GGG is - at the very least - the Greatest middleweight since Hagler

He didn't "arguably lose" to anyone.

When all said and done he was avoided like the plague during his prime only to have the parasites come out of the woodwork now he's slowing down.

 

But he is though.

 

Doubtful, he's already in the record books and has been on the most dominant run of any MW Champion since Monzon. He's 35 and its' already been observed he's past prime. His mystic isn't going anywhere.

No, the majority view the Jacobs and Canelo fights as wins. And the passing of time won't change that.

Doesn't matter if they could, its' doubtful you'll find PLENTY middleweights that could consistently go through Golovkin's 7 year run and remain undefeated.

I would argue Golovkin's MW run has been better than Hopkins' MW run. Hopkins would rate higher P4P..for now.
It is unknown if Hagler or Hopkins, or Jones Jr could beat Benn, Eubank, or Priog either.
The lineal business is overrated, that's all about opportunity and timing. Pavlik was in rough shape as we all should know, and unlike the so called lineal Champions that followed him...Martinez, Cotto, and Canelo..was willing to fight anyone.

Hagler was supposed to blow away long retired Sugar Ray Leonard.
Hagler was supposed to blow away old fat Roberto Duran.
Here's one you guys forget, Hagler was supposed to blow away Vito, a 4-1 underdog.

You can argue Hagler deserved the decision in these fights, especially against Duran. But fans are split on the Leonard fight, and the Vito fight was very close and a draw not entirely unreasonable.

The point is, Hagler didn't live up to expectations in these instances, and he doesn't have the excuse of being 35 years old against a 27 year old either. I think a real case can be made for Golovkin being as great as Hagler.

The fact is nobody has had a run as dominant and strong as Golovkin's since Monzon. Competition levels are debatable. It's not clear Hagler and Hopkins faced such drastically superior opposition that their results are acceptably less impressive.

 

Is not a fact , its simply your opinion , and a wrong one at that.

GGG certainly didn't dominate the division as long as Hopkins did.
He only began beating top 5 level opponents 2 years ago when he beat Lemieux. Before that he has a couple of wins over C level opponents from the bottom half of the top 10.
Hopkins spent 10 years straight beating top 10 rated opponents. GGG has 5 years at the most. And Hopkins never spent years defending a paper , second tier belt against non top 10 ranked fighters like Golovkin did.
He even has less defenses of a real title than Arthur Abraham.

 

Yeah, but Hopkins never made his opponents run from him like little, scared girls. GGGs opponents run if they want to stay concious throughout a fight. Jacobs ran...and so did Canelo. As a result, neither got KO'd or had to go to the hospital. However, just running around a ring for 12 rounds and not getting KO will not win the fight against GGG.

 

That is true. But Hopkins also had two losses, a draw and a no contest. The draw with bottom top 10 Mercado in which he was dropped twice and the no contest that saw him struggle with Robert Allen before diving out of the ring, don't really help make a case for dominance.

Well let's break down their top 10 opponent scalps as shown by the RING. (if I missed some for either man, I'm open to be corrected if they can produce the year and rating)

Golovkin:

MW: Proska, Macklin, Stevens, Geale, Rubio, Murray, Lemieux, Jacobs,
Non MW: Brook (Welter)

Hopkins:

MW: Mercado, Lipsey, Allen x2, Echols x2, Holmes, Trinidad, Joppy.
Non MW: Oscar (Super Welter)

In 10 years, Hopkins only managed 1 more top 10 win against 8 rated opponents to Golovkin's 9. And honestly, Hopkins opponents don't look to be that much superior.

Whose top 5? Proska was RING #4 when Golovkin beat him in 2012. Now almost 6 years ago. Then Geale was #2 which was 4 years ago.

If top 5 is your criteria....Hopkins doesn't have a top 5 win until Echols in 2000.

Politics are politics. It's not fair to bash Hopkins because the IBF mandated he fight opponents he already convincingly beat. And it's not fair to bash Golovkin because the WBA let Sturm refuse to face him and instead of mandating, they just recognized both men as World Champion.

As far as your top 10 measuring stick, you are probably going to have to change your tune or that or give Golovkin more credit after this post.

 

Mongoose coming in low for a strafing run!

 

Oscar and Trinidad were both top 5 ranked Middle's at the time. John David Jackson , Joe Lipsey , Eastman and Vaanderpool were all top 10 Middles.
So thats 14 top 10 for Hopkins and 8 top 10 for Golovkin.

Hopkins also has a dominant stoppage win against future LHW Champion - Johnson , and that win is as good as any of Golovkins

Its not fair to Rigo that he was ducked by Frampton , Cruz and Quigg. Nobody keeps harping on about it and it doesn't make him any more greater than he already is. Same goes for Golovkin. It doesn't legitimatize the fact he was a paper title holder who fought bums
Hopkins had the better run . Hagler did as well for the same reasons.

 

I honestly think that it does - knowing that Frampton never wanted the Rigo fight elevates Rigo's status in my eyes. When a fighter is ducked you know that he has the respect of his rivals to say the very least ....

 

Frampton ducking Rigo was miles worse than Sturm ducking an unknown Triple G. Getting ducked by Sturm means absolutely nothing , that guy ducked everybody.

 

why i hagler in the same sentence as 3g. hagler had wrapped up an atg great career before the age that 3g won his first title.

 

Yet got robbed against DLH, the same DLH you have just been arguing as a good win for B-Hop cling DLH was a top 5 middleweight.

 

hopkins run is way better than 3gs best of geale, lemiux and jacobs, even if you throw in murray and rubio as stay busys.

3g started too late, hes got three or four good wins max.

I'm not saying hes worse than anyone, he just started way too late to match a longevity master like hopkins. you are fishing the wrong barrel entirely if you are trying to argue 3g did more or better than bernard hopkins over time.

you are arguing a falsity.

 

Boxing has definately the most pathetic fans of all sports.

Golovkin has fought at least 8 top 10 opponents during his reign even though it's been well documented that he has been one of the most avoided fighter in history of boxing (duck list includes several belt holders starting from Sturm, Martinez, Cotto etc.).

You need to be historian to find equal or better record than that in mw division history. At the moment he has more wins over current top 10 ranked opponents than other top 10 Mw have combained - that is called domination... And denying that is called idiotism.

 

Hopkins was better. Better opposition and I know we are talking middleweights, and Bernard fought some lesser guys, but Tito was a great win and he dominated also..