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

Canelo doesn't count as a defense for GGG so in that case..

That result was ruled a NC cos Mills Lane flung Nard out of the ring. Whats McLovkin's excuse ? Oh yeah , he wasn't good enough to win. lol .

 

Only in dumbohelmet's world does a NC = Draw. A draw is still a successful defence, dildo. Especially whent he consensus is that a past-prime GGG beat a prime roided Clenelo and got jobbed on the cards

 

That's not his reign at 160 other than losing close to Taylor at like 38.

If you're stupid enough to suggest that GGG had a better overall career, I suggest you start a new thread.

 

The crazy part is that Vanes is actually better than most of the fighters GGG defended against.

 

Hopkins failed to win the title twice. You can ignore that, I'm not going to.

 

GGG would fail if he got thrown in with Roy too.

Other than that, they’ve each failed to win the title once.

 

Golovkin was the champion, son.

 

He got a draw against the lineal champion. Memory is convenient.

 

Canelo's "lineal" status is worth about as much as Oscar's wet fart.

 

Was the belt Golovkin was awarded for beating Nilson Tapia more coveted?

 

Canelo had 42 fights when Mayweather fight. About as many fights as Mayweather at that time.....don't act like Canelo was some newbie when he met TBE.

 

The way i always understood it is what you describe is true for a draw. The Champion retains the belt in a contest but a No Contest wouldn't apply because that designation is declaring that the fight will be treated as though it never took place.

It's a no contest with no decision rendered at all, think of head clashes with a cut stoppage which takes place before four rounds have been completed, they don't go to the scorecards because not enough of the fight has been completed. No contest = treat it as though the fighters never stepped foot in the ring.