I personally hate it when a boxer is clearly smaller than his own opponent, and I don't have much sympathy for athletes that repeatedly try to fight smaller guys (anyone said "Bernard Hopkins"?).
I can't see how so many people can hail Golovkin and incense him almost as if he was the next Sugar Ray, and then rant at Mayweather jr. (who fought the best possible opposition or nearly) calling him a sissy just because he had a defensive, kind of "wait-and-see" style.
I'll grant Golovkin an impressive amateur record: as many asian boxers, he was fighting very often since a tender age, likely building up more experience than most of his international opponents.
He has some power too, but in my opinion he takes too many clean shots and, despite being very well trained, he's not enough skilled to really deserve all the hype he gets. When he faced a true possible all-timer, or close to that, in Canelo (a former welterweight quite thinner than GGG), he got schooled.
My question is: is there any political bias about Golovkin, or else? Why is he really so popular, and considered p4p better than Lomachenko by boxrec?
I don't mean to start a flame, just wondering why people is so enthusiast about fighters whose main fights were against physically smaller and weaker opponents.
I also reckon that I'm not a boxing expert, and I just pointed out my impressions, knowing that I might be wrong, without meaning to offend anyone.