How is Golovkin is an ATG having never fought one

[SaadOffTheDeck]

As for being lineal/undisputed, Sergio had vastly better circumstances​ there than ggg did. The champion in golovkins time(Martinez) wanted nothing to do with him.

Nag Sergio just excepted being the B-side and doing what he had to do to. If it means fighting with leg to fight Cotto we so be it neither here nor there. I agree Martinez didn't wont nothing to do with Golovkin neither did Cotto, Sturm, Canelo. I get all that but a close fight with Jacobs has to say something to the fact he's not as dominated against higher level guys then some tend to think.

What? Lol

[Enlightened-One]

Gennady Golovkin was universally recognised as a world-rated top-ten 160lb fighter in 2008, with his career-best victories coming against the likes of David Lemieux, Daniel Geale & Danny Jacobs. Those are GGG’s career-best victories during a professional career spanning almost eleven years, but the people that frequent this forum are passionately arguing that he should already be considered an “all-time-great”.

Over a timespan of ONE YEAR AND NINE MONTHS, a legitimate “all-time-great”, Sugar Ray Leonard engaged in fights against the likes of the following fighters:

• Captured the WBC World welterweight title against the unbeaten Hall-of-Famer, Wilfred Benitez, who himself had competed in seven world title fights over two weight divisions, losing only two of them (to Thomas Hearns and Ray Leonard), and holds victories over the likes of Carlos Palomino, Maurice Hope and Roberto Duran.

• Successfully defended his WBC World welterweight title against the WBC's 10th rated 147lb-er in the form of Dave 'Boy' Green.

• Lost the WBC World welterweight title against the Hall-of-Famer, Roberto Duran, who himself had only tasted defeat once over a twelve year and three month career.

• Regained the WBC World welterweight title against the Hall-of-Famer, Roberto Duran, becoming only the second man to inflict a defeat on an all-time-great that had been competing as a pro for more than twelve years and nine months.

• Successfully defended his WBC World welterweight title against the WBC's 6th rated 147lb-er in the form of Larry Bonds.

• Captured the WBA World super welterweight title against the undefeated Ayub Kalule, who himself had competed in six world title fights, losing only one of them and holds a victory of the great Sumbu Kalambay. His four losses came against naturally bigger and genuinely greater fighters, such as Ray Leonard, Mike McCallum, Herol Graham and Davey Moore.

• Unified the WBC and WBA World welterweight title when he became the first man to inflict a defeat on the Hall-of-Famer, Thomas Hearns' resume.

I think that people need to appreciate what an “all-time-great” actually is before making over-the-top claims.

[Jip]

do i need to stick my hand in fire to know if its hurts

[MachoTime]

Gennady Golovkin was universally recognised as a world-rated top-ten 160lb fighter in 2008, with his career-best victories coming against the likes of David Lemieux, Daniel Geale & Danny Jacobs. Those are GGG’s career-best victories during a professional career spanning almost eleven years, but the people that frequent this forum are passionately arguing that he should already be considered an “all-time-great”.

Over a timespan of ONE YEAR AND NINE MONTHS, a legitimate “all-time-great”, Sugar Ray Leonard engaged in fights against the likes of the following fighters:

• Captured the WBC World welterweight title against the unbeaten Hall-of-Famer, Wilfred Benitez, who himself had competed in seven world title fights over two weight divisions, losing only two of them (to Thomas Hearns and Ray Leonard), and holds victories over the likes of Carlos Palomino, Maurice Hope and Roberto Duran.

• Successfully defended his WBC World welterweight title against the WBC's 10th rated 147lb-er in the form of Dave 'Boy' Green.

• Lost the WBC World welterweight title against the Hall-of-Famer, Roberto Duran, who himself had only tasted defeat once over a twelve year and three month career.

• Regained the WBC World welterweight title against the Hall-of-Famer, Roberto Duran, becoming only the second man to inflict a defeat on an all-time-great that had been competing as a pro for more than twelve years and nine months.

• Successfully defended his WBC World welterweight title against the WBC's 6th rated 147lb-er in the form of Larry Bonds.

• Captured the WBA World super welterweight title against the undefeated Ayub Kalule, who himself had competed in six world title fights, losing only one of them and holds a victory of the great Sumbu Kalambay. His four losses came against naturally bigger and genuinely greater fighters, such as Ray Leonard, Mike McCallum, Herol Graham and Davey Moore.

• Unified the WBC and WBA World welterweight title when he became the first man to inflict a defeat on the Hall-of-Famer, Thomas Hearns' resume.

I think that people need to appreciate what an “all-time-great” actually is before making over-the-top claims.

Who the hell is Larry Bonds

[Enlightened-One]

Who the hell is Larry Bonds

In an era where there were only two boxing organisations, long before the invention of the IBF, WBO, IBO etc., being regarded as a top-ten rated contender for the WBC was a moderately prestigious accolade.

There’s wasn’t a need for ratings performed by The Ring Magazine or ESPN back then, since there was little confusion in the sport. The WBC ratings were universally recognised.

If we look at GGG’s resume, using the equivalent ratings performed by The Ring, Golovkin has only fought three middleweight fighters that would have been ranked higher than Larry Bonds.

[Ossyrules]

I don't classify golovkin as an all time great but when it's brought up that Martinez is his equal at the weight it'll get questioned. GGGs the best at middleweight since Hopkins imo

[Ossyrules]

Who the hell is Larry Bonds

In an era where there were only two boxing organisations, long before the invention of the IBF, WBO, IBO etc., being regarded as a top-ten rated contender for the WBC was a moderately prestigious accolade.

There’s wasn’t a need for ratings performed by The Ring Magazine or ESPN back then, since there was little confusion in the sport. The WBC ratings were universally recognised.

If we look at GGG’s resume, using the equivalent ratings performed by The Ring, Golovkin has only fought three middleweight fighters that would have been ranked higher than Larry Bonds.

Too many belts etc hurts ggg in my opinion. It's easier to avoid people. I don't buy into the debate where people say he's not interested in the big fights. The current crop of 160ers bar Jacobs at the top lack the stones but that might change after his close decision win recently

[Horse]

Too many belts etc hurts ggg in my opinion. It's easier to avoid people.

He'll be easier to avoid if he holds all of the belts?

[Enlightened-One]

Who the hell is Larry Bonds

In an era where there were only two boxing organisations, long before the invention of the IBF, WBO, IBO etc., being regarded as a top-ten rated contender for the WBC was a moderately prestigious accolade.

There’s wasn’t a need for ratings performed by The Ring Magazine or ESPN back then, since there was little confusion in the sport. The WBC ratings were universally recognised.

If we look at GGG’s resume, using the equivalent ratings performed by The Ring, Golovkin has only fought three middleweight fighters that would have been ranked higher than Larry Bonds.

Too many belts etc hurts ggg in my opinion. It's easier to avoid people. I don't buy into the debate where people say he's not interested in the big fights. The current crop of 160ers bar Jacobs at the top lack the stones but that might change after his close decision win recently

Unfortunately though, you can’t bestow “all-time-greatness” on fighters based on "what might have been", what their potential was or based on simply passing the proverbial “eyeball test”. You can only do that based on the events that occurred in the real world.

I’m not criticising GGG but I do feel that it is preposterous to boldly proclaim the man to be an “all-time-great” based on his current achievements inside the ring.

I honestly believe that Gennady Golovkin would currently have a much greater list of accomplishments and a far superior resume if he had been handled by the likes of Al Haymon, Bob Arum, Oscar De La Hoya or even Eddie Hearn, instead of K2 and Universum.

[Ossyrules]

Too many belts etc hurts ggg in my opinion. It's easier to avoid people.

He'll be easier to avoid if he holds all of the belts?

Didn't think this needed explaining, but if you have to go through 1, or even 2 champs as per back in the day, you have to fight THE man at some point.

Now if you pick up the WBO like Saunders you can go into hiding for a couple of years fighting nobody. But you're still a world champ.

It's been a long old haul collecting the other titles at 160 for ggg

[Ossyrules]

In an era where there were only two boxing organisations, long before the invention of the IBF, WBO, IBO etc., being regarded as a top-ten rated contender for the WBC was a moderately prestigious accolade.

There’s wasn’t a need for ratings performed by The Ring Magazine or ESPN back then, since there was little confusion in the sport. The WBC ratings were universally recognised.

If we look at GGG’s resume, using the equivalent ratings performed by The Ring, Golovkin has only fought three middleweight fighters that would have been ranked higher than Larry Bonds.

Too many belts etc hurts ggg in my opinion. It's easier to avoid people. I don't buy into the debate where people say he's not interested in the big fights. The current crop of 160ers bar Jacobs at the top lack the stones but that might change after his close decision win recently

Unfortunately though, you can’t bestow “all-time-greatness” on fighters based on "what might have been", what their potential was or based on simply passing the proverbial “eyeball test”. You can only do that based on the events that occurred in the real world.

I’m not criticising GGG but I do feel that it is preposterous to boldly proclaim the man to be an “all-time-great” based on his current achievements inside the ring.

I honestly believe that Gennady Golovkin would currently have a much greater list of accomplishments and a far superior resume if he had been handled by the likes of Al Haymon, Bob Arum, Oscar De La Hoya or even Eddie Hearn, instead of K2 and Universum.

A couple of posts above I've said I don't class him as an ATG, he could be but he needs more top level opps to prove this.

[Enlightened-One]

Too many belts etc hurts ggg in my opinion. It's easier to avoid people. I don't buy into the debate where people say he's not interested in the big fights. The current crop of 160ers bar Jacobs at the top lack the stones but that might change after his close decision win recently

Unfortunately though, you can’t bestow “all-time-greatness” on fighters based on "what might have been", what their potential was or based on simply passing the proverbial “eyeball test”. You can only do that based on the events that occurred in the real world.

I’m not criticising GGG but I do feel that it is preposterous to boldly proclaim the man to be an “all-time-great” based on his current achievements inside the ring.

I honestly believe that Gennady Golovkin would currently have a much greater list of accomplishments and a far superior resume if he had been handled by the likes of Al Haymon, Bob Arum, Oscar De La Hoya or even Eddie Hearn, instead of K2 and Universum.

A couple of posts above I've said I don't class him as an ATG, he could be but he needs more top level opps to prove this.

Sorry, I wasn't really attacking you. I was simply thinking out aloud. I agree with your point - to a certain degree. I think that K2 have a reputation of submitting lowball offers and then proclaiming "duck" when they aren't accepted (i.e. the original Saunders offer).

[MachoTime]

Who the hell is Larry Bonds

In an era where there were only two boxing organisations, long before the invention of the IBF, WBO, IBO etc., being regarded as a top-ten rated contender for the WBC was a moderately prestigious accolade.

There’s wasn’t a need for ratings performed by The Ring Magazine or ESPN back then, since there was little confusion in the sport. The WBC ratings were universally recognised.

If we look at GGG’s resume, using the equivalent ratings performed by The Ring, Golovkin has only fought three middleweight fighters that would have been ranked higher than Larry Bonds.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[world ranked]

I don't classify golovkin as an all time great but when it's brought up that Martinez is his equal at the weight it'll get questioned. GGGs the best at middleweight since Hopkins imo

When you consider ONLY RESUME my case is that it is equal. Talent wise yes GGG is the most talented guy since Hopkins at middleweight but the resume doesn't clearly suggest that.

[crusader]

Cintron officially lost a split decision, and I never said otherwise. Williams was pitter-patting as usual and getting hit regularly by clean shots, so it wouldnt have been a robbery if the decision went the other way. Watch the last round again, and youll see Williams get slightly rocked by a clean right hand that was better than any shot he landed himself.

The Lara fight was one of the biggest robberies in years, and despite the result Lara did a better job on PW than Quintana did in their first meeting. Williams looked extremely sloppy, and even guys like Vanes and Angulo did better against Lara than he did.

We can critique GGG's opponents too, but I dont think any of them are frequently being presented as elite fighters who really make a MW resume stand out, whereas it seems to me like the Williams win is often regarded as a top-tier result which helps put Martinez's resume at another level.

If we treat Williams as another Brook, is there really much difference between GGG and Martinez's accomplishments?

You said the CIntron could have went either way. That's just not true. Martinez dominated that fight and deserved a KO that was taking back because Cintron complained about a bogus head clash. I agree that there's not much difference in the resume is my point and people just GGG is better on opinion and not resume.

I was talking about Williams-Cintron being a debatable decision. I agree that Sergio should've won the Cintron fight, and I noted that earlier; in my view it was 8-4/7-5 type of stuff for Sergio, plus he scored a knockdown.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

The whole GGG fanbase seems like Manny refugees looking for a new fighter to be unrealistic about.
Some of the comments of who GGG would beat is just as ridiculous as the Manny comments were.

Jacobs is on the level of a Jermain Taylor.
Let that guide how great you think GGG is.

In hindsight, I think Froch should have jumped on a potential GGG fight.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Gennady Golovkin was universally recognised as a world-rated top-ten 160lb fighter in 2008, with his career-best victories coming against the likes of David Lemieux, Daniel Geale & Danny Jacobs. Those are GGG’s career-best victories during a professional career spanning almost eleven years, but the people that frequent this forum are passionately arguing that he should already be considered an “all-time-great”.

Over a timespan of ONE YEAR AND NINE MONTHS, a legitimate “all-time-great”, Sugar Ray Leonard engaged in fights against the likes of the following fighters:

• Captured the WBC World welterweight title against the unbeaten Hall-of-Famer, Wilfred Benitez, who himself had competed in seven world title fights over two weight divisions, losing only two of them (to Thomas Hearns and Ray Leonard), and holds victories over the likes of Carlos Palomino, Maurice Hope and Roberto Duran.

• Successfully defended his WBC World welterweight title against the WBC's 10th rated 147lb-er in the form of Dave 'Boy' Green.

• Lost the WBC World welterweight title against the Hall-of-Famer, Roberto Duran, who himself had only tasted defeat once over a twelve year and three month career.

• Regained the WBC World welterweight title against the Hall-of-Famer, Roberto Duran, becoming only the second man to inflict a defeat on an all-time-great that had been competing as a pro for more than twelve years and nine months.

• Successfully defended his WBC World welterweight title against the WBC's 6th rated 147lb-er in the form of Larry Bonds.

• Captured the WBA World super welterweight title against the undefeated Ayub Kalule, who himself had competed in six world title fights, losing only one of them and holds a victory of the great Sumbu Kalambay. His four losses came against naturally bigger and genuinely greater fighters, such as Ray Leonard, Mike McCallum, Herol Graham and Davey Moore.

• Unified the WBC and WBA World welterweight title when he became the first man to inflict a defeat on the Hall-of-Famer, Thomas Hearns' resume.

I think that people need to appreciate what an “all-time-great” actually is before making over-the-top claims.

Who the hell is Larry Bonds

Decent fringe guy, a poor man's collazo. He wouldn't be a factor today.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Who the hell is Larry Bonds

In an era where there were only two boxing organisations, long before the invention of the IBF, WBO, IBO etc., being regarded as a top-ten rated contender for the WBC was a moderately prestigious accolade.

There’s wasn’t a need for ratings performed by The Ring Magazine or ESPN back then, since there was little confusion in the sport. The WBC ratings were universally recognised.

If we look at GGG’s resume, using the equivalent ratings performed by The Ring, Golovkin has only fought three middleweight fighters that would have been ranked higher than Larry Bonds.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Lol, the alphabet ratings were panned then too. You gotta hand it to enlightened one, he takes being dead wrong to an art form.

[Enlightened-One]

Lol, the alphabet ratings were panned then too. You gotta hand it to enlightened one, he takes being dead wrong to an art form.

I never claimed that Larry Bonds was a “world beater”, but he was ranked sixth by the WBC (at a time when their rankings mattered) and he had already scored a fifth round KO over Bruce Finch, who was rated sixth by The Ring in their annual ratings for 1981.

For sure, in terms of the 21 month period that I referred to in my earlier post, Larry Bonds would have almost certainly been considered as a “bum” in comparison to the huge names that Sugar Ray Leonard had faced over that timeframe, such as Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran, Ayub Kalule and Tommy Hearns, but to be fair, most of these guys were either Hall-of-Famers or top-tier world champions.

Anyway, my point remains valid, trying to undermine Larry Bonds, whilst remaining silent about the other guys that I listed that Leonard had faced over that glorious 21 month period (between 1979 to 1981), doesn’t really challenge the point I made in my post, does it?

[world ranked]

The whole GGG fanbase seems like Manny refugees looking for a new fighter to be unrealistic about.
Some of the comments of who GGG would beat is just as ridiculous as the Manny comments were.

Jacobs is on the level of a Jermain Taylor.
Let that guide how great you think GGG is.

In hindsight, I think Froch should have jumped on a potential GGG fight.

Jermain Taylor was the middleweight champ of the world lets say discredit like he was no good. Jacobs is a better all-around fighter to me than Taylor. More fluent, hard puncher, more techinically sound. To me Taylor did really nothing better than Jacobs maybe jab(iffy).

[Thomastearns]

Before this descends any further into an argument over semantics eg What's the difference between an all-time great and a legend? etc etc, its worth remembering that right time to make these judgements is once the fighter has retired. Nobody was calling Leonard an all-time great during his career. He was seen as a poor man's Ali, a fake Sugar Ray Robinson. He was America's golden boy having had it all put on a plate for him since he turned pro.

The boxing world took a long time to be convinced. Nowadays he's up there with Ali who himself took forever to be acknowledged. Only after the Frazier defeat and regaining against Foreman did the deification begin.

It looks like it takes a successful comeback after a defeat to really convince people. That's Golovkin problem - he's made it look too easy for his own good. He just hasn't earned it yet baby, he hasn't suffered enough. So he should really struggle against Saunders, and then return with a knockout against Canelo to cement his place amongst the HOF's.

Then, and only then, can they make the 'real drama show' movie of his life. Hey, perhaps that's the true test, when they make a movie about you. Perhaps Rocky Graziano is all-time great after all. You can't get much better than Paul Newman playing you in a film!

[crusader]

How can someone consider an ATG fighter like some people believe Golovkin is without facing another ATG? Also is the another ATG who never fought another ATG.

By the way, which ATGs are currently fighting? If they were to retire right now, how would other fighters go about achieving ATG status?

[Ossyrules]

It's a fair point people do get appreciated once there time has been iften

[Tanzio]

Some of the comments of who GGG would beat is just as ridiculous as the Manny comments were.

. . . or the FMJ comments still are.

[Baby Face Finster]

Unfortunately though, you can’t bestow “all-time-greatness” on fighters based on "what might have been", what their potential was or based on simply passing the proverbial “eyeball test”. You can only do that based on the events that occurred in the real world.

I’m not criticising GGG but I do feel that it is preposterous to boldly proclaim the man to be an “all-time-great” based on his current achievements inside the ring.

Indeed you can. Look up Charles Burley and Peter Jackson, to name a couple.