Is it acceptable to have Gennady Golovkin on the same list of the All Time Greats of boxing?

Well Golovkin did fight a Welterweight in Kell Brook, in a horrible mismatch where Brook moved up 2 weightclasses.

Trinidad had been campaigning at Jr Middleweight looking impressive vs Vargas, Reid, etc. Then moved up to Middleweight and looked impressive in destroying Joppy. As I said Trinidad was the actual "favourite" vs Hopkins key word there. And was also rated P4P number 2 at the time, has Golovkin beaten any P4P fighters ? Or a big established name like Trinidad ? Theres your answer.

 

Which 2 welterweights should he have fought then and which 2 guys should he have beaten five times to qualify him as an atg at 160? That’s what I’m asking since Hopkins is one standard.

 

You can keep repeating it until your blue in the face, I don't know why you keep ignoring facts. Trinidad wasn't some blown up Welterweight out of his depth, he'd been campaigning at Jr Middleweight for a few years, and then looked devastating at Middleweight vs Joppy, and was the betting favourite and P4P number 2.

Again has Golovkin got any win on his resume in the same ballpark as that ? Absolutely not. Golovkins best win is a closely contested fight vs Daniel Jacobs. To compare Jacobs with someone on Hopkins resume would be like Keith Holmes, who is better than Jacobs and who Hopkins beat with ease.

 

Trinidad did not fight at 154 for a few years. He fought there for 1 year not a few. Him and Oscar made their bones at lower weights. Be honest about it. Who should Golovkin have fought from the lower weights to get credit like Hopkins? Clearly Brook isn’t it. And you still haven’t mentioned which 2 guys he should have beaten 5 times.

 

I notice Hopkin's win over De La Hoya gets little notice, and perhaps rightfully so after Oscar's sub-par performance against Sturm, who I felt Oscar underestimated and came in out of shape. But Oscar was absolutely the best he could be at MW against Bernard. He was fighting the best fight possible, in excellent shape & fighting smart, but Hopkins did what he had to do and showed his ATGness. He stopped Oscar with a body shot and it was over. Hopkins deserves more credit for this win.

As far as Trinidad goes, he was looked at as a monster that was going to KO Hopkins. Tito's big KO over Joppy made people think Bernard was going to get crushed.

 

Trinidad had 3 fights at Jr Middleweight vs Vargas, Thiam, Reid. The Reid and Vargas fights in particular are some of his most iconic fights and best wins. Although I thought he fought there for 2 years that's a mistake on my part.

Again why do you keep ignoring facts ? You seem to dismiss that Trinidad was the favourite vs Hopkins. And destroyed a genuine world class Middleweight in William Joppy.

Why would I answer your question ? It makes no sense. There was no names comparable to Trinidad who Golovkin could of fought. Unless you want to compare him with Canelo ? Who actually started his career at Welterweight. And who Golovkin officially failed to beat in 3 attempts.

 

Bingo. Now you’re starting to get it. You can’t hold that against someone if there isn’t comparable competition. He destroyed who was in front of him while the other champions purposely avoided him.

 

Yes i get what your saying that you can only beat who's infront of you, but still Golovkin doesn't really have any standout wins. And whilst not all of that is Golovkin's fault, it still hurts him IMO when your ranking him against other ATG Middleweights. Which has such a deep history with so many amazing fighters who have much better wins than Golovkin.

I think Golovkin was unlucky vs Canelo the 1st time, but i still think the other two fights were scored correctly, and had no problem with Canelo winning fights 2 and 3. Would going 1-2 with Canelo alter his standing ? that's up to you to decide.

Other notable Middleweight champions like Hopkins, lost two close controversial decisions to Taylor. And Hagler lost a controversial decision to Leonard. It's not like Golovkin is the only Middleweight champion that has had a decision go against him, but they also had stand out victories over some big names, which you look at when we're judging their resume where as Golovkin doesn't. Golovkin also had two close fights vs Jacobs, Derevyanchenko, go his way aswell so it evens itself out.

 

They also had the big names willing to fight. Had Golovkin been unwilling to fight Martinez, Cotto, etc, you’d have a point. But they blatantly avoided and Canelo dropped his belt to age him out. Those are big factors in his career.

 

Yes, Canelo twice.

 

He ruined his legacy after his second fight with canela. After that fight he chose to take an easy path of lesser opponents. He could have really enhanced his legacy after the second Canelo fight to fight the best contenders but he just waited around for a giant payday for a third fight

 

Yes I understand what your saying but how does that enhance Golovkin's resume ? Whether or not certain fighters avoided him, has nothing to do with Golovkin's resume. Or how his record compares to the best Middleweights. The fact is he hasn't got any stand out wins against any great fighters or house hold names, and for the most part his resume is largely forgettable to be completely honest.

 

And Golovkin was lucky to get the nod vs Derevyanchenko, people seem to forget that when giving Golovkin unofficial wins over Canleo. I watched Canelo vs Golovkin 2 again recently, and I had no issue with Canelo winning a close fight. He was the aggressor and landed the harder punches. Golovkin was on the back foot and his primary weapon was the jab. Was it a debatable fight ? Absolutely. But nothing wrong with Canelo edging it based on his aggression, I feel like only the 1st fight was highly controversial. I see nothing wrong with Canelo winning trilogy 2-1 overall though.

 

Jacobs was very competitive and fought the fight of his life, but still came up short. Golovkin got off to a nice lead along with the knockdown, then even hurt Jacobs late, i had Golovkin winning by about 2 to 3 points. Only the Jacobs family and friends a GGG haters try to claim it was controversial. The Derevyanchenko fight was really close, but i had GGG winning that at well.Take a look at boxrec fans score to put yourself at peace about that. The powers that be protected Canelo from loses to GGG. The guy that was supposed to win mysteriously came out on top without a loss. The 2nd fight was closer, but GGG won it down the stretch in the championship rounds like a true champ. If GGG let his hands go in the 3rd fight i think he would have taken it as well, Canelo would have gassed out worse than he did, i never seen Golovkin so tentative. It was as close as the judges had it, as GGG won round one, round six, and at least 3 out of the last 4 rounds, again rallying down the stretch. Canelo couldn't have hurt GGG in that fight if GGG gave him free shots.

 

If Golovkin had got the nod over Canelo in their 2nd fight, it would've been seen as controversial aswell. The commentators all had Canelo winning the 2nd fight, all the judges had reasonable scorecards 114-114, 115-113 x2. The fight was a good close fight that Canelo edged based on his aggression and harder punches. There was no rip off or robbery Canelo won a fair decision in a close fight end of. Golovkin was unlucky to nod get the nod in the 1st fight, but fights 2 and 3 all had good scoring and consistent scorecards from the judges.

Finally as for Jacobs, Derevyanchenko. I had Golovkin winning the Jacobs fight, but it was a very close fight and a debatable one. The Derevyanchenko fight I had 114-113 for Dereyanchenko and it was considered highly controversial. So whilst Golovkin was unlucky to not get the nod vs Canelo 1st time, Golovkin on the other hand was also lucky to get nod vs Derevyanchenko so it evens itself out.