More defences and in better form than Hopkins. GGG looked sensational for most of his middleweight career whereas Hops mostly just got the job done.
More defenses? Hopkins made 20 consecutive (6 as the clear no. 1 after beating Trinidad) and GGG made 19 consecutive plus 1 more in his second reign. GGG was also never the undisputed champion. Competition also has to be a factor when weighing things up. Hopkins opposition level was largely average but largely average was better than GGG's. Hopkins also looked very good in the early years of his title reign - not as spectacular as GGG perhaps, but they were different types of fighter and the opposition has to be considered as well. I think you have to also factor in the best fighters they both fought and how they performed in those fights. Hopkins beat Trinidad when Tito was 40-0 and going into that fight as the favourite. He schooled him. GGG's best challenger was Canelo and regardless of whether people think he won or lost both fights, he didn't perform as impressively. I'd give Hopkins the edge for those reasons.
"Gennady Golovkin made his record 21st defensive of his middleweight titles Friday night, knocking down previously unbeaten Kamil Szeremeta four times before their fight was stopped after the seventh round. Golovkin (41-1-1, 36 KOs) surpassed Bernard Hopkins' division record for title defenses and retained his IBF and IBO 160-pound belts with a one-sided victory in his first fight in 14 months." https://www.firstpost.com/sports/ge...iddleweight-title-defence-record-9126671.html That's a matter of opinion. Hopkins fought quite a bit of filler himself. This content is protected Canelo is quite a bit better than Tito ...
At 36 Hopkins schooled and stopped his nr 1. And dominated the other top guys (Holmes and Joppy). GGG just barely edged past Jacobs and Dereveynchenko and definitely didn't school and stop Canelo, whatever one thinks of the verdicts in those fights. Hopkins was clearly more dominant. Up until Holmes/Jacobs their reigns looked fairly similar, but whereas GGG really couldn't separate himself from the other top guys at that point Hopkins showed himself to be at least one level above. When it was time to step up, only one of them did so in ATG fashion and that's why he is ranked higher.
Only based on what he has done after GGG in that case. Tito had the better resume when he faced Hopkins than Canelo when he faced GGG. Tito had not been schooled like Canelo was by Floyd and his one controversial win was against DLH, whereas Canelo had two against lesser opponents. He was ruined by the loss to Hopkins whereas Canelo only has improved since his draw with GGG, but at the time you'd have to say Tito was the better fighter.
Golovkin's draw and loss to Canelo are highly debatable. Whereas Hopkins looked like garbage against Mercado who is so far below Canelo you'd need a telescope to see it. Y'all musta forgot This content is protected That's your opinion. I think guys like Derevyanchenko and Jacobs are top class and that they would have given Hopkins all he could handle. I see no "level above" from Borenard.
Canerlo is still avoiding Golovkin to this day, which shows you just how much he fears him. Before the first fight he and Oscar were all about "it could be a trilogy!!!" and now GGG is pushing 40 and Canelo is still hiding behind the potplants. Canelo would have murked Tito and you can take it to the bank.
The first Mercado fight isn't even part of Hopkins reign. It's well publicised that he flew into Ecuador just days before the fight and didn't acclimatise. Despite his troubles most people still scored the bout for him. Irrespective of that he dominated Mercado in the rematch and lost very few rounds in the next 10 years. He was hugely dominant. Trying to make such a big thing out of Mercado I and Jones is blatantly disingenuous.
Ohhh, I understand. The fight doesn't exist. Hopkins never had it. Golovkin often struggles with health during his camps and he takes care of business anyway. Ask Ouma what a bad version of GGG can do. Some people. Ah, I understand. The " This content is protected " argument.
Jones was so much better than anyone GGG has faced that it's not even funny. And Hopkins emphatically settled things with Mercado in the rematch. If GGG had scored a near shutout against Jacobs, outclassed Canelo, beaten Dereveynchenko to a bloody pulp in a shutout and then clearly beaten everyone in the top 5 until losing two close decisions to Charlo at 40, then maybe you could use an early subpar performance like the one against Mercado as a tie-breaker, but it really isn't close enough for it to come into play. And if you can't see a level below in how Hopkins handled Tito, Joppy and Holmes you don't know what you're looking at. It's as clear as day, for god's sake. You might believe Jacobs et al were that good (I disagree), but it doesn't rest on proof, just your opinion. At the end of the day Hopkins proved himself to be a level or two above the best at MW until hitting 40. GGG hasn't. And that's all that needs to be said.
All that needs to be said is that your "level above" guy had losses and draws in his MW career which was studded with rematches and sub par opposition. Golovkin is the guy with more defences and he's the guy people were avoiding like the bubonic plague. I can't imagine anybody avoiding Hopkins.
This is just your guesses (as a huge GGG fanboy). They mean nothing to anyone else but you. It's a fact that Tito had done substantially better than Canelo going in to each fight. That's what matters.
Again, what you guess and can or can't imagine matters to no one but you. The facts are that Hopkins did substantially better than GGG has so far. That's all that matters. Nothing more to be said, really.
Of course it exists. Hopkins was a slow burner who took longer than some to get there but when he did he maintained it for an absurd amount of time. He didn't have the benefit of 400 amateur fights the likes of Golovkin did but he got there in his own time. It exists, just as Haglers loss to Monroe exists, and Louis' loss to Schmeling and all Monzon's draws. They happened but most are able to put such results into context. Hopkins only came in with a poorly planned preparation once in over 15 years. At the start of that 15 years. you commented earlier that Hopkins did just enough to get it done in his reign but the fact of the matter is he dominated basically everyone until Taylor and was barely losing rounds. That's nothing like just getting it done. Most. 11 on EOTR scored it for Hopkins, just 1 for Mercado and 5 had it a draw. Czyz had it for Hopkins, the bleacher report had it for Hopkins. So yes "most". No count them all you like. Most will understand context. Thanks heavens the conversation is restricted to middleweight or in your usual fashion the likes of Joe Smith Jr, Dawson and Kovalev would be treated like unbeatable trump cards.
