Exactly where does GGG rate at 160??

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
As insults go that's pretty crap.
Name these these fighters who beat him.
If you have no, or next to no footage of them your argument is null.

 

I wouldn't knock Hagler's competition which is pretty similar to Monzon's but neither do I get to hung up on resumes.
Resumes can't knock you out but GGG, Hagler and Monzon can.
GGG's durability also stacks up against the very best too, as well as his punch and ring smarts

 

Maybe because it wasn't even remotely intended as an insult.

I didn't make an argument that would require me to have footage.

But, you did. So, I guess that makes your case null.

Glad you were so easily persuaded to blow a hole in your own viewpoint.

 

I would say these fighters could of beaten him.

Roy Jones Jr
Marvin Hagler
Carlos Monzon
Bernard Hopkins
Michael Nunn
James Toney
Sugar Ray Robinson
Dick Tiger
Chris Eubank = If hes fully motivated
Sumbu Kalambay
Mike McCallum
Kelly Pavlik = Good fight IMO
Julian Jackson
Gerald McClellan
Thomas Hearns

Im not saying everyone on this list beats Golovkin, but any one of these fighters are far better than anyone Golovkin beat.

 

I'd say 3 or 4 of those have a chance besides Hagler, Monzon and Robinson who'd beat him.

 

GGG has got to be in the Top 20 of all time great 160lb men. Maybe even hovering just below Top 10. He and Alvarez are definitely two of the best of recent years.

 

Good List - And, it is probably worth noting that a good number of these^ guys would rarely, if ever, be seen listed inside a TOP-30 of All-Time Great Middleweights.

 

Looking at the history of the middleweight division you can definitely make that argument, Rummy posted about GGG being #17 on the survey and that's probably somewhere in the ball park but it's mostly based on the eye test, as you pointed out his resume is very thin . I think I could come up with 25 fighters who could take him, not that they positively would but the argument can be made. An interesting match would be Golovkin vs Toney.

 

A topic discussed at length, in a king-sized forum thread; started by @JohnThomas1

 

Why? Resumes (along with career acheivments) are the closest thing we have to an objective measurement of a fighters ability.

 

I'm not into that "who I personally guess could have beaten him or not"-stuff. I like resumes. What a fighter has done, not wild guesses about what he could have done against fighters that fought under different conditions (pertaining to PEDs, frequency of fights, new science in terms of training and diet but also having the possibility to learn from those that came before - as RJJ put it "if I don't improve on greats of the past, I'm not doing my job")

And resume wise there aren't that many that have better. I think you have to give the guy that he doesn't have one clear loss at MW, for example. Yes, had he fought better opp it might have been different, but his opp hasn't been that bad.

Hopkins, Hagler, Monzon, SRR and Greb all probably have good arguments to be higher, but then it starts to get a bit thin. No matter how much I rate the post Hagler era, I don't think any of them have a better resume.

So top 10 for me. Could be right outside top 5, but that top 5 is hard to crack.

 

I'd guess GGG's record against MWs ranked top 10 at the time he fought them as 12-1-1.

Anywhere between 11-3 and 14-0 on fair score cards, dependant on how you scored Jacobs, Canelo II and Derevyanchenko. Plus 1-0 vs a top 3 WW.

All before his 34th birthday were one sided, dominant stoppage wins.

Lack of elite wins preclude him from the top 10 all time by my criteria. Equally, I cant think of 30 MWs with better, more consistent and dominant records against top 10 opponents, either. So, I can only assume those ranking outside the top 30 think he fought in a very weak era.

 

It's been said to death in this thread and no doubt others, but for whatever reason, he was only able to get the big names late into his career. I think, on that basis, it's perfectly valid for other observers to choose to dwell on his diminished success in the face of higher quality opposition.
I, myself, thought he lost to Jacobs and Derevyanchenko, the former when he was outsized and the latter when he was supposedly ill, both when he was getting on in age. Despite this, if I were to judge purely on ability, I have him straddling the top 5. I understand and respect the fact that that's not how many prefer to rank fighters in historical terms, but Golovkin would truly be a handful for all but the strongest stylistic foil.
I've often thought of him as a middleweight Liston- deceptively skilled with a forceful jab. Liston languished for years as an avoided boogeyman. Sonny should perhaps be viewed more favorably based on the depth of his resume, especially in cleaning out his division, but it can be argued GGG had the best single win in Canelo.

 

You're making excuses to rank him higher.

Undersized against Jacobs? No two fighters are ever the exact same size or dimensions. While Jacob was taller , GGG was sturdier and stronger. Sick against Sergiy? Thats excuse making.

Sergio Martinez was undersized against Pavlik. And? Sergio trashed him... Martinez was massively undersized against Chavez Jr. So? Sergio trashed him too.

Martinez also didn't get the big names till late into his career.

GGG was younger than Martinez when he became unified champ. Martinez didn't get the chance until he was 37 years old. You don't see his fans crying about it.

 

Why would I be moved to make excuses for a fighter I'm not a particularly large fan of? Sergio Martinez has nothing to do with anything as your points about him and my points on Golovkin could simultaneously be true; they're not mutually exclusive. What an odd non-sequitur of an argument you've come up with.