The most dominant fighter in one division (2010-2020) ?

[Onetimeonly]

i'm someone who had geej losing to danny jacobs and canelo 2, but i still thought he won vs derev

it's a good point though....everyone focuses on the canelo fights like ggg got shafted, but he could easily have another loss or two on his record

Anyone not voting for Crawford needs some dictionary work on the word dominant.

Crawford was definitely dominant at 140. He only had like 5 or 6 fights there though didn't he? I forget the exact number, but it ain't a lot.

None of them were competitive and he was undisputed. Easiest answer to a question ever.

[Enlightened-One]

I'd say Golovkin who should STILL be Middleweight Champion, and was never truly beaten for that title. He was robbed of it.

For dominance in 1 division - yes. Albeit, 4 close decisions.

GGG engaged in 24 bouts during the last decade.

He made nine defences of legitimate versions of a world title during that timeframe.

Golovkin only defeated seven top-ten world-rated middleweights. And only four of them were classed amongst the top-five.

Put it this way, what's the point in being considered head-and-shoulders above your top-ten world-rated peers campaigning in the same weight class, if you either don't face them or you're campaigning in a weak weight division?

Golovkin's resume and accomplishments during the 2010s are very poor in comparison to Pacquiao's.

[Enlightened-One]

If we’re using a timeframe from the 1st January 2010 until the 31st December 2019, then surely Manny Pacquiao deserves to be considered the most dominant fighter of the decade?

Manny Pacquiao's career highlights during the 2010s:

• Faced 16 world champions
• Engaged in 13 world title bouts
• Six of his fights were against unbeaten opponents
• Became a four-time 147lbs champion (2009-2012; 2014-2015; 2016-2017; and, 2018-present day)
• Has been consistently classed amongst the top-ten welterweights throughout the decade (rated top-five for nine of those years)
• Was considered a top-ten pound-for-pounder eight times from the start of 2010 until the end of 2019
• At least seven of his bouts were against future/current Hall-of-Famers (Shane Mosley, Juan Manuel Marquez, Timothy Bradley Jr. and Floyd Mayweather Jr.)

No disrespect, but no fighter mentioned in this thread that has campaigned in the same weight class for the entirety of the decade possesses a resume that is remotely close to Pacquiao’s.

For sure, other fighters may have had higher peaks than Pacquiao, such as Mayweather, but none of them possesses Manny’s longevity, consistency and overall accomplishments during the 2010s.

It's laughable to claim the likes of GGG, Usyk, Ward or Crawford have achieved more within the same weight class during the 2010s than Pacquiao has.

Put it this way, what's the point in being considered head-and-shoulders above your top-ten world-rated peers campaigning in the same weight class, if you either don't face them or you're campaigning in a weak weight division?

[gilgamesh]

I'd say Golovkin who should STILL be Middleweight Champion, and was never truly beaten for that title. He was robbed of it.

For dominance in 1 division - yes. Albeit, 4 close decisions.

GGG engaged in 24 bouts during the last decade.

He made nine defences of legitimate versions of a world title during that timeframe.

Golovkin only defeated seven top-ten world-rated middleweights. And only four of them were classed amongst the top-five.

Put it this way, what's the point in being considered head-and-shoulders above your top-ten world-rated peers campaigning in the same weight class, if you either don't face them or you're campaigning in a weak weight division?

Golovkin's resume and accomplishments during the 2010s are very poor in comparison to Pacquiao's.

No they're not.

Pacquiao scored 1 KO victory in the last decade. Golovkin scored over 20. Winning by KO is more impressive than winning a hard fought decision every time out.

Golovkin stopped Top 10 opponents. The 1 guy Pacquiao stopped was no longer Top 10.

[squiggy]

For sure, other fighters may have had higher peaks than Pacquiao, such as Mayweather, but none of them possesses Manny’s longevity, consistency and overall accomplishments during the 2010s.

I don't like saying so, but Mayweather was a more dominant welterweight than Pacquiao. Mosley, Ortiz, Maidana, Maidana, Pacquiao, and Berto might not make up the greatest CV on their own, but those performances all happened in the context of him being the man to beat, and they only contain a couple minor blips in his dominance -- and he overcame those. Pacquiao's decade not only contained close fights, but a couple of real clear losses. Including, of course, one to Floyd himself.

[gilgamesh]

For sure, other fighters may have had higher peaks than Pacquiao, such as Mayweather, but none of them possesses Manny’s longevity, consistency and overall accomplishments during the 2010s.

I don't like saying so, but Mayweather was a more dominant welterweight than Pacquiao. Mosley, Ortiz, Maidana, Maidana, Pacquiao, and Berto might not make up the greatest CV on their own, but those performances only contain a couple minor blips in his dominance -- and he overcame those. Pacquiao's decade not only contained close fights, but a couple of real clear losses. Including, of course, one to Floyd himself.

He should've lost the 3rd fight to Marquez as well IMO.

Though that being said the Tim Bradley and Jeff Horn losses should be wins.

[Enlightened-One]

For dominance in 1 division - yes. Albeit, 4 close decisions.

GGG engaged in 24 bouts during the last decade.

He made nine defences of legitimate versions of a world title during that timeframe.

Golovkin only defeated seven top-ten world-rated middleweights. And only four of them were classed amongst the top-five.

Put it this way, what's the point in being considered head-and-shoulders above your top-ten world-rated peers campaigning in the same weight class, if you either don't face them or you're campaigning in a weak weight division?

Golovkin's resume and accomplishments during the 2010s are very poor in comparison to Pacquiao's.

No they're not.

Pacquiao scored 1 KO victory in the last decade. Golovkin scored over 20. Winning by KO is more impressive than winning a hard fought decision every time out.

Golovkin stopped Top 10 opponents. The 1 guy Pacquiao stopped was no longer Top 10.

This might surprise you, but Golovkin has only KO’d one top-five world-rated middleweight within the last 6½ years, which was when he defeated David Lemieux to commence the start of his first IBF title reign.

For the record, GGG has been competing in the pro ranks for almost 15 years. And in that time, he has only ever stopped two fighters that were considered top-five world-rated middleweights, during the course of his 43-bout career.

15 of GGG’s 22 victories during the last decade were against fighters that weren’t considered top-ten middleweights.

In stark contrast, 16 of Pacquiao’s bouts during the last decade were against world champions, with 7 of those contests against Hall-of-Famers.

The Filipino has been operating at a much higher level than GGG has.

Let's compare their most recent outing? Thurman versus Szeremeta? And Manny is 42 years of age!

[squiggy]

Oh yeah, those Bradley and Horn losses totally have asterisks by them in my book. And he had put Marquez through hell before suffering that KO, too.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

How many top 6 rated has GGG knocked out?

[Onetimeonly]

How many understand the difference between resume and dominance? Obviously the class dunce doesn't, but we don't expect anything from verlichte.

[Enlightened-One]

OK, so it seems that people argue that GGG achieved more and was also more dominant during his title reign during the 2010s than Pacquiao did, regardless of the calibre of opposition Gennadiy faced.

And they feel it’s irrelevant that 15 of GGG’s 22 victories during the 2010s came against opponents that weren’t considered top-ten world-rated middleweights.

So I’ll propose another fighter's name to see if the same set of people have enough integrity to abide by the logic they applied for the comparison between GGG and Pacquiao.

On the 31st December 2019, Chayaphon Moonsri had amassed a perfect record of 54 victories without a loss or a draw.

He won 42 bouts during the 2010s, with 14 of them being WBC world title fights (5 defences by KO).
He also defeated five world champions during his title reign.

The RING also considered Chayaphon Moonsri as the top dog of his own weight class from 2013 until the end of 2019.

[ValMar]

How many understand the difference between resume and dominance? Obviously the class dunce doesn't, but we don't expect anything from verlichte.

This !

[Enlightened-One]

How many understand the difference between resume and dominance? Obviously the class dunce doesn't, but we don't expect anything from verlichte.

This !

OK, so it seems that people argue that GGG achieved more and was also more dominant during his title reign during the 2010s than Pacquiao did, regardless of the calibre of opposition Gennadiy faced.

And they feel it’s irrelevant that 15 of GGG’s 22 victories during the 2010s came against opponents that weren’t considered top-ten world-rated middleweights.

So I’ll propose another fighter's name to see if the same set of people have enough integrity to abide by the very same logic they applied for their argument when they claimed that GGG was more dominant than Pacquiao during the 2010s.

On the 31st December 2019, Chayaphon Moonsri had amassed a perfect record of 54 victories without a loss or a draw.

He won 42 bouts during the 2010s, with 13 of them being WBC world title fights (5 early stoppages).
He also defeated five world champions during his title reign.

The RING also considered Chayaphon Moonsri as the top dog of his own weight class from 2013 until the end of 2019.

If people wholeheartedly believe that the calibre of opposition faced is irrelevant to this discussion, then Moonsri was more dominant than GGG was during the 2010s.

[ValMar]

How many understand the difference between resume and dominance? Obviously the class dunce doesn't, but we don't expect anything from verlichte.

This !

OK, so it seems that people argue that GGG achieved more and was also more dominant during his title reign during the 2010s than Pacquiao did, regardless of the calibre of opposition Gennadiy faced.

And they feel it’s irrelevant that 15 of GGG’s 22 victories during the 2010s came against opponents that weren’t considered top-ten world-rated middleweights.

So I’ll propose another fighter's name to see if the same set of people have enough integrity to abide by the logic they applied for the comparison between GGG and Pacquiao.

On the 31st December 2019, Chayaphon Moonsri had amassed a perfect record of 54 victories without a loss or a draw.

He won 42 bouts during the 2010s, with 14 of them being WBC world title fights (5 defences by KO).
He also defeated five world champions during his title reign.

The RING also considered Chayaphon Moonsri as the top dog of his own weight class from 2013 until the end of 2019.

Pac's resume is great, definitely, but he had never been dominant in one division.
As I wrote, I like GGG, he belongs in a group of fighters who attracts so many fans, but he had never been dominant at his division (three very close fights, maybe four - I mean Jacobs).
As I wrote, FMJ and Canelo are the excellent fighters, but, both of them had been moving up and down, so we should not speak about them in this thread.
Wlad had been defeated twice (Fury and Joshua) since 2010, so, he can not be considered as the most dominant fighter in his division.

And, speaking honestly, I have never heard for Moonsri.

[Enlightened-One]

This !

OK, so it seems that people argue that GGG achieved more and was also more dominant during his title reign during the 2010s than Pacquiao did, regardless of the calibre of opposition Gennadiy faced.

And they feel it’s irrelevant that 15 of GGG’s 22 victories during the 2010s came against opponents that weren’t considered top-ten world-rated middleweights.

So I’ll propose another fighter's name to see if the same set of people have enough integrity to abide by the logic they applied for the comparison between GGG and Pacquiao.

On the 31st December 2019, Chayaphon Moonsri had amassed a perfect record of 54 victories without a loss or a draw.

He won 42 bouts during the 2010s, with 14 of them being WBC world title fights (5 defences by KO).
He also defeated five world champions during his title reign.

The RING also considered Chayaphon Moonsri as the top dog of his own weight class from 2013 until the end of 2019.

Pac's resume is great, definitely, but he had never been dominant in one division.
As I wrote, I like GGG, he belongs in a group of fighters who attracts so many fans, but he had never been dominant at his division (three very close fights, maybe four - I mean Jacobs).
As I wrote, FMJ and Canelo are the excellent fighters, but, both of them had been moving up and down, so we should not speak about them in this thread.
Wlad had been defeated twice (Fury and Joshua) since 2010, so, he can not be considered as the most dominant fighter in his division.

And, speaking honestly, I have never heard for Moonsri.

What do you define as being dominant?

Are you claiming that in order to be deemed as a dominant champion, a fighter that must remain unbeaten whilst having also defeated all of their top-ten world-rated peers?

If the answer is “yes”, then I agree. GGG cannot possibly be deemed as being a dominant champion.

That said, I don’t agree with you excluding certain dominant champions from consideration, simply because they suffered defeats either very early in their careers or when they were well past-their-primes.

Bernard Hopkins, Wladimir Klitschko and Johnny Nelson are excellent examples of some of the sports’ most dominant world champions in boxing history.

They suffered losses early in their careers, but improved. And Wladimir and Bernard’s lengthy dominant reigns only ended when they’d reached their forties.

So I think a fighter can still be considered a dominant champion, regardless as to whether they'd suffered losses either early or late in their careers.

Anyway, Wladimir Klitschko enjoyed a much lengthier and more dominant title reign during the 2010s than some of the names being mentioned in this thread.

People dishonestly forget about the stylistic improvements Emanuel Steward had implemented when they started working with each other during October 2004.

[ValMar]

OK, so it seems that people argue that GGG achieved more and was also more dominant during his title reign during the 2010s than Pacquiao did, regardless of the calibre of opposition Gennadiy faced.

And they feel it’s irrelevant that 15 of GGG’s 22 victories during the 2010s came against opponents that weren’t considered top-ten world-rated middleweights.

So I’ll propose another fighter's name to see if the same set of people have enough integrity to abide by the logic they applied for the comparison between GGG and Pacquiao.

On the 31st December 2019, Chayaphon Moonsri had amassed a perfect record of 54 victories without a loss or a draw.

He won 42 bouts during the 2010s, with 14 of them being WBC world title fights (5 defences by KO).
He also defeated five world champions during his title reign.

The RING also considered Chayaphon Moonsri as the top dog of his own weight class from 2013 until the end of 2019.

Pac's resume is great, definitely, but he had never been dominant in one division.
As I wrote, I like GGG, he belongs in a group of fighters who attracts so many fans, but he had never been dominant at his division (three very close fights, maybe four - I mean Jacobs).
As I wrote, FMJ and Canelo are the excellent fighters, but, both of them had been moving up and down, so we should not speak about them in this thread.
Wlad had been defeated twice (Fury and Joshua) since 2010, so, he can not be considered as the most dominant fighter in his division.

And, speaking honestly, I have never heard for Moonsri.

What do you define as being dominant?

Are you claiming that in order to be deemed as a dominant champion, a fighter that must remain unbeaten whilst having also defeated all of their top-ten world-rated peers?

If the answer is “yes”, then I agree. GGG cannot possibly be deemed as being a dominant champion.

That said, I don’t agree with you excluding certain dominant champions from consideration, simply because they suffered defeats either very early in their careers or when they were well past-their-primes.

Bernard Hopkins, Wladimir Klitschko and Johnny Nelson are excellent examples of some of the sports’ most dominant world champions in boxing history.

They suffered losses early in their careers, but improved. And Wladimir and Bernard’s lengthy dominant reigns only ended when they’d reached their forties.

So I think a fighter can still be considered a dominant champion, regardless as to whether they'd suffered losses either early or late in their careers.

Anyway, Wladimir Klitschko enjoyed a much lengthier and more dominant title reign during the 2010s than some of the names being mentioned in this thread.

People dishonestly forget about the stylistic improvements Emanuel Steward had implemented when they started working with each other during October 2004.

I think that I said quite enough in my opening post.

[gilgamesh]

OK, so it seems that people argue that GGG achieved more and was also more dominant during his title reign during the 2010s than Pacquiao did, regardless of the calibre of opposition Gennadiy faced.

And they feel it’s irrelevant that 15 of GGG’s 22 victories during the 2010s came against opponents that weren’t considered top-ten world-rated middleweights.

So I’ll propose another fighter's name to see if the same set of people have enough integrity to abide by the logic they applied for the comparison between GGG and Pacquiao.

On the 31st December 2019, Chayaphon Moonsri had amassed a perfect record of 54 victories without a loss or a draw.

He won 42 bouts during the 2010s, with 14 of them being WBC world title fights (5 defences by KO).
He also defeated five world champions during his title reign.

The RING also considered Chayaphon Moonsri as the top dog of his own weight class from 2013 until the end of 2019.

Pac's resume is great, definitely, but he had never been dominant in one division.
As I wrote, I like GGG, he belongs in a group of fighters who attracts so many fans, but he had never been dominant at his division (three very close fights, maybe four - I mean Jacobs).
As I wrote, FMJ and Canelo are the excellent fighters, but, both of them had been moving up and down, so we should not speak about them in this thread.
Wlad had been defeated twice (Fury and Joshua) since 2010, so, he can not be considered as the most dominant fighter in his division.

And, speaking honestly, I have never heard for Moonsri.

What do you define as being dominant?

Are you claiming that in order to be deemed as a dominant champion, a fighter that must remain unbeaten whilst having also defeated all of their top-ten world-rated peers?

If the answer is “yes”, then I agree. GGG cannot possibly be deemed as being a dominant champion.

That said, I don’t agree with you excluding certain dominant champions from consideration, simply because they suffered defeats either very early in their careers or when they were well past-their-primes.

Bernard Hopkins, Wladimir Klitschko and Johnny Nelson are excellent examples of some of the sports’ most dominant world champions in boxing history.

They suffered losses early in their careers, but improved. And Wladimir and Bernard’s lengthy dominant reigns only ended when they’d reached their forties.

So I think a fighter can still be considered a dominant champion, regardless as to whether they'd suffered losses either early or late in their careers.

Anyway, Wladimir Klitschko enjoyed a much lengthier and more dominant title reign during the 2010s than some of the names being mentioned in this thread.

People dishonestly forget about the stylistic improvements Emanuel Steward had implemented when they started working with each other during October 2004.

Tying the World record for Most title defenses in a weight class, most of them coming by KO is dominant. Regardless of whether or not the book you want to write agrees with that or not.

And seeing as how this topic applies to specifically one weight class then Golovkin absolutely fits.

As for Wlad's improvements. He primarily improved his defense and pacing under Steward's guidance. Which were the main 2 things he needed improving on. His offense was already as good as it would ever be prior to his association with Steward.

[Enlightened-One]

Pac's resume is great, definitely, but he had never been dominant in one division.
As I wrote, I like GGG, he belongs in a group of fighters who attracts so many fans, but he had never been dominant at his division (three very close fights, maybe four - I mean Jacobs).
As I wrote, FMJ and Canelo are the excellent fighters, but, both of them had been moving up and down, so we should not speak about them in this thread.
Wlad had been defeated twice (Fury and Joshua) since 2010, so, he can not be considered as the most dominant fighter in his division.

And, speaking honestly, I have never heard for Moonsri.

What do you define as being dominant?

Are you claiming that in order to be deemed as a dominant champion, a fighter that must remain unbeaten whilst having also defeated all of their top-ten world-rated peers?

If the answer is “yes”, then I agree. GGG cannot possibly be deemed as being a dominant champion.

That said, I don’t agree with you excluding certain dominant champions from consideration, simply because they suffered defeats either very early in their careers or when they were well past-their-primes.

Bernard Hopkins, Wladimir Klitschko and Johnny Nelson are excellent examples of some of the sports’ most dominant world champions in boxing history.

They suffered losses early in their careers, but improved. And Wladimir and Bernard’s lengthy dominant reigns only ended when they’d reached their forties.

So I think a fighter can still be considered a dominant champion, regardless as to whether they'd suffered losses either early or late in their careers.

Anyway, Wladimir Klitschko enjoyed a much lengthier and more dominant title reign during the 2010s than some of the names being mentioned in this thread.

People dishonestly forget about the stylistic improvements Emanuel Steward had implemented when they started working with each other during October 2004.

I think that I said quite enough in my opening post.

You didn't, but that's fine.

I realised I asked a difficult question, whereby the answer undermines claims that other people, including yourself, have made.

Wladimir Klitschko was a far more dominant champion during the six years he possessed a heavyweight title in the 2010s than Terence Crawford’s brief 2½ year stint at 140lbs.

The Ukrainian didn’t avoid anyone (other than his brother, but no one should’ve expected him to fight a family member), and he never benefitted from questionable judges’ scoring either.

And your only criticism of Wladimir's dominant reign, is that he suffered a couple of losses during the 2010s, even though he was in his forties. FFS!

[Enlightened-One]

Tying the World record for Most title defenses in a weight class, most of them coming by KO is dominant. Regardless of whether or not the book you want to write agrees with that or not.

And seeing as how this topic applies to specifically one weight class then Golovkin absolutely fits.

GGG has only made ten successful defences of a legitimate world title. It wasn't a record, because the interim and regular belts don't count. You've even said it yourself, they aren't real titles. They don't suddenly become legitimate titles, simply because Golovkin previously held them.

It seems you're arguing that GGG achieved more and was also more dominant during his title reign during the 2010s than Pacquiao did, regardless of the calibre of opposition Gennadiy faced.

And you feel it’s irrelevant that 15 of GGG’s 22 victories during the 2010s came against opponents that weren’t considered top-ten world-rated middleweights.

So I’ll propose another fighter's name to see if you have enough integrity to abide by the very same logic you applied for your argument when you had claimed that GGG was more dominant than Pacquiao during the 2010s.

On the 31st December 2019, Chayaphon Moonsri had amassed a perfect record of 54 victories without a loss or a draw.

He won 42 bouts during the 2010s, with 13 of them being WBC world title fights (5 early stoppages).
He also defeated five world champions during his title reign.

The RING also considered Chayaphon Moonsri as the top dog of his own weight class from 2013 until the end of 2019.

If you wholeheartedly believe that the calibre of opposition faced is irrelevant to this discussion, then Moonsri was more dominant than GGG was during the 2010s.

All I've done is apply the same logic that you did, so I assume you agree... or are you going to keep moving the goalposts?

[gilgamesh]

Dude. Shorten it the f*ck up. Do you really expect anybody to read all that bullsh*t?

GGG was more dominant than Pacquiao in the last decade. Period.

See how easy to read and to the point that was?

It's not that I mind reading long posts, but your long posts all equate to a guy sucking his own d*ck.

[Enlightened-One]

It's not that I mind reading long posts, but your long posts all equate to a guy sucking his own d*ck...

...Or someone providing a frustratingly accurate counter-argument that undermines your claims or exposes your application of double-standards.

In one thread, you might consistently b*tch and moan about there being too many titles. You'll even criticise the WBA for their interim and regular belts.

But yet you choose to consider GGG's ownership of those trinkets as part of his "legitimate" title reign?

It seems that you apply a different of rules and standards to fighters you like, in comparison to those you dislike.

[gilgamesh]

It's not that I mind reading long posts, but your long posts all equate to a guy sucking his own d*ck...

...Or someone providing a frustratingly accurate counter-argument that undermines your claims or exposes your application of double-standards.

In one thread, you might consistently b*tch and moan about there being too many titles. You'll even criticise the WBA for their interim and regular belts.

But yet you choose to consider GGG's ownership of those trinkets as part of his "legitimate" title reign?

It seems that you apply a different of rules and standards to fighters you like, in comparison to those you dislike.

Not at all. My opinion on any title reign is that if you continue to hold the title, and eventually unify it with the other titles. It solidifies that your reign was legitimate.

I don't know who the "Super" WBA Champion was when he won his belt. If I recall one day he was just suddenly deemed as Super Champion.

Even if you only want to give him 10 or 11 or whatever title defenses, he was still more dominant than Pacquiao in one weight class in the last decade.

[adislav123]

frikkin' moonsri after being wbc youth champion was wnc international champ as early as of 2009? defended it numerous times and it took him over 4 years to get a shot at the real minimum wbc belt. how the fornicate was that possible?

[gilgamesh]

frikkin' moonsri after being wbc youth champion was wnc international champ as early as of 2009? defended it numerous times and it took him over 4 years to get a shot at the real minimum wbc belt. how the fornicate was that possible?

Because the entire thing is bullshit.

The WBC is a joke. You only get a title shot when the check clears.

[adislav123]

one couldn't come up with a more dominating fighter as golovkin was thru the decade. period.

trashed practically everybody they put in front of him.

beat the boxing megastar canelo twice. back to back. got fucked twice. back to back.

what else is dominance?