if he becomes undisputed hes above hagler. haglers best wins were Hearns a WW who did nothing at MW and going 50/50 with a fat duran who is a natural 135
So again, it comes down to opportunity with Golovkin. How is it his fault that other titlists in his division chose not to fight him and how is it his fault that there isn’t a Hearns quality fighter in his era to come up to middleweight?
What in the world does fault have to do with anything? It's not about fault. Fault has nothing to do with fact. It's about equality and no GGG win is equal to Haglers win over Hearns. GGG best win is what...Lemieux? Brook? Even if the judges weren't incompetent or bribed his best win would be Canelo who is a manufactured champion. What is being discussed is the quality of a win, nothing more. I like GGG but nothing he's done equals the win Hagler had over Hearns in my opinion.
A guy can only fight who was available. Golovkin doesn’t have a Hearns because one wasn’t available. However, Golovkin was much more dominant in his wins overall. One single win over Hearns doesn’t override that.
In all honesty GGG NEVERLOST the Middleweight title . As we all know the Vegas officials STOLE it for him
This post says it all. Everyone in boxing knows Canelo took over Wolfman Floyds mantle & was made The Vegas Cash Cow & would never be allowed to lose there. Obviously the Nevada Commission know this but when asked if they would be investigating the ludicrous scorecards being rendered there by judges the head honcho of the NSAC said a profound NO!!!! ROFL Now what more proof do you need about where the corruption starts ??? I rest my case
I don't know, some people around here think titles don't count unless they are linear or undisputed. At least when they are trying to discredit GGG. was Cuavas, Roldan,Kinchen, Andries, or Hill undisputed or linear champs? No, but nobody including myself will ever say Hearns wasn't a five division champ.