Is Golovkin's reign better than Hopkins?

Great? Canelo is a bit over rated. He can't even fight but 30 seconds of each round. His best wins, Trout, and Lara, are controversial due to the bogus judging. After that, he fought a string of safe opponents, until the Golovkin fight. Opponents that weren't better than some of the young available guys at 154. Canelo is a high priced protected fighter. The only reason he took on Golovkin, is because they felt Golovkin was finally old enough to be a winnable fight. I acknowledge Jacobs and Canelo as being legit opponents. Outside of them though, Golovkin has fought trash. It's laughable watching Golovkin fans act like Stevens, and Lemieux are top level opponents. Or Rubio, Geale, and Rosado. Golovkin's division was the sorriest in the last 50 years, until recently. To call Hopkins resume filled with tomato cans, when compared to Golovkin's is hilarious. Hopkins defended against real solid blue collar contenders. If you watched his career you would know that. Guys like Lemieux, Stevens, Rosado, Ouma, Macklin, Rubio, Wade, Monroe etc. wouldn't have been one of the 10 best middleweights most years of the 90s. That is a fact.

 

Say what you will.. In reality I'm a fan of all of them GGG, Canelo, BHOP and even the ''Tomatoe Cans''.. (Ive been in the ring before and that sh*t aint easy my man) Even the tomato cans who make it through the professional rankings have my respect. So ok.