Does GGG make the HOF?

[crusader]

Let's say he beats BJS next fight to become undisputed MW belt holder.

Do you think he'll make the International Boxing Hall of Fame? What more would he need to do?

[Impractical Poster]

Yes, he will.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He definitely will. Helll, vitali will be in there soon.

[Enlightened-One]

A lot of very good fighters that were technically more accomplished (i.e. faced better opposition) than GGG have yet to be inducted to the IBHOF, so he's not a dead-cert first ballot Hall-of-Famer just yet. The names I was thinking of include the likes of: Chris Eubank, Genaro Hernandez, Dariusz Michalczewski, Julian Jackson, Sven Ottke etc.

That being said, there’s plenty of time for Golovkin to remedy that situation if he unifies the division, defeats Canelo, rematches Jacobs (to remove doubt) and perhaps even beats the 168lb top dog.

[boxing_rocks]

He has pretty much made it already.

[jezzamundo]

If he never fights again, he should make the HOF. While the Jacobs win has largely erased his aura of invincibility, it will have enhanced his legacy.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

He is already in his KO percentage will make sure of that

[Jip]

sure he is. he is better than hagler.

[Lackeos]

19 title fights, he's breached the p4p top 5, 4 belts, 1-division world champ, mildly commercially successful. If he retired today, I'd say he's quite likely to make it in, but an unremarkable candidate. A few more unremarkable title wins and his odds would go from 95% to 99%. Definitely a better candidate than Sven Ottke, definitely worse than Joe Calzaghe.

[Kalan]

A lot of very good fighters that were technically more accomplished (i.e. faced better opposition) than GGG have yet to be inducted to the IBHOF, so he's not a dead-cert first ballot Hall-of-Famer just yet. The names I was thinking of include the likes of: Chris Eubank, Genaro Hernandez, Dariusz Michalczewski, Julian Jackson, Sven Ottke etc.

That being said, there’s plenty of time for Golovkin to remedy that situation if he unifies the division, defeats Canelo, rematches Jacobs (to remove doubt) and perhaps even beats the 168lb top dog.

Dariusz Michalczewski was a terrible fighter technically... He couldn't even beat the lowly, slow, and powerless Julio Gonzalez who Triple-G would have smashed out in a couple rounds... Gernaro Hernandez was a horrible fighter... Extremely easy to hit and knock out... Julian Jackson was so wide open he was an accident waiting to happen... Sven Ottke never fought anyone and hid from the best competition in Germany... His undefeated record means crap because he didn't want to face the best.. Chris Eubank Sr was every easy to hit and beat... He was so wide open that the very beatable Steve Collins beat him twice before Eubank even reached 30...

And Steve Collins had little chance against skilled boxers such as Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson, and Sumbu Kalambay -- and would be crushed by GGG.

[nikos6]

And Steve Collins had little chance against skilled boxers such as Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson, and Sumbu Kalambay -- and would be crushed by GGG.

How would GGG do versus these three? Most assume because Jacobs gave him a hell of a fight that he automatically is not an all time great. But who have these- all-time greats beaten that is head and shoulders above Jacobs in terms of physical attributes and talent? Mccallum fought Toney to a draw and close fights after his peak,and Toney was the most talented MW not named Roy Jones Jr. And Kalamabay beat Mccallum before the Toney fight so he automatically would be chosen over GGG by association. Why do so many just automatically assume McCallum vs GGG wouldn't be competitive, just because he knocked out Julian Jackson who beat Herrol Graham?

Were the fighters of the past really that great from a skills and attributes standpoint? Or is it part nostalgia and part preference? Nowadays a fighter has one loss or one mediocre showing and they are garbage. But if someone in the past lost its because they fought the great "Old School Fighter ABC"

[Enlightened-One]

A lot of very good fighters that were technically more accomplished (i.e. faced better opposition) than GGG have yet to be inducted to the IBHOF, so he's not a dead-cert first ballot Hall-of-Famer just yet. The names I was thinking of include the likes of: Chris Eubank, Genaro Hernandez, Dariusz Michalczewski, Julian Jackson, Sven Ottke etc.

That being said, there’s plenty of time for Golovkin to remedy that situation if he unifies the division, defeats Canelo, rematches Jacobs (to remove doubt) and perhaps even beats the 168lb top dog.

Dariusz Michalczewski was a terrible fighter technically... He couldn't even beat the lowly, slow, and powerless Julio Gonzalez who Triple-G would have smashed out in a couple rounds... Gernaro Hernandez was a horrible fighter... Extremely easy to hit and knock out... Julian Jackson was so wide open he was an accident waiting to happen... Sven Ottke never fought anyone and hid from the best competition in Germany... His undefeated record means crap because he didn't want to face the best.. Chris Eubank Sr was every easy to hit and beat... He was so wide open that the very beatable Steve Collins beat him twice before Eubank even reached 30...

And Steve Collins had little chance against skilled boxers such as Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson, and Sumbu Kalambay -- and would be crushed by GGG.

My claims are technically correct. I also believe that you've dismissed the legacies of the aforementioned fighters to absolute bizarre levels, which suggests you don't know anything about them. Terrible fighters that are easy to beat don't usually get nominated for entry into the IBHOF if their boxing prowess was poor.

[Kalan]

A lot of very good fighters that were technically more accomplished (i.e. faced better opposition) than GGG have yet to be inducted to the IBHOF, so he's not a dead-cert first ballot Hall-of-Famer just yet. The names I was thinking of include the likes of: Chris Eubank, Genaro Hernandez, Dariusz Michalczewski, Julian Jackson, Sven Ottke etc.

That being said, there’s plenty of time for Golovkin to remedy that situation if he unifies the division, defeats Canelo, rematches Jacobs (to remove doubt) and perhaps even beats the 168lb top dog.

Dariusz Michalczewski was a terrible fighter technically... He couldn't even beat the lowly, slow, and powerless Julio Gonzalez who Triple-G would have smashed out in a couple rounds... Gernaro Hernandez was a horrible fighter... Extremely easy to hit and knock out... Julian Jackson was so wide open he was an accident waiting to happen... Sven Ottke never fought anyone and hid from the best competition in Germany... His undefeated record means crap because he didn't want to face the best.. Chris Eubank Sr was every easy to hit and beat... He was so wide open that the very beatable Steve Collins beat him twice before Eubank even reached 30...

And Steve Collins had little chance against skilled boxers such as Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson, and Sumbu Kalambay -- and would be crushed by GGG.

My claims are technically correct. I also believe that you've dismissed the legacies of the aforementioned fighters to absolute bizarre levels, which suggests you don't know anything about them. Terrible fighters that are easy to beat don't usually get nominated for entry into the IBHOF if their boxing prowess was poor.

That makes no sense... You didn't read my post or reply to the points I made about your examples getting hit by 2nd raters.. Many people are in the HOF who had poor boxing prowess... Rocky Graziano, Rocky Marciano, and Ingemar Johansson even admitted that they weren't proficient technical boxers.. They were looking to win by KO and by trying to beat the other boxer up.. If a guy is very easy to hit, as were each of the guys you claim were technically more proficient than Golovkin, he's NOT a good boxer.. Out of that group, Ottke did have some technical proficiency, but not a lot... He never fought live opponents who could test him in any way.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

sure he is. he is better than hagler.

[Syntax Error]

Yes he does.

The Hall of Fame horse has long since bolted & it's no longer a true HOF I believe.

There's all kinds of fighters in there, many of whom did not achieve as much as Golovkin, so he definitely belongs.

[caldo2025]

Is this question for real? Hmm, does the best Middleweight in history belong in the HOF? It's not even close. GGG will be whisked into the HOF and deservingly so. Let's all keep in mind that GGG is fighting now at an age when most fighters retire. In his prime, no one was better than GGG. Now he's a bit older and still winning and defeating everyone. THE BEST MW EVER.

[Enlightened-One]

Dariusz Michalczewski was a terrible fighter technically... He couldn't even beat the lowly, slow, and powerless Julio Gonzalez who Triple-G would have smashed out in a couple rounds... Gernaro Hernandez was a horrible fighter... Extremely easy to hit and knock out... Julian Jackson was so wide open he was an accident waiting to happen... Sven Ottke never fought anyone and hid from the best competition in Germany... His undefeated record means crap because he didn't want to face the best.. Chris Eubank Sr was every easy to hit and beat... He was so wide open that the very beatable Steve Collins beat him twice before Eubank even reached 30...

And Steve Collins had little chance against skilled boxers such as Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson, and Sumbu Kalambay -- and would be crushed by GGG.

My claims are technically correct. I also believe that you've dismissed the legacies of the aforementioned fighters to absolute bizarre levels, which suggests you don't know anything about them. Terrible fighters that are easy to beat don't usually get nominated for entry into the IBHOF if their boxing prowess was poor.

That makes no sense... You didn't read my post or reply to the points I made about your examples getting hit by 2nd raters.. Many people are in the HOF who had poor boxing prowess... Rocky Graziano, Rocky Marciano, and Ingemar Johansson even admitted that they weren't proficient technical boxers.. They were looking to win by KO and by trying to beat the other boxer up.. If a guy is very easy to hit, as were each of the guys you claim were technically more proficient than Golovkin, he's NOT a good boxer.. Out of that group, Ottke did have some technical proficiency, but not a lot... He never fought live opponents who could test him in any way.

Just to be clear, my post about Golovkin’s Hall-of-Fame credentials was not suggesting the he wasn’t already worthy of being inducted into the IBHOF. It was simply highlighting the possibility that (based on his current resume), there are more accomplished fighters with arguably better legacies than he currently has, who have failed to be inducted.

So I believe that GGG may not necessarily be a dead-cert first ballot IBHOF candidate just yet, but if he’s somehow not already there, then he’s not far off.

In terms of your post, you’re evaluating Golovkin’s HOF worthiness based on passing your personal “eyeball” test, but part of the reason why he has looked so impressive inside the ring relates to the calibre of opposition that he has faced, which may not necessarily be his fault.

In my mind, Danny Jacobs made GGG look like a mere mortal, but this is not such a bad thing, since he was facing arguably the second best 160lb-er on the planet. A lot of his critics are unfairly already writing off Golovkin, saying that he’s past-his-prime, whilst naively dismissing the undeniable talent of Jacobs.

It’s far easier to look hugely impressive against the Lajuan Simon’s of the boxing world than it is to defeat fighters of Danny Jacobs’ ilk. That has to be taken into consideration when you’re comparing GGG’s ability to fighters from previous eras. And this is where I introduce the old “rose vs. thorn” analogy…

“Roses” look beautiful to the naked eye, but they’re cosmetic and can wilt under intense heat and pressure, whereas the “thorn” is less impressive to look at, but remains sharp and on point under practically any conditions.

Thus far, Golovkin has been the “rose”. Looking as good as can be, while drawing praise from every fight fan based on how “beautiful” his performances are inside the ring, but it could be argued that (barring the Jacobs fight) there hasn’t been enough “heat” on his resume to justify whether he's able to transform himself into the “thorn” when faced with a hostile environment. He certainly went some way to proving that on Saturday night, but he needs to do so again when faced with even better opposition.

And this is the reason why your personal “eyeball” test is not an ideal barometer when gauging IBHOF worthiness.

Also, “greatness” can take several forms… in the context of the IBHOF, it’s usually about historical contribution to the sport or it is based on their accomplishments. In terms of the former, there are IBHOF inductees that GGG could easily defeat inside the ring, but somehow their contribution to the sport was greater than his.

Finally, part of your response relates to you attacking points that I never articulated. So I won’t defend comments that I have never made and that you cannot possibly quote. So if you were just “thinking out loud”, then that’s fine by me, but don’t expect me to discuss these matters.