Which ATG middleweights would beat Golovkin?

Here’s my picks to beat GGG

Robinson
Monzon
Hagler
Valdez
Tiger
Burley
Charles
Hopkins
Jones Jr
Greb
Steele
Ketchel

 

Confidently...?

Hagler, Monzon, Robinson, Greb (based on accounts).

I think Golovkin handles any fighter that has to come to him on a consistent basis. Fighters who can operate at range and/or give him different looks stand a better chance of defeating him.

 

Golovkin certainly wouldn't have to go looking for him! It's a shame Golovkin is already past his best though, if he slips up against a lesser guy now he might get tragically underrated in a historical stand point. At the same time if he has a string of fights with some uninspiring opponents and retires undefeated there's a chance it goes the other way. Herol is right though, it's wise to wait until he retires to get a better scope of how he might fare against the best of one of boxing's deepest and talented divisions.

 

Charley Burly Dave Sands maybe Bobo Olsen.

 

Interestingly nobody has picked Langford, even though I think he is obviously the best pick.

He is the only one I'm confident about.
After him, it's Fitz.
And then, Robinson.

 

Ketchel was more of a Lemuiex. An impressive athlete who knew how to punch like a rocket.

Perhaps if he had grown past the young age of 24, his strength would've came in, and he'd be more efficient and more effective. As it was, he seemed to move his feet around a lot to plant that one punch.

Golovkin and Langford are made of stone. From head to toe they are tough, strong, and powerful. There's a reason why Langford was a world beater at higher weights, whereas Kethel looked like a, well, MW, when he fought Johnson. Different species of men, different species of fighter Langford and Golovkin. They'll just walk you down, and eat you up.

 

Tall fast and durable the fighters who do well but not quite enough depends on the day

SRR
Bernard Hopkins
Michael Nunn (pre Toney)

Pick-em fights
Hagler
Walker
Monzon
Ketchel
RJJ
Toney
Steele

Beats him
Greb
Langford

 

I'd favor him to maybe take one narrow win against a Monzon if they were to fight, say, four seperate fifteen rounders.

I'd say he goes about even against the much smaller but far more skilled and dynamic Griffith in a four fight series at Middleweight.

 

Where does this Triple G love fest stop? He hasn't defeated one fighter that will be remembered 10 yrs from now other then maybe Alvarez whom he had a draw with. The same Alvarez that was schooled by a natural jr.lightweight. Its easy too look good being a world class fighter fighting 2nd and 3rd rate competition. But not one fighter he's beaten has a WOW factor too them. Not one who wasn't exposed before he fought them. Yet here some of you are placing Triple G on the level of a Greb,Monzon,and Hagler,vwhen theirs not one fighter he's fought that should suggest to anyone he's on that level . He's lucky to fight in this era of boxing.

 

I can't say I disagree with the overall point here, and I'm a full on fan of GGG.

It's the major issue with trying to rank current fighters with historic fighters, in that the resume isn't complete, but even more so, the context isn't yet cemented to properly judge the resume. A bit of distance in time after he hangs up the gloves will hopefully provide some more clarification.

As it is, I think Golovkin at his best does have the tools to beat a lot of greats at MW. But I wouldn't put him in the Hagler, Langford, Greb, Monzon category at this point in time, and with the division being what it's been, I don't think he'll ever really have the chance to do so, especially at his current age. Maybe if Golovkin pulls a Hopkins and sticks around, winning relevant fights into his AARP years, he could do so, but that's about it.

 

You don't think Jacobs will be remembered in 10 years?
I think he'll be remembered in 100 years.
Hell, we know Billy Papke.

Especially if he defeats Jermall Charlo.
If he wins that fight, his legacy is strong.

Lemuix will be a solid notch looking back.
GGG will be remembered as getting the best of Canelo, and scaring him out of a rematch.
And of course theres the manner in which he cleaned out all other contenders.

Of course, I do agree that there a lot to be desired in terms of him having more legacy fights. I just wonder how we would look at the MW division sans Golovkin, and how his dominance brings a new relativity to the rest of the MW pool.

 

Dick Tiger, the guy who lost 19 times? In some cases to guys like this:

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/34104

You'd have to be some kind of confident that Tiger would beat Golovkin to make that bet!

 

Fighters that WOULD beat Golovkin? I'm not sure I'd say any such thing about any MW in history. The top guys, like Greb, Hagler, Monzon and maybe a prime Jones, are about as far as I'd go, if I had to pick somebody.

Fighters that COULD beat Golovkin? You could take those four and add a bunch to the number. Everybody has nights where they fight out of their skin (Buster Douglas v Tyson) and nights where they make heavy work of a guy they ought to smash (GGG v Ouma).

The problem with these fantasy matchups is that people tend to take an idealised "best" version of a fighter without remembering that fighters could have off nights and actually, you know, suck. Such as the previously mentioned Tiger. I look at a resume as a whole and make judgement on that.

 

Willie Monroe, Ubaldo Bustos and Soldier Bartfield have something to say to you about "invincible" fighters.