GGG is overrated.

GGG is elite level Hagler/Monzon great imo
I've never seen a fighter stay in that pocket where he can hit and be hit the way he did/does.
Boxing brain, power, bottle, chin, he had the lot.

 

I honestly believe almost all of the top middles of that era avoided prime GGG. Then along came tough welter Kell Brook who had the guts to challenge close to prime Gennadi. This is why I love Kell Brook. MASSIVE RESPECT.

 

G was the total package. Just watch his fights from Germany befor his HBO debut. Guy was great.

 

OP argument only makes sense if anybody was claiming GGG has a Carlos monzon or Hagler level resume. That would be overrating, but nobody is saying that.

Most ppl think he deserved the win vs canelo in the first fight. Wins over Jacobs and lemeiux aged well. Stevens was being hyped as the next great American middleweight before GGG dominated him.

His resume is about as good as it could have been in this era. Long reigns and dominant wins matter too.

 

Why GGG is not given enough credit

1) He started somewhat late as a pro boxer and languished with his German promoters
2) His "prime" was at around 28-32 which is already getting old for a boxer. Hagler retired at 32 iirc.
3) He was avoided outrageously. Guys like Martinez, Cotto, Canelo, Eubank, Sturm, Mayweather, Chavez, Froch and Ward avoided a prime GGG like the plague. The only guy brave enough to strap on a pair and tell it like it is was Saunders who stated flatly that GGG would beat him and Eubank on the same night. Golovkin was willing to go to 154 and 168 to make fights.
4) I saw him beat Canelo 2x and lose once. The decisions went to the younger money fighter, in his favourite arena, as they so often do.
5) The people he beat are underrated too. Proksa was rated as better than Pirog by some when he got taken to the cleaners. Geale has some good wins under his belt, and many of the others he fought got unlucky decisions against champions that they could well have beaten with a single different judge.
6) The WAY that he disposed of his competition has been incredible. He's mown a swathe by KO through the middleweight division. Even Mike Tyson is a healthy 7% behind Golovkin in KO rate. Boxing is entertainment and he never fails to entertain.
7) He meets the eye test 100% If you want a fundamentally sound boxer, who sets his game up from behind the jab, has great footwork and balance and a complete mastery of the game, see GGG. He's a living advertisement for the idea that the boxing fundamentals are a real thing, and effective.

 

I wouldn't class Golovkin as an All-Time-Great.
He is one of the best Middleweights of his generation, though.

Staying in one division is preferable, if one wants to make a name for themselves in that division. However, the point about him failing to become undisputed is valid and, whatever the reason for that maybe, should count, when rating Golovkin against All-Time.

That he fought next to nobody of note for several years, before eventually competing with proven, world-class opposition (and being made to look relatively normal in the process), also impacts his legacy, in my opinion.

Golovkin either needed to make big fights happen early or he really needed to take his late-career opportunities against Canelo and separate himself from the rest of the pack. It is unfortunate that he was not able to do either.

In any event, Golovkin was very good and fun to watch, but I've seen some articles rank him in the Middleweight All-Time-Top-10, which is to significantly overrate him. Golovkin simply doesn't have the ledger to displace the long-standing works of those who came before him.

I don't have a firm idea of where Golovkin should sit, but the All-Time-Top-30 is where I'd begin, in attempting to place him.

People can use the 'Eye-Test' and 'What-if..?' H2H scenarios, so as to imagine a make up in the shortfall, somehow - and they most likely will. But, in the face of what Golovkin actually achieved, I suspect a fair rating will see a good number of Middleweights stack-up ahead of him, historically.

 

Considering middleweight has an argument for being one of the strongest divisions in history, there is no shame even if GGG does not make all time top 10.

GGG simply cannot be viewed in a black and white spectrum.

Anyone who really appreciates boxing would look into the circumstances of his career and see why the bigger names chose to face him at an advanced age. Nobody wanted any part of him during his destructive form 2012-2015.

The man does not have on paper the best of resumes for atg status....but that simply does not tell the story of the Kazak fighting machine.

 

The most defences of the middleweight crown in history? I'd say that he makes the MW top 10.

 

He looked very impressive in the ring when at his best and I agree with another poster who said that he was a well rounded package. My only issue with rating him however Is that the quality of his opposition was less than stellar UNLESS you definitely feel that he was robbed against Canelo.

 

I wouldn't say he's overrated for his actual ability in the ring. Great body puncher, great chin, good power, spot on technique. I would say his resume is kind of lacking though, his best wins is over Daniel Jacobs or Kell Brook who didn't belong at Middleweight, and that's not really setting the world alight is it ?

He would be rated alot higher for me had he got the nod vs Canelo, and to be fair to Golovkin he probably deserved the nod in their 1st meeting. But the other 2 fights i didn't see anything wrong with Canelo getting the decision in those fights.

Overall despite Golovkin's ability i can't call him a ATG, i know statistics show he made loads of Middleweight title defences. But again statistics only tell you so much, and you have to look at the context of those defences, and in all honesty his opposition was so and so.

For example Hill, Michalczweski, have 20 odd title defences at Light Heavyweight didn't they ? i doubt anyone puts them in the top 10 Light Heavyweights though. Again what i alluded to earlier regarding the context of the title defences.

 

I would say it's debatable he's in the top 10, Dariusz Michalczewski made 20 odd title defences didn't he ? i doubt anyone has him in the top 10 though regarding Light Heavyweights.

Off the top of my head Monzon, Hagler, Greb, SRR, Ketchel, Hopkins, rate above Golovkin. Then you have fighters like LaMotta, Tiger, Walker, Cerdan, Ryan, Steele, Williams, Burley, etc. Who all have a strong claim to being rated higher than Golovkin.

 

Good post M_M

 

GGG is definitely an ATG for me ... why? well he is deserving around the 10 spot of all time middles .. hes a H2H nightmare for any middle in History imo ... BUT WHY?
He outpointed Canelo in both those fights imo and thats how the majority of the boxing world also had it ...... I dont need a 118-110 scorecard being turned in to tell me different .. so I rank him as such .. but thats just me
how many ATG heavies are around the 10 spot also .... Liston, Tyson, Frazier , etc ... are those ATGs?
GGG is fundamentally as good as a boxer as it gets