Talent wise, he's definitely one of the best to pass through the division. But who he may have beaten is largely speculation. In terms of resume, he's not even close to a top-5 guy.
People seem to have short memories, Canelo was "the one guy favoured to beat Mayweather". Canelo beat Kirkland, Angulo, Lara, Trout amongst others. And hell be wiping the floor with Cotto in a few weeks time. The same Canelo, Golovkin is so desperate to make his name on.
He only beat Trout PRIOR to losing to Mayweather, idiot. I asked who was Canelo's best win as in PRIOR to facing Floyd. Cotto at 154 was weak as pi**. Other than that, Trout beat nobody of note.
If anyone was giving Alvarez a shot it was more out of hope than expectation. Beating a guy who is 43-0, top 10 p4p and has two world titles looks great on paper, until you actually watch him and examine his record. Who exactly had he beaten to be rated so highly? That such an unaccomplished fighter reached such a lofty status in the first place is a reflection of the over-hyped and diluted era boxing is in. When Matthew Hatton likely ranks among your five biggest wins, you know you're s****ing the barrel.
I'll be honest, I'd hardly heard of Alvarez or Canelo or whatever his name is, before Floyd signed to fight him. He was a vaguely recognizable titlist in a sea of many. He probably ranks around the same as Gianfranco Rosi, who was admittedly good fighter.
Yeah, it is, even with the ridiculous number of divisions. P4p ratings are a bit nonsensical though, imo.
Yeah, but that illustrates how silly the ratings are. It's impossible to rate fighters against others in completely different divisions, with no common opponents. It makes no sense.