Greatest H2H Middleweight of all time (Poll)

None of the decently sized MWs of any era went into the ring weighing in at or below the MW limit in any era. Golovkin was not a big MW and could have made 160 in the same day era. Weight cutting wasn't invented in the 80s and neither was rehydrating past the limit of your division, that's just naive. SRR was a massive welter for his era but nobody calls him a weight bully or a natural JMW. He cut weight, weighed in at or under the limit, then put weight back on after the weigh-in, eating steak to put on weight afterwards. Everybody looks for a physical advantage over an opponent and always have.
And he beat Proksa, Murray, Geale, Jacobs, Murata, Derevyanchenko, Brook, Lemieux, Macklin, Stevens, Szeremeta, Monroe Jr., Rubio, and Wade, all of whom were ranked by The Ring or TBRB. And that doesn't even include his two wins over one of the best boxers of this generation in Canelo Alvarez. But please, do enlighten me how this LHW never beat anybody and that the film doesn't show one of the most skilled and well-rounded fighters of all times. GGG=H2H GOAT.

 

Where do you rate Kalambay and Toney?

 

I take a small leap of faith and go with Jones. He was somewhat like a young Ali with one punch power even as early as when he left 160. Insane speed, reflexes and timing with brutal power to boot. Ceaseless stamina too.

 

Kalambay and Toney are both real high classers, and I rate their wins over McCallum pretty high of course, but I do think that Mike got better after his fight with Sumbu, and was starting to decline when he matched up against James.
They're both great fighters who could give most hard fights but each have their own weaknesses, as seen against Nunn and Griffin. I think that the late '80s/early '90s scene showcased how much stylistic matchups influence outcomes in fights- You could even watch McCallum - Curry and get a similar conclusion. Don was outboxing Mike like a master in the early rounds, even rattling the iron chin of the Body Snatcher some, but he left that right down and it makes all the difference.

 

You fundamentally misunderstand the way that weight cutting works in the era of 30-36 hours to rehydrate. Emmanuel did not misunderstand it. That is why, as a welterweight, Hearns fought so often; so he could make 147 and so he did not get himself into a position where he had to lose 20 pounds and weigh in on the day of the fight. At 21 Hearns had yet to fight Leonard and there is no way on earth that he was in the ring at 168.

 

He was 32 fights deep when he fought Kalambay. Kalambay was 47 fights deep and one could easily argue past his peak. Mike was coming off his best ever win. By the time Mike fought Sumbu again 3 years later Sumbu had definitely lost a step and had been knocked out by Nunn in 1.

Mike lost to Sumbu in March 88 and fought Toney in December 91 so what you are saying is he was pre best in 88 yet declining in 91. That's a huge call.

Personally I'd favor both over Mike best for best over a series. I'd heavily favor Nunn as well and Jones would win almost every round IMO.

I'd favor him over just 2 people at best on that list, personally, and given Mike was a top fighter that's high praise for the list. I think Mike actually peaked at 154 and had a very long prime and was effective for a great many years. His skillet and durability were the keys to this.

Sumbu's loss to Nunn was a once in 25 years event for mine. Manny Steward called it a fluke basically. I'd also take Nunn over Mike, not by KO tho.

Mike's win over Curry was aided by Curry not being able to take what was a good hard beautifully timed punch that guys like Hagler, Hopkins and Monzon would have soaked up comfortably. We don't know how much the Honeyghan flogging while weight drained took out of The Don.

Toney fought Griffin at 175. I remember a lot of arguments over the scores.

At any rate Toney has some weaknesses. One of the biggest was being lazy and undisciplined which led to some terrible performances. At his best his feet were a little slow compared to the rest of his skill set and that left him vulnerable to top shelf speedsters and boxers. I feel McCallums biggest problems would come with speed too. Picture a Curry with a chin. SRL at 154 would comfortably outpoint him imo for example. The laziness doesn't count here as it's a best form H2H thread. The footwork would cost him against some of the guys in the list. I think he and a guy like Sumbu would actually be incredibly close fights. Throw McCallum, Sumbu and Toney in a 20 fight pot and the results would go every which way.

 

Huge call, yeah. But I'm an odd dude, you can see how weird my takes are.

I feel as if Nunn and Jones are honestly bad matches to face up against McCallum if you're gonna put anybody from this list up against him, but I can see it. I think that Michael (Not that one, the other one) would do well for most of the fight but would lose an odd round here or there, and end up getting ripped late due to being a bit incomplete when it comes to defense. I remember watching Nunn fight an end of career Starling and seeing how hard of a fight Michael had against him (Which is no disgrace, Marlon was pure magic in the ring), but I felt as if McCallum would've been able to slither through Nunn's tricks and put an end to him (And to clarify, I'm a gigantic fan of Michael, as a big, lanky southpaw myself). I feel that Jones would have issues with McCallum's pressure and counters, and their match would probably go full distance into a tight decision, with maybe a flooring or two from Mike. I'm not gonna use their fight in reality as evidence for anything, as Jones was obviously taking it easy on him and just trying to help him get some money for himself.

I think it's fair to think that he peaked at JMW, as he accomplished a lot there. Who do you personally favor McCallum over here?

I feel as if the Sumbu knockout wasn't really a fluke, but kind of a Frazier-like moment, just a bad stylistic matchup for the Italian. Kalamabay was caught cold against the slick and speedy Nunn and didn't get a second chance, and there's no true shame in that. Michael was a damn good puncher, and he was in a bad position to get hit, so naturally, what happened, happened.

That's true.

Yeah, I just feel as though Futch concocted the perfect plan to beat Toney, and it worked, even if barely.

The reason that Toney was so slow on his feet was likely just due to his style, he would say; "I'll plant my feet here, and I'll stay here until I need to move." McCallum definitely had issues with speedsters, but I think I'll stipulate that speedy guys only gave him issues when they were the full package (Such as the proposed JMW Leonard), hence why I feel that he'd beat Jones and such (Roy was great, no doubt about that, but his style was much too overconfident for him to be able to not get timed by Mike's perfect counters). I feel like everyone here would have close fights with just about anybody, same goes for Kalambay, Toney, and whoever that you'd put McCallum up against, win or lose. When you get to a high level of competition, everything is extremely tight. The second Kalambay fight was close, Jones and Hopkins had a lot of borderline rounds, you get my point.

Nothing is guaranteed, but McCallum is my pick if I had to pick one to beat them all.

 

The article was about his MW fight with Hagler, not any of his 147 fights. Hearns cut roughly 10lbs to make MW and so did Golovkin, that was the point I was trying to make of how the amount of weight Golovkin wasn't all that extraordinary for the same day weigh-in era.

 

I’m struggling as to why you believe that GGG is the H2H GOAT based off of those wins and performances.

 

Because he could do it all. He had the power, the hand-speed, the coordination, the foot-speed, the fundamentals, the chin, the defence, the timing, and he crushed everybody in his prime because of it. Gennadiy Golovkin is as complete a fighter as you will ever see at his peak.

This content is protected

This content is protected

If you can't recognise genius when it's staring you in the face then I just don't know what else to tell you.

 

Yeah but that was against B and C class opposition when Golovkin fought A Class opposition he didnt look like this unbeatable monster like you're claiming.

Very close fight vs Daniel Jacobs where a flash knockdown decided the outcome.

Two close fights vs Canelo ok Golovkin was unlucky in the 1st encounter but the 2nd fight I had no problem with Canelo winning.

Derevyanchenko was another very close fight that alot of fans had Golovkin losing.

Golovkin doesn't have enough stand out performances against upper echelon opposition for him to be the H2H GOAT for me.

I still think Golovkin would trouble most Middleweights due to his durability and skill set along with his thudding power.

But when you look at this list of opposition......

Nunn
RJJ
Tiger
Hagler
Monzon
Toney
Hopkins
Robinson

Etc.

I don't think you could really make Golovkin a real favourite over any of those opponents based on his lack of stand out wins against top names as I said.

 

Golovkin pretty clearly outboxed Canelo twice imo and I am a pretty big Canelo fan. Only 2/51 outlets thought Canelo won the second fight. Golovkin never started getting big names until he was past his best. His prime ended around 2016. Golovkin started slower against Jacobs but picked up the pace and landed the better shots. It was a close fight but I though GGG won 115-112 and turned back a brave and motivated Jacobs. It should also be noted that Golovkin fought Derevyanchenko with the flu as well as Derev being allowed to low blow, rabbit punch, and head-butt him. And in spite of this, Derev still looked like the Elephant Man after the fight. But anyway, using the same metric of dominant wins over top level MWs, loads of the other men you listed are also disqualified. Toney barely scraped past an ageing McCallum and was being outboxed handily by Nunn (not to mention his fights with Williams or Thadzi). Robinson was beaten twice by Fullmer, went life and death with welter Basilio, lost to Ralph Jones, and never avenged his losses to Pender, he got SDs over Castellani and Wilf Greaves. Hell, his two best wins over Gavilan at 147 were both razor tight. Monzon had close fights with Valdez and an ancient Griffith. Hopkins drew with Mercado and had a close(ish) decision with Eastman. Hagler had his struggles with Antuofermo, Duran, Muagbi, and lost to a semi-retired welter with messed up eyes. Dick Tiger was handily outboxed a number of times at 160 and his best win at 160 is Florentin Fernandez iirc. Of course, that's a very cynical way of looking at it but at the end of the day H2H really is just eye-test and whoever you like will obviously rank highly. You're of course an RJJ fan so imagine you rank him pretty high at the weight, to me a green Roy who never beat a single top 5 MW doesn't. A prime Golovkin was one of the most ferocious and calculated machines at the poundage for my money anyway.

 

Where was Tate ranked?

 

There were numerous stories Nunn was abusing drugs and alcohol by the time he lost to Toney. I can't fathom a similar spectacle against McCallum as McCallum didn't have much power at 160 truth be told. He was an extremely skilled workman. Technicians are bothered by speed and elusiveness so the likes of Nunn and Jones are strong choices against McCallum. Personally i think Jones would school him and he wouldn't be fast enough to catch up with Nunn very often. Nunn was a big middleweight and his advantages in height and reach mean something given he possesses immense speed to take advantage of them. Toney had no end of trouble getting near Nunn before he started tiring, likely because of his out of the ring activities.

Nunn had some off nights, he was ordinary at times but so was McCallum. We are talking best for best. Stylistically Jones and Nunn are greatly suited here.

I favor Hearns by a touch and i'd take Leonard around the time of Kalule. I think he'd end up catching up with Norris' chin. He and Duran would be close. Taking guys who were brilliant around the weight before there was a division, well i'd take guys like SRR and Burley for starters.

It may have been a bad matchup. I'd highly doubt Nunn could replicate it tho.

McCallum would barely touch Jones for mine. He'd make him look silly. On top of this tho Jones had one punch power and that'd shut a bit of McCallums offense down. I'm seeing something akin to Jones - Toney to be honest.

Well i'd bet big money he'd lose to Toney, best for 160 best, for starters. I'd favor him in two matches. I see him more on the level of having good fights with guys like Giardello, Tiger, Benvenuti, Griffith, Fullmer etc. Hagler would beat him 10 for 10 imo.

McCallum was 3-2-1 in fights that mattered at all, at 160. Personally i'd have him outside the top 10 H2H.

 

The big issue here is that boxing is a mental sport. . Its easy knocking over soup cans when ur someone like GGG , but when he stepped up in competition he simply did not apply the same gung-ho levels of aggression.

This was evident when h boxed Canelo instead of brawling him like he should have done. The reason for this is because he knew all those looping shots he swung would bite him the ass against boxers of a higher pedigree.

So his strengths against B and C levellers simply did not carry up to elite level.
This is why Jacobs ran him so close in his first step up and Jacobs wasn't even elite level.
GGG was really nothing but a bully boy who carefully picked his opponents and avoided guys like Andre Ward like the plague. He wanted nothing do with with 168 when 160 was a wasteland. If an opponent could counter him , he would back off and that reluctance to get down in the weeds and do whatever it takes to win is why he's outside the top 10 H2H