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

[Curtis Harper]

He blasted away guys who were C level
''Struggled'' with the few guys who were above that
Faced too many C level guys

B

[Citizen Koba]

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





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

You still yappin Scrappy?

[FrankieClutch]

I mean, what is the scale? He made it further than 99% of boxers do and made a ton of money. So in that aspect, it's an A+

Now if we're talking about resume in comparison to skill, it's probably a B-

[Curtis Harper]

I mean, what is the scale? He made it further than 99% of boxers do and made a ton of money. So in that aspect, it's an A+

Now if we're talking about resume in comparison to skill, it's probably a B-

The bold is all that really matters

[Citizen Koba]

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.

.

My take is simply that whilst as a career Golovkin isn't in the stratosphere of the few elite chosen ones - Floyd, Manny, Oscar, Canelo, say it's also better than 99.9% of professional boxers out there whether you're looking at earnings, popularity or ranked opponents beaten. What he lacks is any elite victories to confirm his place at the very top.

So how do you rank that? I'd use a system that kinda rolls earnings, popularity, industry regard and wins over ranked guys into one and grade it as follows, but plenty of other systems could be devised.

A+. Super Elite: generation phenoms who transcend the sport. Eg Floyd, Manny, Oscar

A. Long running, unified or multiple division champions, PPV headliners and long term P4P listers. Egs, Wlad, Kovalev, Ward, Cotto, maybe Froch

B. Solid well respected World champions with several defenses but no P4P status and sub PPV. Eg DeGale, Lara, possibly Cleverly, Frampton

C. Perennial Contenders or short term (1 or 2 defenses) champions Eg Martin Murray, Hassan Ndam, Fedor Chudinov, Bam Bam Rios.. El Perro, julius indongo, Rocky Fielding

D: National and regional champs or contenders who never quite made it on the world stage, High level journeymen or gatekeepers. Avtandil Khurtsidze, John Ryder (though there's still time) Darnell Boone

E Pretty much anyone who's ever fought or contended for a national or regional level title or been on a televised card even if they lost. Ted Cheeseman

F. Club level fighters, journeymen, local level fighters. EG Kristin Laight

Thing is I'm seeing a lotta folk dropping grades in, but without context - examples of fighters ranked above and below and some kinda description of exactly what within the umbrella term 'career' is being graded. The grades really don't mean a great deal without some kinda context like that, however arbitrary.

[Shadoww702]

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

I agree B-

A+ for fooling the media and his Rtarded fan base that look up to him like some GOD.

And D for his resume and wins. Only real wins is Jacobs and Sergiy. And if his dumb @ss fans want to put * up on Canelo we can do that with Jacobs and Sergiy as well....


* Sergiy
* Jacobs
* Canelo
* Canelo

Now who is on his resume???

[Shadoww702]

.

My take is simply that whilst as a career Golovkin isn't in the stratosphere of the few elite chosen ones - Floyd, Manny, Oscar, Canelo, say it's also better than 99.9% of professional boxers out there whether you're looking at earnings, popularity or ranked opponents beaten. What he lacks is any elite victories to confirm his place at the very top.

So how do you rank that? I'd use a system that kinda rolls earnings, popularity, industry regard and wins over ranked guys into one and grade it as follows, but plenty of other systems could be devised.

A+. Super Elite: generation phenoms who transcend the sport. Eg Floyd, Manny, Oscar

A. Long running unified or multiple division champions, PPV headliners and long term P4P listers. Egs, Wlad, Kovalev, Ward, Cotto, maybe Froch

B. Solid well respected World champions with several defenses but no P4P status and sub PPV. Eg DeGale, Lara, possibly Cleverly, Frampton

C. Perennial Contenders or short term (1 or 2 defenses) champions Eg Martin Murray, Hassan Ndam, Fedor Chudinov, Bam Bam Rios.. El Perro, julius indongo, Rocky Fielding

D: National and regional champs or contenders who never quite made it on the world stage, High level journeymen or gatekeepers. Avtandil Khurtsidze, John Ryder (though there's still time) Darnell Boone

E Pretty much anyone who's ever fought or contended for a national or regional level title or been on a televised card even if they lost. Ted Cheeseman

F. Club level fighters, journeymen, local level fighters

So a B with resume mostly F??? B- again

[aboutfkntime]

You still yappin Scrappy?

you still making sig-worthy excuses, like the other fanboys... ?

[aboutfkntime]

I mean, what is the scale? He made it further than 99% of boxers do and made a ton of money. So in that aspect, it's an A+

Now if we're talking about resume in comparison to skill, it's probably a B-

B- is starting to look like the consensus among knowledgeable fans

[Citizen Koba]

So a B with resume mostly F??? B- again

Fs huh?

But yeah If that's how you read it sure. My efforts here have been entirely about pointing out that's what's needed is a consistent grading scale, so we're all talking about the same thing, not to try to impose my opinion on where Golovkin should rank on anyone else. FWIW even the ranking system I've outlined there is insanely top heavy, cramming something like 98% of all boxers into the bottom two categories - almost logrithmic, but I get that most interest is focused on just a very small part of the overall spectrum.

Personally I'd Rank GGGs overall career an A using that scale but I ain't claiming any particular objectivity.