Is GGG a top 10 Middleweight of all time

But yet none of Golovkin's best wins, would be rated anywhere near Monzon's best wins despite all your criticism.

And Monzon would also destroy any of Golovkin's opposition aswell, and wouldn't lose to a jab fest to Canelo either. He would walk him down and beat him up.

 

So you agree that Monzon beat too many short & blown up lower weight fighters who in many cases were old or lost a lot. The ones you mentioned as I quickly chronicled.

GGG was almost always the fighter " past his prime " in his matches. I'm not so sure Moznon would destroy right GGG's opposition and he most certainly would not at GGG's age for many of his best opponents. So no, Monzon would destroy the same men at the age GGG's was when he meet them.

I enjoy debating you, you are fair.

 

Agreed, and you're pretty much using the same language, word-for-word, that I have been, re Golovkin/Canelo.

Once Golovkin eventually stepped up in class and the impact of his 'Hulk Smash' approach was not yielding the returns that observers had become quite accustomed to seeing (against modest opposition), he looked ordinary.

His fights vs Jacobs and Canelo showed him to be a fighter, who had one way and one pace, with little in the way of invention or desire/know-how to push the envelope.

 

Anybody who doesn't have Golovkin in their top 20 MW is a hater, thats a fact

 

Flowers beat end-of-the-road Greb who was blind in one eye and even then, a lot of folks reckoned Greb actually took it That's kinda like having Berbick right up there because he thrashed Ali

 

Without the knockdown Golovkin doesn't beat Jacobs. That's how close the contest was.

Prior to the fight people feared for Jacobs health and safety. That's how over hyped Golovkin was.

 

It all comes down to criteria.

In a MW list ordered solely by the all time MW ranking of the contenders best wins, GGG wouldnt be top 20. But then if that was the only criteria, I'd argue Holman Williams above Hopkins. Hell, probably even above Monzon and Hagler.

If scale and consistency of domination vs ranked MWs of the fighters own era, factors strongly into your criteria, then top 20 is defensible in my view. Not achieving lineal or beating the clear best MW in the world aside from himself, I.e. no Martinez (I accept likely not GGG's fault and pick him to win), Canelo (i scored the 1st fight for him), means hes locked below the likes of Hopkins and out of the top 11, in my view.

 

What would make him a top 10 great middle of all-time? I guess the younger generation on this board sees everything differently. Same with Cotto. He's another one called an "all-time great". I guess by today's horrid standards, fans would actually call him a "great". I do not.

 

So let me get this right for openers I rate Hagler above GGG, and Moznon narrowly so though GGG's career is not over yet. And yet I you can't say age is a reason why GGG won but did not dominate Jacobs and Canelo the first two times he meet them?

Fans use the same excuse for Hagler and Moznon vs some of their best of their best opponents. Watch Monzon was floored and hurt by Valdes a lower woght fighter who moved up to middle weight and Hagler struggled and was actualized outboxed for a while by a very over rated contender in Mugabi! See that was easy.

Um no, you can not do that! Having it both ways. Hagler retied at age 32 and Monzon at age 34. But when GGG was 36 and beat Canelo ( on a fair score card ) a fighter who is better than Valdes or Mubabi you ignore it?!

Besides this thread is about if GGG is not a top 15 ( he is ) but a top 10 middle weight. I say he is and compare his ring recored , title defenses and # OF Ring rated opponents vs ANYONE You are welcome to nominate ten better. I have the data.

 

Golovkin at 34/35/36was prime.
Monzon after 100 fights wasn't

This content is protected

 

Good list and spot on.