Why I think GGG is a top 15 all-time middleweight.

and noones asking, they are just telling those without the reasoning to determine it.

 

Yeah, but the catch weight favored Cotto if anything, so for me Canelo's win over Cotto is a legit win over someone who took the lineal champion apart, even though he was nearing the end anyway. I rate Canelo's win over Cotto as a good one.

 

Geale and Lemieux must rank among Golovkin's very best win. They were both in or around the top 5 and GGG beat them decisively. But Geale being KO'd by Cotto in the 4th soon after that and Lemmy being taken to school by Saunders does take some of the shine away from the wins.

Geale having to come in at 157 does ask some question since the guy weighed in unofficially at 182 lbs !!! before entering the ring. He weighed in at just about two lbs more (159,25) against GGG, but those extra two pounds can be tough to dehydrate when you already dehydrate so much. So it's hard to know how much the catch weight affected him against Cotto. Cotto did what he wanted to in there, though.

 

i would say very good, since cotto was an established elite, albeit a little post prime. Whereas Golovkin had yet to advance an elite resume until he fought canelo.

 

1 ) Couldn't beat the best guy he fought , who wasn't a MW. Floyd Mayweather was older than GGG when he beat Canelo more decisively.
2 ) Many thought Jacobs won the fight.
3 ) Hopkins win over Howard Eastman is a better than Murray and Howard wouldn't rank as a top 5 win for Hopkins
4 ) Ask the WBA what they thought of the Brook fight. They refused to sanction it.

Getting run to the brink of defeat by Jacobs and fighting to a draw against Canelo doesn't make you an ATG MW. I think that assessment is fair.

Mike McCallum fought James Toney to a draw when he was 35. Golovkin fights to a draw against Canelo at the same age.
It goes without say that Toney was a hell of a lot better than Canelo.

 

Depends on what you put in the word "elite". Cotto's one win at 160 was against a very faded Martinez. A good win, though, all in all.

And I don't discount his win over Geale just because it was at a catch weight, but it had been better if it had been at 160. An impressive performance, though, which confirmed Cotto as one the top MWs at the time.

 

one of top mw of all time? bit of a stretch but sure a possible hofer when he retires.

 

Floyd ran all night from a greener and weight drained version of Canelo. GGG took on the Mexican Meat version of Canelo and chased him all over the ring, outlanded him, and busted him up despite all the promises beforehand from Canelo about knockouts etc.

Many are wrong. Golovkin dropped him, carved up his defence with his jab and put in a solid wn over a guy who skipped weighing in for the IBF belt specifically so that he'd have a weight advantage over GGG, which weight was well over 180.

In no universe is 49-13 Eastman better than 37-4 Murray, who arguably beat Sturm and Martinez. Eastman got schooled by a neophyte Abraham, and Murray gave Abraham all he could handle.

Brook was a champion.

Here's one of Toney's great performances:

This content is protected

Amazing stuff! Canelo could NEVER beat Tiberi. ( ) Look at this crud from Canelo:

This content is protected

 

That's a bit of an odd statement to make.

So - A handful of Golovkin fans start arguments, which involve the names of Hagler, Hopkins and Golovkin and somehow that puts Golovkin in the top 15 middleweights of all time, by default?

It doesn't.

 

The catchweight advantage going to Cotto might well be the case. And, I'd agree that it was a good win for Canelo.

However, just to be clear, I don't see it being a good middleweight win, regardless of the title at stake.

 

What we need is a poll. And a list of who might be reasonably considered ahead of GGG.

 

I honestly can't think of a more nondescript middleweight titleholder than Geale.

 

Polls are interesting and more a bit of fun, in terms of what the distribution of opinions are across the board. However, they're not reliable, even on that front (e.g. variable voter turnout, sample bias etc).

Only research; corroboration of the research and knowing you have a well-reasoned argument resolves the matter for the individual.

The rest is just ether.

 

It can still be a close fight regardless of how many thought GGG won. The majority having him winning doesn't mean it was a robbery. How many of that 80% say it wasn't a close result? You don't know the answer to that question.

If GGG was a real ATG , he would have been good enough to take the decision away from the judges. He had 12 rounds to do it and lost 6 of them on my card.

Martin Murray also lost every time he stepped up. Another double standard , but whats new here?

Eastman wasn't great by any means , but he was certainly better than Martin Murray who couldn't beat a shot to pieces Arthur Abraham. The same Arthur who was utterly dominated by Chris Eubank Jr.

Prime Arthur Abraham only edged out a close decision win against a faded Eastman.

Eastman was a dominant European Champion who a few decent win against Sam Soliman , Cherifi , Evans Ashira , Rob MaCracken.

Sam Soliman became a champ in Golovkins era by beating Sturm 14 years after he was beaten by Eastman. Martin Murray fought Sturm and came away with a draw.

As i said , Eastman isn't even classed as a good win for Hopkins , yet he's better than one of GGGs best wins.