How on Earth is Gennady Golovkin Ring Magazine's P4P Number 4??

Bigger than him? But they're from the same weight class (a lot of them were 154lbers before), Golovkin is a comfortable career middleweight and 'strong' in the weight class. This isn't even the small Gamboa at 135 for example.

I think it takes away from the reality of it if we go by the 'rankings' in your divisions - they're ultimately mediocre opposition that will add nothing for P4P list and are ranked by the many, many belts on sale - how many people consider the existence of Koasicha on Loma's resume in discussions for Loma's ranking? Why don't we do the same for someone else who's not in the list?

GGG for me is P4P number 9-10, 8 if being laughably generous and a part of the reason is actually because the champs from different waves at MW ducked him. GGG to me looks the goods, he looks like he'd only lose to Toney, RJJ, Monzon, Hagler in history....but ultimately 'how good you look' is informed by who you've actually fought...and who you've fought has a big impact in the P4P discussion, as well as how well you performed against them. Thus, GGG is lacking.

 

Moving up in weight doesn't make you a greater fighter. You can be an established ATG having a career at a single weight. Moving up in weight doesn't actually mean anything if you can't make weight anymore due to outgrowing it, it does mean something if you're being Lomachenko-esque about it.
Incidentally, Crawford was filmed by HBO struggling badly to make 140, he looked scary. As a guy who goes into the ring at 157, I'm kinda disgusted that he's fighting at 140.
I don't rate Crawford's resume and Gamboa to me is a B grader as a Lightweight and certainly no way near B+ let alone A-. However, Crawford achieved something Golovkin hasn't, a win over a very good fighter in Postol AND looked like a young Floyd Mayweather in certain ways, doing it. This is legit and for that reason, Crawford absolutely deserves to be higher than GGG on a P4P list.

 

You can certainly speak for yourself, I actually don't believe they do know more about boxing than I do. I've questioned what I'm even doing here because I don't even get paid for any of this.
I don't think poorly of him, I'm factoring in that there are so many belts and it's not difficult to be ranked anymore. If we were to rank it in the correct manner, the belt holders are actually mere contenders flaunting their contender belts. They're not the champ. That is what we mean historically by a 'ranked' fighter. With that said, they are ducking him but ducking him doesn't magically improve his existing resume. That's my point.

 

Burns was a good scalp, kinda same tier as a Martinez esque scalp for the resume. However, Crawford didn't look impressive against Burns at all. He did improve since, though.