canelo losses. But I only think the 1st fight was really controversial TBH.

But Derevyanchenko has just as much of an argument to beating Golovkin than Golovkin does of beating Canelo the 2nd time which I had no problem with Canelo winning.

So if people want to put a asterisks next to Canelo fights then by that same logic an asterisks should be put next to the Derevyanchenko fight aswell.

 

I don't think anyone, other than members of his hardcore fanbase, would claim Golovkin to be an All-Time Great.

He isn't. But, then again, he doesn't need to be in order to have been appreciated in just his own time.

The problem with the All-Time Greatness claim is that it tends to rely heavily on his so-called number of defenses which, even if we put the poor level of opposition to one side, is pretty much one colossal fairy tale.

This is primarily due to the weird situation created by the WBA, with its interim, regular and Super Champion status.

When Golovkin was recognized by the WBA as their interim belt-holder, he was immediately upgraded to regular champion, while Sturm and then Geale were the Super Champions.

It would be 11 regular title fights and more than three and a half years later before Golovkin was recognized as the Super Champion.

To make matters worse, Golovkin had not taken the regular belt or Super Championship belt from anyone in a prize ring. Yes, the awful irony is that Geale had already been stripped by the WBA and then went on to lose his IBF strap to Darren Barker, before meeting Golovkin. Therefore, Golovkin had been upgraded to Super Champion, as reward for beating Geale.

It would be more than another year later before Golovkin actually won a major belt in the ring, from its existing holder (Lemieux).

Golovkin’s first 11 'world-ish' title wins were not even recognized as the primary championship lineage by his own governing body, let alone the broader boxing fraternity. And, this is before we even get to the questions of undisputed and lineal championship honors, or lack thereof.

So, unless one is ok with recognizing two Champions in the same weight division for the same governing body at the same time (and I can't think that many sensible people would be), those early 'defenses' cannot be counted as legitimate, making the story about Golovkin's record number of defenses a work of fiction.

 

Yeah thats the thing about boxing and close decisions. With a different judging panel you could move around guys alot in the ATG lists.
The A side just seems to get the rub of the green almost everytime which irks me

 

Golovkin has a claim to being ATg HOF atleast. I just think hes overrated by people going off speculation rather tham what actually happened

 

That's just a technicality. End of the day he was still the best middleweight during that era many people say and he still scored some solid wins especially if you give him the first Canelo fight (which imo he rightfully deserves)

 

Not really - it's the reality which seems to have been consumed by a fantasy.

Not even after Golovkin beat Lemieux could this be claimed with any certainty.

He squeaked past Jacobs, who was a significant step up in class, after having fought much lower tier opposition for 7 years or so.

The Draw against Canelo was a Draw. To 'rightfully deserve' the win would have required that Golovkin do a lot more to separate himself from Canelo, but he couldn't - then he demonstrated this again with a second roll of the dice.

I'd have not complained had it gone to Golovkin, but it wasn't as though he was walking away with it, bagging rounds without question. It was a close fight and close fights are a flip of the coin, as to which way the judges will go.

And, against Canelo, it's tantamount to career suicide.

 

Who was better then him at that time?

He still clearly beat a boxer who had a significant weight advantage over him pretty impressive win imo. At worst it was 6-6 which would be a win because of the knockdown and that's if you give every close round to Jacobs

He clearly won at least 7 rounds maybe 8 no way Canelo won more then that if you actually know how to score a round it was not close, competitive sure, but not close and he 100 percent deserves that win

 

I get what he's saying about Ray, honestly. Hearns (who was not yet prime) won maybe 11 rounds in that first fight and Ray couldn't adjust at all, circling around the ring aimlessly. It wasn't that impressive, IMO, for him to partially land a haymaker and have Hearns staggering around like a drunk for two rounds before the stoppage. Every time I watch the fight, Hearns is who impresses me.

He also lost to Duran, who was already past his best and fighting beyond his best weight. I also feel like Ray fought like a coward and a buffoon in that rematch, and it is actually Duran's aggravated "No Mas" that made the performance legendary.

His best overall performance vs. elite comp is probably the Benitez fight.

 

Was Golovkin ever the undisputed Champ?

And?

I'm not sure what the point of this response is.

Not according to the judges. But we're not going to agree on this, so best to leave it here.

 

Doesn't matter answer the question who was better then him at middleweight during that time?

To show he didn't squeak past but clearly beat a quality opponent. I actually recently re-watch the fight and Golovkin clearly won 5 rounds Jacob's clearly won 3 rounds rest were close but you really only have to give Golovkin at least one of those close rounds for him to win which he def deserves.

Maybe judges aren't perfect and sometimes you have to watch a fight yourself to determine who won. Would you not give credit to Pernell Whitaker for clearly beating Chavez despite the judges scoring it a Draw? Or Tony for beating McCallum? Or Hearns for beating Lennard in their second fight (a fight Leonard himself admits he lost)

 

In terms of rating 'All Time Greatness', I think things like the lineal championship and undisputed championship do matter.

Golovkin failed to attain either, didn't he?

There's a reason why that is, which should provide the answer you need.


By the way, I don't do requests (or should I say 'obnoxious demands'?)

You seem to be arguing a case for no particular reason - other than perhaps your own personal sensitivities relating to Golovkin.

So, it joins a long line of controversial decisions.

 

Yeah I remember hearing about how GGG had 20 consecutive title defences and thought this made no sense, I religiously look at people's title defences and thought I would have remembered that.

Then you check and it's actually 9 lol. Still good, just a far cry from 20.