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

Jacobs is at least a weight class bigger than GGG (more like two) and his claim in that fight is speculative at best. Haney is a full natural 154lber while Lomas never been more than an average 130lber at best. Kov never fought any relevant fighter who was notably bigger than him, he was a large and well proportioned 175er who typically enjoyed a size advantage. GGG and Loma were both always small or very small compared to their opponent outside of the Brook fight (whose barely even smaller than GGG) and the Rigo fight.

How I would rate them ability wise (roughly ofc) would be something like this-

Relative skill level: Loma>>GGG>=Kovalev
Physicals/Intangibles: GGG>Loma>Kovalev
Overall: Loma>GGG>Kovalev

If you solely judge based on their resumes and give no context beyond name value I can maybe see the case for Kovalev. This is just how I see it personally.

 

I will have this opinion till I rot and die:

Lomachenko is the top 5 P4P ever. If everyone was the same size and at their peak Loma would be in the top 5, he might even be the most skilled boxer ever

 

Greater in terms of accomplishments: Golovkin, clearly and by far.

Greater in terms of raw eye test and H2H ability: has to be Lomachenko, who was simply extraordinary in his matches and who made guys that people were glazing heavily at the time, look like chumps.

 

HOF is as much (if not more so) about popularity as it is about achievements, so I'd be surprised if Loma didn't get in the HOF at the first instance.

Re: the thread question, I think Kovalev is being a little underrated as he had arguably the highest peak of the 3, but Loma probably takes the crown for how quickly he became a champion, how dominant he was at 130, and for successfully campaigning at 135 where he was truthfully undersized. I think if Loma had stayed at 130 his whole career he might've been even greater.

 

I will disagree. Peak 175 Kovalev had the best power, jab, timing and defense. And also took on by far the best fighter that either of the 3 has ever fought and was robbed.

 

I still stand by Ward 1 was not a robbery. I had it very close. I had no idea who was gonna get their hand raised at the end.

 

I agree with nearly everything you said but also with the post you were replying to:

Kovalev certainly had the ability and his peak was very high, but a combination of being ducked, offside with the judges, plus outside the ring issues resulted in him not accomplishing as much.

Golovkin therefore accomplished more, and I also think it is inarguable that Lomachenko was overall the best from a purely technical perspective like @BCS8 says.

I think my answer to the OP's question has to be Golovkin for the sheer length of his reign and for the two extremely high profile fights vs Canelo. However I am not claiming he was the best fighter of the three.

 

Lomachenko and it is not really close, he was unstoppable at 126 and 130, dominated his opponents, made a lot of them quit.

 

None are inarguable greats, imo. I realize this is unpopular but that's how I feel. None were less than excellent at their best, and all were capable of pulling off bigger wins than they did. But overall, I think the best of them is borderline great and is not so definitively above the other two in what they did. Kovalev beat Ward on my card in the first match, narrowly, which is clearly a better fighter to me than anyone the other two defeated, in the time and place they did it. Chenko flummoxed the most purely talented fighter, arguably, but at a big size advantage. Impressive to me in that he didn't seem to win with size but skill, maneuvering and speed, against a much smaller uber-talent. Golovkin may have, on my card, defeated the "greatest" fighter in Alvarez. Paper achievements make Loma the "obvious" pick but Broner has really impressive paper accomplishments compared to Kovalev and it's meaningless. Golovkin may be the most formidable in any one weight class all around, as a total package. All have a somewhat lacking third-gear grit to get the close wins that they could've had officially, and didn't seem to trust the bullets they had in the clip or the return fire to some degree, and all let go a big official win, perhaps, because of it.

"Eastern European fighters" have never proven to be great. They all lack that "something special" and step into the ring with a cultural Marxist attitude that "undoes" what has been done and does what can't be "undone" so that fighters from North and South America can "elevate" and "escalate" that which is a little "lower" and lives in the "sunken place" in order to "enrapture the gorge" and "rob the dragon of his piriformis" or even "rust his vinculum upon Venus' chariot." As it were. No earthly conquests are tantamount to the ultimate reward for them of a Red Ryder BB gun projectile weapon, the modern day Pelias' usurpation of the throne of Thessaly, but no one kills the king. There are no golden fleeces in the worl of "Eastern Europe" nor any "dominion over the earth" against the savage beasts of burden or lack of burden. All vinculums in the sport of boxing are rusted to eternal and irreparable disrepair and die in the frozen wasteland of the tundra of the spirit, concerned only with the present and the cold and never the hot white heat of the glory of sport. It is this mentality which seeks to poison and destroy "our" brothers in this part of the world, but leaves our "brothers" here to topple their good names on Wikipedia and other sources of record like the boxing rec and such as the other ones and the Iraq.

 

If you compare them outright, maybe so.

But if you compare P4P, it's Golovkin. I mean, Golovkin folded Kovalev in half with a body shot in sparring, and he's 2 divisions down. The problem with Kovalev is that he did not have the dedication that Golovkin did. If he had, I would likely be singing a different tune right now.

 

Lomachenko should have stuck to his division instead of bloating up to face bigger and bigger dudes. Nobody really gives Loma credit for fighting at a size disparity anyway. In terms of eyeball test and peak skills, he's far ahead of the other two. He's probably as good as a human being can get. But his record doesn't reflect his outrageous abilities.

 

Holy crap on a cracker, Boxed Ears cracked open a baggie of "the good stuff"

 

Kovalev was more impressive against a higher level of competition than either of the other two, but yes his career lacked longevity at his peak, and ended in an embarrassing way.
Lomas schooling of Rig was crazy, but it looked like a man boxing a child with the size difference.

I still agree with the general consensus that all things considered - Kovalev has to be ranked last here… I just think theres a big asterisk next to it that shouldn’t be ignored..

..and for as much of a fearsome puncher as G is known as, Kovalevs power seemed a more destructive albeit with a more limited punch selection.

Kovalev in his prime was the damn near perfect example of the boxer-puncher in my mind.. and that’s just cool.