Which ATG middleweights would beat Golovkin?

Golovkin is one of the few fighters of recent years I find highly impressive, but I'd pick Hagler, Monzon, Robinson, Greb, Jones and Ketchel -though none all that confidently. I'd also pick Fitzsimmons if you can consider him a middleweight. The middleweight division is historically really, really stacked with talent and I think it's almost impossible, maybe even a fool's errand, to narrow down the top ten.

I think there are at least thirty guys who would have a realistic chance of beating any of the others, and Golovkin is one of them.

 

I think an aggressive Golovkin Get's wreck on the inside by Toney, A jabbing one might get walked down. James is much more able to work off the front foot than Canelo was. James could keep his head off the line of his jab, and box his face off up close. James chin holds up ad it always has and stops him late. I think Jabbing GGG would be more problematic than his swarming game here.

 

I've kind of jumped off the Golovkin bandwagon these last few years, at one point i thought he was indestructible. His last few fights have shown he's very beatable and the worrying point is when closing the show he didn't seem to have the ability or the desire to really dig deep and stamp his authority on the fight. Both Jacobs and Canelo looked stronger to me at the end of their fights. I also think Golovkin has looked vulnerable to the body.

Of course age might be a factor here but the facts are he's fought his best opponents when many ATG's were retiring, how he would have handled the likes of Canelo and Jacobs in his mid-twenties is anyone's guess but in his pomp his resume was poor by ATG standards.

 

Monzon is the only one I'd be fairly confident. The rest is even money.

 

I think it's just because he's not really thought of as a middleweight.

 

Pretty hard to pick guys we have zero or next to zero footage of. It's difficult enough picking current matchups let alone across era's where we have ample footage of both let alone when we have basically zero of one fighter.

 

I would favor SRR, Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins, Steele, Burley, Jones Jr, Kalambay and Toney off the top of my head. Guys like Nunn, Griffith, McCallum and others (Murderers row etc) i'd have to think about.

 

Lol no, just no. Bet Monroes's dad's wins against a prime Hagler and Hart will be remembered more than anything Jr. will accomplish. The other two. Really?

 

There's a lot wrong with this pal, context and everything. Why take an example of a fight you've probably never seen or researched with a fighter you probably know nothing about? What happened in the fight and what do you think of the guys career in general and what what he like stylistically? Did you think the decision was legitimate? I could be wrong but I'm guessing you've just pulled something from boxrec/ out of your arse to try and make a point.

This was years before Tiger's prime before he'd even won the Commonwealth title. It's well known that he was a fighter who peaked quite late and really learned his trade in America after he'd left the UK. Not remotely the same guy who completely outbrawled physical tanks and huge hitters like Gene Fullmer, Rubin Carter, Florentino Fernandez, Henry Hank and Spider Webb. He struggled more with quick-footed movers and defensive fighters; fighters who came at him got chewed up and spat the **** out as all the available film demonstrates. What does it matter that he lost 19 times? Most of those defeats came either way before or after his prime against guys who used lateral movement and he was in some close, controversial ones like Griffith and Archer.

At his best, he was stronger than Golovkin, a faster and more accurate puncher, at least as durable, better defensively, better on the counter, better on the inside and with a tremendous engine over 15 rounds, not 12. Golovkin hits harder, has a slightly better jab and is better at cutting off the ring, but that's it. And he isn't some pure boxer who heavily utilizes lateral movement or looks to minimize his opponent's countering opportunities; he stalks, cuts off the ring and pressures guys. I know he was more box-orientated as an amateur and has a bit of another side to his game, but there's nothing to suggest that he'd fight like, say, Archer did, nor any evidence that he could make that plan work at the top level. He isn't that kind of stylist plain and simple.

I just think it's a horrible fight for him and someone skimming through boxrec to quickly grab a sliver of info that has no context or supporting evidence isn't going to change my mind when I've seen a decent chunk of Tigers' career on film.

 

At MW i will go with two huge MW Gerald McCellan and Kelly Pavlik .Taking nothing away from Golovkin i'm taking this on Golovkin trouble with huge MW Danny Jacobs.
Both McCellan and Pavlik were like Jacobs in that in reality they were SMW boiled down to MW.

 

I can't see Toney having much success. He couldn't even beat Dave Tiberi.

 

My point exactly. Carry on.

 

toney isnt atg.

but ggg isnt beating him.

 

My point still stands. Golovkin is miles better than nearly all of the guys that beat Tiger (including this nobody) and you're very confident he stops GGG

Oh, ok, fair enough. After he scaled the giddy heights of the Commonwealth title, he lost to this guy:

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/11380

... and I don't need to see 24-24-2 Randy Sandy fight to know GGG is better than him.

... at which time he managed to lose to Giardello who people speculated was shot at the time:

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/10923

Oops, well then Golovkin is in a WORLD of trouble, since he's nobbut a dim-witted brawler that charges headlong into slugfests all night long. Now, if GGG had some great footwork and distance control, and a great jab and the savvy to box to go with his iron chin and power, things would be different.

Oh ... wait:

This content is protected

Because the thread starter specified which MW would you be confident would beat Golovkin. I wouldn't pick a guy with 19 losses - and some to bums - as the guy I'd be confident would beat GGG.

Nice opinion, but let's turn to facts.

Here's Tiger in action against Benvenuti:

This content is protected

Notice how Nino's nothing jab forced Tiger to reset each time. Notice how Tiger is strong, but frankly slow as molasses. See how Tiger tries to jump in with a big punch every time and then try to rough him up with some pretty wild punching.

This is very simple. You can't simply one shot GGG by throwing single overhand rights from the judges box. His distance control is way too good for that. Even Canelo, who is about twice as fast as Tiger, didn't find it easy to land clean. The fact that DT resets after every jab (and some aren't even landing, ffs) is going to see him in a world of trouble against Golovkin who has an absolutely top shelf jab and isn't afraid to use it. In fact, he's one of the most prolific jabbers in history.

If Golovkin decided to fight him like he fought Brook, then yeah, Tiger might have a decent chance. But Golovkin has always been careful with big punchers and out boxed them. This will be easier than Jacobs.

 

sorry but tiger beats ggg, his wins are way above G's peak performance oif a draw against a LMW.

tom case he aint.

however BCS is right he dont get stopped.


a better thread would be which ones would 3G beat, based on him drawing with an elite LMW.


Which ATG MWs couldnt beat an elite LMW?