BoxRec

Bobbyptsd wrote: I don't know what "all that" is. Both guys have been fighting relatively high ranked fighters. I'd say that Golovkin's recent opposition has been better, not to mention that he's won them all in dominating fashion.

I'd agree that the debate becomes somewhat circular, but I just wanted to point out that neither of these guys are fighting drunks off the street here. The guys they are fighting, in both cases, are better than the large, large majority of other fighters in the world at their respective weights. As always, nuance would be a good thing.

In other words, if Daniel Geale and Tavoris Cloud aren't "all that", I think that's setting the bar too high. They aren't as good as a select few who are the absolute best. There's a lot of daylight between that and not being very good.

fergusg wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:He's just not beaten good enough opposition to be top 10. Until he starts beating top level fighters, we just don't know whether his skills actually live up to the hype.

Who in his division do you want him to face? Cotto? Martinez? Everyone knows he'd demolish the pair of them. If he does that the "names" will elevate him? That's all they are, names! When did Ward move out of his division? When did Klitschko? When did Rigo?

Anyone that is any judge of a boxer knows Golovkin is the real deal, "names" aren't needed to confirm that.

Why are people so willing to grant Golovkin an honorary rite of passage, by including him amongst their pound-for-pound top ten, without requiring the need for validation?

To plagiarise something Max Kellerman said to GGG during the post-fight interview for the Rubio contest...

The only thing we know for sure, is that Golovkin has proven his ability to “destroy all the contender middleweights who are NOT elite middleweights.”

fergusg wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Geale wasn't gifted a belt like Shumenov was, and he was defending his belts against much better opponents than Shumenov.

It’s a redundant point. Shumenov was a comparable to fighter to Geale. Whereas Daniel hadn’t competed in a successful world title fight for 18 months, Beibut was an active young champion. The Ring Magazine & ESPN ratings clearly prove that this is the case.

ikorolev wrote:Adama's boxrec rating at the time when fighting GGG was 273 with his all time high in 300's. Murat's rating before fighting Hopkins was 136 with his all time high at 242.

I’m not arguing Boxrec points, because they are dependent on many factors, such as total amount of bouts won. So once again, it’s another redundant point to argue with.

In terms of equivalent divisional ranking, Murat is on a par, if not better, than nine of Golovkin’s most recent thirteen foes.

ikorolev wrote:Korobov is promoted by TR and Quillin is managed by Haymon. Did they get better opponents than GGG ? Hell no.

You’re not comparing like-for-like! Peter Quillin’s only been a world champion for two years, half the time of Golovkin.

And besides, Peter Quillin could have earned a career high of $1.4m, which is $500K more than Golovkin’s best, if he hadn’t decided to dump his WBO belt.

I believe Quillin’s highest purse to-date is $450K.

Matt Korobov would have earned $500K if Quillin had accepted his challenge for the WBO title, a figure that is probably greater than the third highest purse ever earned by Golovkin… and he’s never been a world champion.

Instead, rather than compare Golovkin’s careers to men that have only recently arrived on the world-stage, why don’t you instead compare him to fellow pound-for-pounders (since that’s what you class him as)… and men that have held world titles for at least four years?

I know the reason why, because it would force you to admit that you’re wrong!

fergusg wrote: Do you honestly believe that Gennady Golovkin’s opponents (in general) are better than those that Bernard Hopkins has faced since 2010? :??

Ricky_ wrote:There aren't any elite mw's other than Golovkin himself. He's ko'd the next level down.

Bobbyptsd wrote:This is like the Floyd thing.

Murray's on the list, because he fought Macklin. If he had fought Murray, Macklin would be on the list. Barker's on the list, because he fought Geale. If he had fought Barker, Geale would be on the list...Soliman's on the list because.....well, you get where this is going.

fergusg wrote:
The fact remains, is that Gennady Golovkin should have faced better opponents than Mathew Macklin & Daniel Geale.

You’re welcome to formulate all sorts of creative excuses to justify your belief that “every fighter on the planet is terrified of Golovkin – so they’re too scared to face him”, as that’s clearly your prerogative. But in the cold light of day, when you interrogate the situation objectively, GGG should have mixed with a higher standard of opposition!

I’m a big fan of Gennady Golovkin… and his performances are usually a thing of beauty to behold, but that doesn’t prevent me from considering the context of his victories objectively!

Here are some facts about Gennady Golovkin that are impossible to refute:
• He has NEVER won a world title inside the ring. GGG merely won an interim belt, was elevated to being a “regular” champion and only became the fully-fledged WBA “super” champion earlier this year. The WBA chose to promote his status rather than actually competing for these belts (vacant or otherwise) inside the ring.
• He has NEVER defeated a 160lb fighter that was universally-considered as a top-three ranked middleweight opponent.
• He has NEVER defeated an opponent that was a holder of one of the main world championship belts at the time they fought him.