Is Golovkin's reign better than Hopkins?

Don't know probably because they had the most success at welter

 

GGG is my favorite fighter, i'm biased towards him. That said, hes there for the taking now. I'd easily pick him over the talent at 160 now if he was the same as 3/4 yrs ago, but hes not. Canelo fight and pack it in. BJS could fiddle his way to a ud over him and Jacobs ! He reminds me of Hagler at the end of his career, everything seems that little bit harder to execute and hes started pushing his punches !

 

Rather bombastic of you, Pimp. Surely you don't think it's that wide of a gap.

 

Jacobs doesn't have the fluidity to give Hopkins problems, in my opinion. He'd be out fought outside, and mugged inside. Probably be run into numerous lead right hands.

 

Im a huge GGG fan but I think Hopkins took on bigger better names.. Differen times though so debatable.. I think the Trinidad domination was HUGE.. Also, Johnson and DLH... But its debatable.. GGG has fought some really good and underrated fighters and made them look ordinary.. Hopkins however won his big test in Trinidad without questions.. GGG draw Canelo controversy or not. Just my opinion. Two great champs.. BTW wouldve loved to see a GGG vs Bhop fight

 

The lineal argument that McGrain makes does not hold a lot of weight, especially when Canelo and Cotto were lineal middleweight champs recently. It means something when guys like Hopkins does it, for sure. But it shouldn't be held against someone like GGG when he had 3/4 of the major titles and all he wanted was a fight with Sergio/Cotto/Canelo since 2012/2013 to become lineal.

 

You think Tito could beat Canelo at 160? For me El Ginge has enough in his locker to get the W there. Johnson and Jacobs is also a pick 'em and whilst ODLH even past prime was better than Brook he was also naturally a lot lighter.

Neith B-Hop or GGG could hang with a prime, motivated Marvellous one IMO but I don't think there's much if anything in their resumes. Hopkins being an American and retired seems to get the benefit of the doubt though.

 

I'm not a big fan of the so-called lineal title. It means very little when determining the quality of a champion.

Briggs was lineal. I guess he'd beat a guy like Vitali like a drum, right?

Leon Spinks was lineal. Watch out Joshua, good thing you never met this monster!!!

And then you get a guy like Povetkin, who has a deeper resume than probably anybody at HW right now, who's never even been a champion.

 

I think they could. Not saying they should be favoured, but I think they'd be competitive.

Yes.

 

Hopkins didn't have the workrate and would have been outmuscled whereas pre-Sanchez GGG would have been too patient as lost on the cards looking for the perfect shot and 'Mexican style' GGG would have been outmanned in a classic.

 

*Ahem* Adonis 'POS' Stevenson *Ahem*.

 

The "lineal" argument is pure nonsense, it has no official status and lineal "status" is just made up and twisted by fanboys to suit their preconceived agenda. The whole original point of it was to recognise the "rightful" champion. However, realistically it legitimises ducking and it loses any meaning when you get some idiots suggesting that someone who has never fought a middleweight fight should be considered the rightful champion over someone who has hammered half the division because they won a single catchweight fight.