How would you grade golovkins career (A* to F)

[Citizen Koba]

The “record” isn’t a great deal. Even Hopkins’ record can’t compare to Monzon or Hagler because they were undisputed from the get go rather than being a beltholder for years before unifying.

I do agree he beat Canelo twice but I also don’t think Canelo is an overly special fighter.

Funny thing is we all looking at different things and comparing em to different things - exactly what I said on the first post of this very thread.

Way I look at it any titleholder is in the top 1% of achievers in the boxing world, anyone who ever unifies or makes more than 4 or 5 defenses is by definition the elite of the elite. If you look at earnings - which is absolutely one element in the rather vague umbrella term 'career' - then GGG made out like a damn bank robber - the $100 mil or so with which he's likely to end his career will make him one of the wealthiest boxers ever even adjusting for inflation. If you're looking at P4P - 5 years on the lists - again one expression of the elite of the elite... in all of these what you gonna rank GGG amongst his contemporaries if not an A (assuming Floyd, Manny, Saul etc are A+). Only place you can rank him lower to my mind - at least amongst his contemporaries - is resume. And even there he exceeded the vast majority of 'normal' guys, even regular champions in the number of ranked fighters he beat:

//krikya360.com/2010s-ra...de-5-1--146508

Where he falls down is that he just ain't got any official 'elite' level wins, where it ain't so bad is that he also only has one official loss, and that's to a commonly recognised P4P #1 and was controversial to boot.

What I'm mainly thinking that if long term P4Per and long reigning champ and unified champ and mega millionaire GGG has a B- career, then where do you rank poor effers like Jimmy Degale or Erislandy who were 'mere' World Champions for several defenses.. Cs? Ds? And if solid World Champions are Cs or Ds then what about Bam Bam Rios or Periban who held a title for the briefest of times which still makes em more successful than 95% of the boxing world? D-, E?

And then where do you rank the guys they beat - the national and regional level challengers and contenders?

[chrisJS]

Let's put this into actual context: So, you think GGG has to be rated in the top 3-4 best middleweights of all time to even matter?
You said, he has 'nothing' to stand on, right? I don't think that's fair.

No, I didn’t say he has “nothing to stand on”. I just don’t think he’s had a spectacular career. He’s an excellent fighter and he’s had a very good career but he’s not a top 20 middleweight or a top 150 all-time guy IMO.

[chrisJS]

Funny thing is we all looking at different things and comparing em to different things - exactly what I said on the first post of this very thread.

Way I look at it any titleholder is in the top 1% of achievers in the boxing world, anyone who ever unifies or makes more than 4 or 5 defenses is by definition the elite of the elite. If you look at earnings - which is absolutely one element in the rather vague umbrella term 'career' - then GGG made out like a damn bank robber - the $100 mil or so with which he's likely to end his career will make him one of the wealthiest boxers ever even adjusting for inflation. If you're looking at P4P - 5 years on the lists - again one expression of the elite of the elite... in all of these what you gonna rank GGG amongst his contemporaries if not an A (assuming Floyd, Manny, Saul etc are A+). Only place you can rank him lower to my mind - at least amongst his contemporaries - is resume. And even there he exceeded the vast majority of 'normal' guys, even regular champions in the number of ranked fighters he beat:

//krikya360.com/2010s-ra...de-5-1--146508

Where he falls down is that he just ain't got any official 'elite' level wins, where it ain't so bad is that he also only has one official loss, and that's to a commonly recognised P4P #1 and was controversial to boot.

What I'm mainly thinking that if long term P4Per and long reigning champ andunified champ and mega millionaire GGG is a B- wher do you rank poor effers like Jimmy Degale or Erislandy who were 'mere' World Champions for a several defenses.. Cs? Ds? And if solid World Champions are Cs or Ds then what about Bam Bam Rios or Periban who held a title for the briefest of times which still makes em more successful than 95% of the boxing world? D-, E?

And then where do you rank the guys they beat - the national and regional level challengers and contenders?

Golovkin is an A for his era but I mean in a historical sense he’s a B- guy.

[Citizen Koba]

Golovkin is an A for his era but I mean in a historical sense he’s a B- guy.

Certainly won't argue that assuming you're talking about measuring him against historical guys who were good enough to be remembered (rather than the hundreds of thousands who weren't). Hard to imagine the name of a single one of GGGs wins being remembered in 30 years... although I personally tend to avoid trying to rank contemporay guys against historical ones - for a start there's been so many changes in fight frequency, consistency of opposition, number of titles and other factors the comparisons become almost meaningless and secondly it's real, real hard to be objective when comparing fighters the current era - especially active ones - to the legends we grew up with. I always reckon that's shit's best left to the historians of the future.

[Boxing Goat]

No, I didn’t say he has “nothing to stand on”. I just don’t think he’s had a spectacular career. He’s an excellent fighter and he’s had a very good career but he’s not a top 20 middleweight or a top 150 all-time guy IMO.

This is your quote:

Compared to what and whom? If we are comparing him to all-time greats he has nothing.

I didn't just make it up.

And I challenge you to give the names of 20 middleweights that would beat him at his best and/or had achieved more than he has.

[chrisJS]

This is your quote:



I didn't just make it up.

And I challenge you to give the names of 20 middleweights that would beat him at his best and/or had achieved more than he has.

Yes, he has nothing next to the all-time greats is what I said. Not nothing in general. You are twisting it.

I am not a fan of mythical matches as they are purely speculation. I’ll say the following are greater middleweights though:-

Harry Greb
Sugar Ray Robinson
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Stanley Ketchel
Charley Burley
Holman Williams
Mike Gibbons
Jake LaMotta
Marcel Cerdan
Bernard Hopkins
Tommy Ryan
Mickey Walker
Tiger Flowers
**** Tiger
Tony Zale
Freddie Steele
Fred Apostoli
Teddy Yarosz
Jack Dillon
Joey Giardello

Off the top and then there’s a bunch of guys with solid arguments of better careers like Gene Fullmer, Bert Lytell, Emile Griffith, Nino Benvenutti etc;

I’m sure he would beat a number of these guys but measuring greatness relative to their era I have a hard time seeing him too 20 much less top 10.

[hugh grant]

Up until beating nelo twice he seems to have stalled. NOt getting decisions seemed to have taken the steam out of him. Deflated him. If your robbed sometimes you dont recover.

[Boxing Goat]

Yes, he has nothing next to the all-time greats is what I said. Not nothing in general. You are twisting it.

I am not a fan of mythical matches as they are purely speculation. I’ll say the following are greater middleweights though:-

Harry Greb
Sugar Ray Robinson
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Stanley Ketchel
Charley Burley
Holman Williams
Mike Gibbons
Jake LaMotta
Marcel Cerdan
Bernard Hopkins
Tommy Ryan
Mickey Walker
Tiger Flowers
**** Tiger
Tony Zale
Freddie Steele
Fred Apostoli
Teddy Yarosz
Jack Dillon
Joey Giardello

Off the top and then there’s a bunch of guys with solid arguments of better careers like Gene Fullmer, Bert Lytell, Emile Griffith, Nino Benvenutti etc;

I’m sure he would beat a number of these guys but measuring greatness relative to their era I have a hard time seeing him too 20 much less top 10.

I didn't twist anything, I literally posted your exact quote.

And half of those fighters have a MW title fight win or two with half a dozen losses from fights that aren't even against top challengers.

I get that the MW division is arguably the most prestigious division in boxing history but I can only think of a few guys that I would say had a very good chance to beat GGG at his best and who have a comparable record.

[Boxing_1013]

The “record” isn’t a great deal. Even Hopkins’ record can’t compare to Monzon or Hagler because they were undisputed from the get go rather than being a beltholder for years before unifying.

I do agree he beat Canelo twice but I also don’t think Canelo is an overly special fighter.

The 'record' is a bit smoke and mirrors imo...but I really don't see how one can elevate Monzon and Hagler so high relative to GGG.

All 3 have stuff you could critique pretty easily...Monzon fought almost exclusively at home...I could mention his 3 early losses in his career but they aren't as material as Hagler's 2 losses to Monroe and Watts.

The only real 'name' on Monzon's list is Griffith, who is in large part known not for his great boxing (which he could often display) but for the unfortunate and scandalous fight with Paret...Monzon has two wins over Griffith, and Emile lost another 22 fights in his career in addition to those 2 loses to Monzon.

Hagler as mentioned has 2 rather poor loses...his win over Hearns is better than anything Monzon or GGG did in a 1 win situation...but Hagler did also get embarrassed by a 3 year inactive, 147 pound SRL in his first fight at 160...GGG has not yet had a loss that poor.

You could say GGG lacks a 'great' official win and that is true...but most even greats don't have many official 'great' wins...just very rarely do two real greats meet at the same weight in the same era, and often times when they do, they split them about 50/50...most did see him beat Canelo at least once, and I agree that I saw it twice.

GGG running through all the fighters he did showed a remarkable, and very high, level of consistency...a lot of different styles in there, and he never came close to having an off night...that is very impressive.

Hagler's 2nd best official win is probably Mugabe...who never beat anyone...I would argue with anyone who says that Duran, at that time and weight, was his 2nd best win...and Hagler showed in that fight, as with Monroe Watts and SRL, that if you could box/move and take a shot, you would give him trouble...as he didn't really box his way in, but rather bounced his way in, lowering his head to take one to give one...and those guys weren't always there to take one after they gave one...and when they were, they took it well.

I do feel some guys on here just romanticize a little bit too much over past fighters...both as far as accomplishments and also form...watching footage of Monzon for example, I am not sure how anyone could honestly argue that he would be favored over a prime Golovkin.

But in any event, I do again think there is valid stuff to critique on all 3 guys...I don't really where Hagler and Monzon's highs were so high relative to GGG, and their lows seemed a bit lower...and again Monzon fought almost exclusively at home...if GGG was doing that in Kazakstan, he would (rightfully) get sh.it for it.

[Boxing_1013]

I didn't twist anything, I literally posted your exact quote.

And half of those fighters have a MW title fight win or two with half a dozen losses from fights that aren't even against top challengers.

I get that the MW division is arguably the most prestigious division in boxing history but I can only think of a few guys that I would say had a very good chance to beat GGG at his best and who have a comparable record.

Well said man...I don't really see how people can hype up some past fighters at MW way above GGG, either on form or resume.

Just seems like people trying to romanticize a past era, and maybe trying to come off as a bit more knowledgeable and more of an expert than they really are...acting like you know so much about the past fighters can probably give some a bit of a superiority complex, as though they really understand boxing and not many others do.

Just study the resumes of any past great MW, and watch the film on them compared to GGG...if you say you see a big difference on anyone in terms of resume, I think you would have to overrate guys from back in the day, at the expense of downing guys like Jacobs/Murray/SD/Lemeiux etc.

And filmwise, the sport is just different now...really hard imo to make the argument that part-time fighters from the 40s 50s 60s etc could really compete in today's era or other eras.

Some guys I would never knock though, such as SRR or Jack Johnson as they are true legends of the sport and deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt imo.