Who had a better MW title reign: Hopkins or Golovkin?

This really isn't rocket science:
1. Hopkins' marquee marquee wins at 160 (Tito, Holmes, and Oscar) were dominant.
2. GGG's marquee fights (Jacobs, Canelo, and Brook) gave shakey results against a similar level of opponent.

Both would steamroll the rest of their opponents if the records were reversed.

Hopkins is ahead unless GGG improves his resume.

 

Yes, Quito is significantly higher in elevation than Big Bear.

The eyeball test tells you Allen from the first two matches would have given Lil G issues.

Eastman fought prime Abraham on short notice and gassed halfway through, and arguably got jobbed on the cards. Murray fighting an old washed up Abe has no bearing. Eastman got robbed against Joppy. Joppy was better than the mediocre Sturm who Murray drew with.

You discussing things that don't represent the opponent that Hopkins fought is silly. Ouma getting beat down by Golovkin years later, has no bearing on the Ouma that Roman Karmazin fought. Yet that is the silly nonsensical argument you present. What was Echols' record when he fought Hopkins?

Golovkins opposition has been trash outside of Canelo and Jacobs. He went from the guy that KO's Rhinos in sparring, to the guy that gets exposed by Canelo and Jacobs. Two guys who wouldn't have even cracked the top 10 some years in the 90s at 160.

 

And yet, he has all the belts bar one, is undefeated with a ridiculous KO rate at an advanced age

 

Is it really a marquee win at 160 beating Oscar? He had great success below 160. While 1-1 at 160, Oscar should really be 0-2. Tito at least had a big win over Joppy.

 

I’m not saying it’s as good as the Tito fight from fight. Tito is analogous to Canelo as an opponent. Oscar is analogous to Brook, probably better than him. Jacobs is better than Holmes but similar and it’s a skin of the teeth win versus a dominant one with them against GGG and BHop..

 

How exactly did GGG have shakey results with Brook? By breaking his face in the second round instead of the first?

And Hopkins schooled Tito but he didn't school Oscar. It was a close fight until the 6th or 7th round before Hopkins took over. And Oscar wasn't that good at Middleweight, evidenced by him getting a dubious decision against Felix Sturm. You can hardly call Hopkins performance dominant.

 

https://www-thesun-co-uk.cdn.amppro...pped/amp/?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQGCAEYASgB#

 

What exactly does that prove? GGG wasn't going to get a fair shake in the UK against the hometown fighter?

Well you invalidated my argument. If you want to defend dodgy scorecards, be my guest. Did you have Brook up when the fight was stopped? Which rounds did you give him?

 

Are you familiar with the concept of losing the forest for the trees? BHop easily outperformed GGG in his big fights, overall, and that’s the end of it unless GGG adds to his resume.

 

I disagree, Hopkins didn't have an easy time with De La Hoya. Besides, a win is a win. The level of opponent is what matters.

 

A draw is a draw.

 

You're right, Hopkins had a draw with Mercado, a cab driver.

 

As big a "draw" robbery as GGG;cleneno