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

[Citizen Koba]

Simple way of looking at it is:

If A* means you're an All Time Great, then A must mean you are a Hall of Famer.

So I'll go with A. I had GGG winning the first Canelo fight and at the very least drew the second (live I scored for GGG, second viewing with no commentary Draw). If he had officially won the first fight he'd have been undisputed champion, lineal etc so could have elevated his standing.

Anybody know how many fights GGG has left on his deal?

His career? What's the criteria?

Resume? Achievements? Career earnings?

Resume? Well that varies by user, but personally, I gave him the first fight over Canelo. Big victory for an older fighter. So that's got to be at least a B, maybe B+.

He's clearly A+ at career earnings, as very few boxers have earned the amount of money he is.

Achievements? Never undisputed and only a one division champion, but still at least around a B- to B.

I think based on resume and accomplishment
A+ = Floyd/Pac
A = Ward
A- = Canelo/Loma
B+ = Fury/Kova
B = Usyk/Donaire
B- =Golovkin

etc...

I really like Golovkin, but he really has not done much. Compare him to Kova, both considered EE monster types, but Kova has
done so much as a three time champ that they almost seem incomparable.

Se this is more the kinda way you gotta look at it - firstly define your parameters - what are you actually measuring when you say How would you grade his career? How much money the dude made? How many title fight he won, how good his overall resume is? How popular he was? Whatever... it doesn't really matter as long as you define what it is you're grading.

The second thing you need to define is a scale. Say we can all agree that Floyd or Manny are A* - so that's your kinda elite 1 or 2 per generation type career whether you're talking money, fame or wins over top quality opponents.

At the bottom end - an F - you got dudes like Kristian Laight who went out and put on a show on average once a fortnight for 17 years and earned himself the moniker 'Mr Relaible' by becoming perhaps the ultimate journeyman, brought in to lose but never to lose badly enough to keep him out of action.



So with what do you fill the letters A - E in between the rarified heights of the P4P and PPV elite and the club fighters, journeymen and part timers?

Well, however you want really... it doesn't matter as long as you define your scale and apply your crtieria consistently irrespective of whether it's a dude you like or dislike.

Worth remembering though that even the lowliest 'World' champion represents someone in probably the top 1 or 2 percentiles of their profession and any long running, unified or multi division champion the elite of the elite.Thing is you kinda run out of scale if you try to classify all fighters on the same set of 6 letters.

Say Floyd is A* - Ward, Klitschko maybe an A, Call GGG - a long running titlist with a coupla PPVs a B and what have you got left? Where do you put all the titlists who had a few defenses, never really made $ multi mil paydays - DeGale maybe or Lara.... few would argue their careers were as successful as Golovkin's even if they think they were as good as fighters. So if these guys are 'C's that what do you call your Uzcategui's or your Peter Quillin's? Your Bam Bams or Mile High Mikes? Your Kirklands? Are these really D level careers in the big scheme?

And if they are where do you grade all the guys they beat but yet somehow made it at least onto a live broadcast or even the untelevised portion of a major event unlike the thousands of fighters who never made it that far?

[VirusTI]

Se this is more the kinda way you gotta look at it - firstly define your parameters - what are you actually measuring when you say How would you grade his career? How much money the dude made? How many title fight he won, how good his overall resume is? How popular he was? Whatever... it doesn't really matter as long as you define what it is you're grading.

The second thing you need to define is a scale. Say we can all agree that Floyd or Manny are A* - so that's your kinda elite 1 or 2 per generation type career whether you're talking money, fame or wins over top quality opponents.

At the bottom end - an F - you got dudes like Kristian Laight who went out and put on a show on average once a fortnight for 17 years and earned himself the moniker 'Mr Relaible' by becoming perhaps the ultimate journeyman, brought in to lose but never to lose badly enough to keep him out of action.



So with what do you fill the letters A - E in between the rarified heights of the P4P and PPV elite and the club fighters, journeymen and part timers?

Well, however you want really... it doesn't matter as long as you define your scale and apply your crtieria consistently irrespective of whether it's a dude you like or dislike.

Worth remembering though that even the lowliest 'World' champion represents someone in probably the top 1 or 2 percentiles of their profession and any long running, unified or multi division champion the elite of the elite.Thing is you kinda run out of scale if you try to classify all fighters on the same set of 6 letters.

Say Floyd is A* - Ward, Klitschko maybe an A, Call GGG - a long running titlist with a coupla PPVs a B and what have you got left? Where do you put all the titlists who had a few defenses, never really made $ multi mil paydays - DeGale maybe or Lara.... few would argue their careers were as successful as Golovkin's even if they think they were as good as fighters. So if these guys are 'C's that what do you call your Uzcategui's or your Peter Quillin's? Your Bam Bams or Mile High Mikes? Your Kirklands? Are these really D level careers in the big scheme?

And if they are where do you grade all the guys they beat but yet somehow made it at least onto a live broadcast or even the untelevised portion of a major event unlike the thousands of fighters who never made it that far?

I get what you are saying, you could probably squeeze many of those champs together into tighter brackets. But, the point still stands; Golovkin has underachieved. I used to be a die hard GGG fan back in the day, but now that the career is more or less over, do we really look back at say 'wow, that was great' or do we say 'damn, who did he really beat?'.
I compare him to Kova because they had similar careers, though Kova was much less popular over the time. Now looking back it seems Kova has done much better; he beat better fighters(Hopkins, Pascal), he came back post loses(Alvarez), and took on young contenders(Yarde). Hell, Kova did much better against Ward than GGG did against Canelo and Ward is the better fighter(compared to canelo).

[Citizen Koba]

I get what you are saying, you could probably squeeze many of those champs together into tighter brackets. But, the point still stands; Golovkin has underachieved. I used to be a die hard GGG fan back in the day, but now that the career is more or less over, do we really look back at say 'wow, that was great' or do we say 'damn, who did he really beat?'.
I compare him to Kova because they had similar careers, though Kova was much less popular over the time. Now looking back it seems Kova has done much better; he beat better fighters(Hopkins, Pascal), he came back post loses(Alvarez), and took on young contenders(Yarde). Hell, Kova did much better against Ward than GGG did against Canelo and Ward is the better fighter(compared to canelo).

I ain't gonna argue with you man, overall his career could definitely have been better whether you regard that as his fault or prinicpally just down to circumstance... it ain't an ATG career it's probably not much more than a mid range HoF career at best, but he's still vastly more accomplished than all but a tiny fraction of fighters on the planet. Whether you call it A or B or hell, C if you like doesn't really matter, it's more the recognition that it's a standout career by normal standards.. it only suffers by comparison with the absolutely exceptional guys - your Floyds, Pacs, Canelos or Wards - principally those who were groomed from a much younger age by major promoters and got their opportunities far earlier.

[aboutfkntime]

Well at least we reached an understanding. In future let's just forgo the pretense that you're interested in having a dialogue and skip straight to the insults, huh? Save us both a bit of time and save me having to read your drivel.

how could you possibly grade Golovkin with a " A ", alongside Mayweather and Pacquiao... you fanboy muppet?

you could place GGG as a B (though I'd still personally say A)

will I need to start a list of ******ity for you, like I did for that Boxing1013 idiot...?

[aboutfkntime]

C + or a B...

I think based on resume and accomplishment
A+ = Floyd/Pac
A = Ward
A- = Canelo/Loma
B+ = Fury/Kova
B = Usyk/Donaire
B- =Golovkin

etc...

I really like Golovkin, but he really has not done much. Compare him to Kova, both considered EE monster types, but Kova has
done so much as a three time champ that they almost seem incomparable.

His career? What's the criteria?

Resume? Achievements? Career earnings?

Resume? Well that varies by user, but personally, I gave him the first fight over Canelo. Big victory for an older fighter. So that's got to be at least a B, maybe B+.

He's clearly A+ at career earnings, as very few boxers have earned the amount of money he is.

Achievements? Never undisputed and only a one division champion, but still at least around a B- to B.

yea, you guys know your stuff

like I said... B- is being generous

my main issue is that he avoided so many top-level fights

good fighter... but top-level fighters seek top-level opponents, not avoid them

[aboutfkntime]

How would you grade golovkins career... ?

if forced to pick a adjective from the dictionary, I would pick the word...

..... " timid " ...

Golovkin's opponent selection was... " timid "

and his career was... " underwhelming "

[Blond Beast]

This only works if you provide some kinda examples for your grading scale otherwise everyone gonna be talking different things.

Let's say modern era... talking Floyd and Manny at A+ and Kristian Laight at F then GGGs probably A to A+. If you just talking about Champion level fighters where you got Floyd and Manny at A+ and Rene Alvarado at E or F then possibly you could place GGG as a B (though I'd still personally say A)

If you're grading Golovkin's career against that of elite televised champions of the last 30 years you might rank differently a B or even C depending on exactly how exclusive you want to make that category... see what I'm saying?

I get what ur putting down. Career means earnings and fame, hype, love, lots of factors. GGG gets lots of hate, but he still had a great K0 streak, which kinda worked against him in the end as it’s a tough precedent to keep up. Canelo gets credit for not getting KOd while GGG doesn’t earn the same respect for not getting KOd by Alvarez. Canelo can can disperse GGG by saying he doesn’t hit as hard as people say, yet at the same time he cant actually say that he himself hits harder, which should be a knock on him. I think he’s an A fighter, maybe a B career though. The spotlight will never be on you being a kazak like it would being an American or Mexican. I’m not sure where he can get any huge wins to really get sum extra credit at this point though.

[Lance98]

GGG is someone who is average at best who fooled the public into believing that he is a certain type of character and wants all the smoke, but in reality he is a p*ssy who plays it safe. His career has been on a decline, arguably losing whenever he steps up, looked horrible/arguably lost against jacobs/canelo/chenko. He never looked good or the same since the kell brook fight in 2016. At this point, I am not expecting much from him, and I won't miss him if he retires. I just hope he has enough shame and common sense to not show up as a future hall of famer.

[hhh1200]

horrible resume just like wilder and brook to a certain point. mexican style his way to a DAZN deal with no paying fanbase.

[pepzz]

The savage F killer!