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

so now you've been shown that holmes (champion, number 2 contender) was more accomplished than danny jacobs, you think hes ok. lol

 

How impressive is being a paper titlist?

 

atg. wheres 3gs atg again? wellit might happen, lets not prejudge.

thats because he barely fought at MW. nice going meathead, some classic Mendoza "shoot myself in my own foot" post content here.

you've been shown hes better than jacobs, GGG's best win...so..nice going there mendoza, classic.

a three time champ is not that good? what does that mean of jacobs, a contender, being 3G's best win? or danny geale, 2 time title holder?

he hadnt been stabbed and lost his abilties when hopkins fought him. you have no concept of time, i take it.

 

they werent.

but canelo was.

however you should bring up some of the former titleholders that 3G fought, they held genuine titles. You are on the right lines with geale.

 

lol@ questioning the legitimacy of these wins when you have Kell Brook down as Golovkins 4th best opponent.

Those guys were rated best in the world on the Ring P4P list and carried belts at MW going into the Hopkins fight. They both established themselves as dominant forces at 154 before moving up to 160.

Kell Brook wasn't even the best in his own weight division of 147 and never had a win nor even a fight at 154 OR 160 before Golovkin fought him.
The WBA did not want their name attached to the fight it was such a farcical match-up. Yet amazingly , Brook done better than the top 10 rated fully fledged MWs GGG had been beating which only tells you how bad the division was when he came along.

Blowing away an ordinary guy like Jacobs like he was meant to would have gave you argument some legs but he couldn't even do that and drawing with Canelo stopped any argument he's greater than Hopkins right in its tracks.

 

Top 15 at middleweight is brutally tough to crack for me, as I think that's the deepest division in boxing history.

If we start at Fitzsimmons, there's only room for about one middleweight per decade and a couple of "wild card" spots. Considering how stacked the division was from the 20's-50's, good luck splitting those hairs. GGG has an argument from me since he's been the best MW of the 2010's in my book, but I could see someone keeping him out.

 

I already did in post #216 , but you completely ignored it cos you had no answer for any of it. Just like you had no comeback for the Eastman /Murray argument.

 

How can joppy lose every major fight if he won the world title three times? u are a fcuking idiot mendoza, your posts wreck themselves

 

this is a proper response and much more accurate to the reality of literally a couple hundred or more great middleweight fighters over 125 year period. well done Sir.

I never understood these lists anyway, I certainly understand gathering stats and using ratings, but those are Guides at best and circumstantially, at times, well off the mark.

Triple G is AMONG the TOP Middleweights of All-time, however to buzz through all-time, you'd find handfuls from Each Decade that could beat him and more again from greater decades.

the same IS True for any of them, weighed against all-time. trying to state categorically 10, 15 or 25 even is still not Gospel Science.

Among them, the best, so many of them IS More the TRUTH!

 

You keep marking out Trinidad and De La Hoya as 'Blown ups' in Hopkins' ledger, but have no problem including Brook and Alvarez for Golovkin.

In any event, both Trinidad and De La Hoya are better scalps than Brook and Alvarez; no matter how much you want to dump on the former two.

It really isn't that difficult to find a better world middleweight championship ledger than Golovkin's.

 

a better topic would be comparing 3G with Artie Abe, since they both havw similar resumes...although 3G has unified.

Personally i would have 3G just ahead now that he has 10 defences, vs Abes 11, i know but abe didnt unify, nor face a titlist.

both however faced some former titlists.

 

A better topic would be comparing Herol to your average floating log. I see many points of similarity. And no, I'm not talking about the lignous kind.