ggg title defenses

[apollo creed]

however many title defenses he has, big credit for him at 38 beating up the ring magazine #6

OK, so let’s pretend that The RING isn’t owned by one of DAZN’s primary boxing content providers, which means they could be duty-bound to market the fighters they’re indirectly associated with...

Then why on earth would they consider rating a fighter, Kamil Szeremeta, facing one of DAZN’s biggest stars, as the sixth-best middleweight on the planet, considerably higher than a member of the PBC, such as the 10th placed Chris Eubank Jr?

Kamil’s career highlights:

• Szeremata has never beaten a top-12 IBF-rated middleweight and nor has he defeated a top-ten RING-rated 160lb-er either. GGG Promotions lobbied the IBF to instate their 3rd rated 160lb-er as Golovkin's mandatory challenger.

• Szeremeta's last two victories came against opponents that had failed to emerge victorious in a combined total of 21 bouts, with Cortes losing 4 out of his last 5 contests and Palacios winning 2 of his previous 15 fights (without scoring a single victory in the last five years).

• Kamil Szeremata only KO’d two of his first sixteen bouts.

• According to BoxRec’s ratings, Kamil Szeremeta’s best victory came against Patrick Mendy, a man that’s only won 18 of his 38 bouts.

• And whilst Szeremeta does hold a victory over a previously unbeaten opponent that had won ten bouts or more, who goes by the name of Artem Karpets, this was only the start of a fifteen-fight losing streak that spanned four consecutive years. And Karpets has never won a single fight since the Szeremeta defeat.

And let’s compare the above feats to Chris Eubank Jr.

• The Brit has faced four legitimate former/current world champions. Beating two of them and suffering very closely fought losses to the others.

• He’s a two-time interim WBA titleholder, which obviously isn’t a legitimate world championship, but it’s more prestigious than the European title.

• And Eubank Jr. has faced the likes of: Billy Joe Saunders, George Groves, Arthur Abraham, James DeGale, Avni Yildirim, Gary O'Sullivan and Dmitrii Chudinov.

• Chris has also defeated three previously unbeaten opponents possessing ten victories or more (Yildrim, Chudinov & Doran).

[DrDuke]

Bottom line is 38 y/o Golovkin beat Kamil Szeremeta-rated as No. 6 by Ring Magazine. Golovkin fought against top 10 Ring Magazine world rated MW's like :

Grzegorz Proksa - 2012 No. 10 by Ring Magazine
Curtis Stevens - 2013 No. 10 by Ring Magazine
Matthew Macklin - 2013 No. 6 by Ring Magazine
Daniel Geale - 2014 No. 4 by Ring Magazine
David Lemieux - 2015 No. 4 by Ring Magazine
Daniel Jacobs - 2017 No. 2 by Ring Magazine
Saul Alvarez - 2017 Champion by Ring Magazine
Saul Alvarez - 2018 Champion by Ring Magazine
Sergiy Derevyanchenko - 2019 No. 4 by Ring Magazine
Kamil Szeremeta - 2020 No. 6 by Ring Magazine

Golovkin's resume is pretty damn solid. It's crazy that still exists morons on this forum that doesn't give Golovkin his props for fighting top 10 world class opponents.

The half of them were stiffs though. A never-was type of fighters. Golovkin emerged in a comparably weak era.

[Enlightened-One]

Just having a look around at GGG articles, this one by The Ring Editor, Doug Fischer, has GGG's title defense against Adama Osumanu as his 10th one. So adding the rest of the defences from that fight on, it comes to 21.
For sure it's a confusing subject with different answers, especially when the editor at The Ring is throwing out numbers that seem to match up with a lot of the recent boxing media reports. It is what it is, no big deal.

https://www.ringtv.com/317463-ring-rati ... t-ranking/

What’s so confusing?

Are the interim or regular versions of the WBA belts legitimate world titles?

And if not, that how many times, as the champion, has GGG successfully performed title defences of the IBF, the WBA super or the WBC titles?

If you possess ten fingers, then the answer to the second question is easy to deduce by reviewing GGG’s resume?

It’s basic maths that any five year old child could answer.

What's so confusing? Is it not obvious? Are you a five your old child? With all due respect, just giving you the straight up truth, you do act like a petulant child a lot of the time, Friday night being a prime example.

2 different articles produced by the bible of boxing, The Ring, on the same subject. 2 different answers to the number of defences. There appears to be no exact correct answer, it just depends on the person themselves and, given your obvious huge bias against GGG, your answer would be the most obvious incorrect one.

Just because neither of the answers fit in with what you believe to be correct doesn't mean that neither of them can be correct. Who are you again? Are you the bible of boxing? Why should we all listen to you?

Are you feeling OK? You previously mentioned that your lifestyle does not allow you to stay up late, yet that's 3 nights in a row where you have done so. This could easily be contributing to your feelings of confusion. Go and have a lie-down, get some well needed rest, clear your mind of all bias, and then revisit this at a later date, possibly in a week or 2. Also try to learn some humility while you are at it. You might find people will respect you more rather than continually mock you in doing so.

You're reviewing opinion pieces written by journalists whose employer has direct business ties with DAZN.

However, if you review GGG's resume with an objective mind-set, using your own eyeballs, and actually count the number of title defences he's performed (excluding the WBA's regular and interim titles, as well as the IBO strap), you'll surely realise he's only made ten successful defences of a legitimate world title.

Review the evidence and use your own brain to draw a conclusion that you've made for yourself, since it's clear you're preferring to ignore the facts, simply because they don't adhere to your preferred perception of reality.

If you can count to ten, you'll be able to prove, using your own eyeballs, the actual amount of legitimate successful world title defences that GGG has performed.

Please, be honest... can you not read? Are you unable to count to ten? If you can do both things, then it'll only take you a few seconds to draw the very same conclusion that I have.

Do you seriously consider the WBA's interim and regular straps, as well as the IBO belt, as legitimate world titles? That's the only subjective element of our debate.

Mock me all you want, but you seem intent to overcomplicate things, because the truth will only take you a few seconds to deduce.

GGG has:
• Defeated 10 opponents (8 by KO) for the World Middleweight Title (interim and secondary belts excluded).
• A record of 10-1-1 (8 KOs) in world title fights (interim and secondary belts excluded).
• WBA Super World Middleweight Title (June 2014-September 2018; 9 defences)
• IBF (2nd reign) World Middleweight Title (October 2019-present; 1 defence)

Here’s a list of the opponents that GGG successfully performed legitimate world title defences:

• Daniel Geale
• Rubio
• Murray
• Monroe Jr
• Lemieux
• Wade
• Jacobs
• Canelo
• Martirosyan
• Szeremeta

[The Gratest]

What’s so confusing?

Are the interim or regular versions of the WBA belts legitimate world titles?

And if not, that how many times, as the champion, has GGG successfully performed title defences of the IBF, the WBA super or the WBC titles?

If you possess ten fingers, then the answer to the second question is easy to deduce by reviewing GGG’s resume?

It’s basic maths that any five year old child could answer.

What's so confusing? Is it not obvious? Are you a five your old child? With all due respect, just giving you the straight up truth, you do act like a petulant child a lot of the time, Friday night being a prime example.

2 different articles produced by the bible of boxing, The Ring, on the same subject. 2 different answers to the number of defences. There appears to be no exact correct answer, it just depends on the person themselves and, given your obvious huge bias against GGG, your answer would be the most obvious incorrect one.

Just because neither of the answers fit in with what you believe to be correct doesn't mean that neither of them can be correct. Who are you again? Are you the bible of boxing? Why should we all listen to you?

Are you feeling OK? You previously mentioned that your lifestyle does not allow you to stay up late, yet that's 3 nights in a row where you have done so. This could easily be contributing to your feelings of confusion. Go and have a lie-down, get some well needed rest, clear your mind of all bias, and then revisit this at a later date, possibly in a week or 2. Also try to learn some humility while you are at it. You might find people will respect you more rather than continually mock you in doing so.

You're reviewing opinion pieces written by journalists whose employer has direct business ties with DAZN.

However, if you review GGG's resume with an objective mind-set, using your own eyeballs, and actually count the number of title defences he's performed (excluding the WBA's regular and interim titles, as well as the IBO strap), you'll surely realise he's only made ten successful defences of a legitimate world title.

Review the evidence and use your own brain to draw a conclusion that you've made for yourself, since it's clear you're preferring to ignore the facts, simply because they don't adhere to your preferred perception of reality.

If you can count to ten, you'll be able to prove, using your own eyeballs, the actual amount of legitimate successful world title defences that GGG has performed.

Please, be honest... can you not read? Are you unable to count to ten? If you can do both things, then it'll only take you a few seconds to draw the very same conclusion that I have.

Do you seriously consider the WBA's interim and regular straps, as well as the IBO belt, as legitimate world titles? That's the only subjective element of our debate.

Mock me all you want, but you seem intent to overcomplicate things, because the truth will only take you a few seconds to deduce.

That's correct, i'm reviewing opinion pieces written in the bible of boxing, The Ring, by boxing journalists who do not appear to have the same horrific bias against GGG that you do. You are completely unable to be objective when it comes to GGG, that is very very clear.

So whose evidence and points of view am I going to take as being of a higher degree of credibility when weighing up and making my own decision? The opinions of professional boxing journalists, or the repetitive spewed out biased bile of a self indulgent, petulant manchild? Thanks, but i'll go with the non-biased respected writers for The Ring.

You clearly need more sleep, go and have a lie-down.

[Enlightened-One]

What's so confusing? Is it not obvious? Are you a five your old child? With all due respect, just giving you the straight up truth, you do act like a petulant child a lot of the time, Friday night being a prime example.

2 different articles produced by the bible of boxing, The Ring, on the same subject. 2 different answers to the number of defences. There appears to be no exact correct answer, it just depends on the person themselves and, given your obvious huge bias against GGG, your answer would be the most obvious incorrect one.

Just because neither of the answers fit in with what you believe to be correct doesn't mean that neither of them can be correct. Who are you again? Are you the bible of boxing? Why should we all listen to you?

Are you feeling OK? You previously mentioned that your lifestyle does not allow you to stay up late, yet that's 3 nights in a row where you have done so. This could easily be contributing to your feelings of confusion. Go and have a lie-down, get some well needed rest, clear your mind of all bias, and then revisit this at a later date, possibly in a week or 2. Also try to learn some humility while you are at it. You might find people will respect you more rather than continually mock you in doing so.

You're reviewing opinion pieces written by journalists whose employer has direct business ties with DAZN.

However, if you review GGG's resume with an objective mind-set, using your own eyeballs, and actually count the number of title defences he's performed (excluding the WBA's regular and interim titles, as well as the IBO strap), you'll surely realise he's only made ten successful defences of a legitimate world title.

Review the evidence and use your own brain to draw a conclusion that you've made for yourself, since it's clear you're preferring to ignore the facts, simply because they don't adhere to your preferred perception of reality.

If you can count to ten, you'll be able to prove, using your own eyeballs, the actual amount of legitimate successful world title defences that GGG has performed.

Please, be honest... can you not read? Are you unable to count to ten? If you can do both things, then it'll only take you a few seconds to draw the very same conclusion that I have.

Do you seriously consider the WBA's interim and regular straps, as well as the IBO belt, as legitimate world titles? That's the only subjective element of our debate.

Mock me all you want, but you seem intent to overcomplicate things, because the truth will only take you a few seconds to deduce.

That's correct, i'm reviewing opinion pieces written in the bible of boxing, The Ring, by boxing journalists who do not appear to have the same horrific bias against GGG that you do. You are completely unable to be objective when it comes to GGG, that is very very clear.

So whose evidence and points of view am I going to take as being of a higher degree of credibility when weighing up and making my own decision? The opinions of professional boxing journalists, or the repetitive spewed out biased bile of a self indulgent, petulant manchild? Thanks, but i'll go with the non-biased respected writers for The Ring.

You clearly need more sleep, go and have a lie-down.

Do you consider BoxRec as a reputable source? How about you watching GGG's world title fights, like I have done, and comprehend the names of the titles conveyed by the ring announcer during the pre-fight introductions?

Let's start by discussing the situation one fight at-a-time, shall we?

What world title did Gennady Golovkin capture when he defeated Milton Nunez?

And assuming we both agree that the WBA's interim belt isn't a world legitimate title, then what title was on the line for GGG's next outing against Nilson Julio Tapia?

To help you answer these rather challenging questions... I advise you to inhale, exhale, blink... lather, rinse repeat, as it'll help you retain your composure.

[The Gratest]

You're reviewing opinion pieces written by journalists whose employer has direct business ties with DAZN.

However, if you review GGG's resume with an objective mind-set, using your own eyeballs, and actually count the number of title defences he's performed (excluding the WBA's regular and interim titles, as well as the IBO strap), you'll surely realise he's only made ten successful defences of a legitimate world title.

Review the evidence and use your own brain to draw a conclusion that you've made for yourself, since it's clear you're preferring to ignore the facts, simply because they don't adhere to your preferred perception of reality.

If you can count to ten, you'll be able to prove, using your own eyeballs, the actual amount of legitimate successful world title defences that GGG has performed.

Please, be honest... can you not read? Are you unable to count to ten? If you can do both things, then it'll only take you a few seconds to draw the very same conclusion that I have.

Do you seriously consider the WBA's interim and regular straps, as well as the IBO belt, as legitimate world titles? That's the only subjective element of our debate.

Mock me all you want, but you seem intent to overcomplicate things, because the truth will only take you a few seconds to deduce.

That's correct, i'm reviewing opinion pieces written in the bible of boxing, The Ring, by boxing journalists who do not appear to have the same horrific bias against GGG that you do. You are completely unable to be objective when it comes to GGG, that is very very clear.

So whose evidence and points of view am I going to take as being of a higher degree of credibility when weighing up and making my own decision? The opinions of professional boxing journalists, or the repetitive spewed out biased bile of a self indulgent, petulant manchild? Thanks, but i'll go with the non-biased respected writers for The Ring.

You clearly need more sleep, go and have a lie-down.

Do you consider BoxRec as a reputable source? How about you watching GGG's world title fights, like I have done, and comprehend the names of the titles conveyed by the ring announcer during the pre-fight introductions?

Let's start by discussing the situation one fight at-a-time, shall we?

What world title did Gennady Golovkin capture when he defeated Milton Nunez?

And assuming we both agree that the WBA's interim belt isn't a world legitimate title, then what title was on the line for GGG's following fight against Nilson Julio Tapia?

Until you go and have a lie-down, catch up on your lost sleep from the weekend, and get your lifestyle and mind back in sync then this discussion is pointless. You are horrifically biased during normal brain operating times, you will be even worse operating with a tired and confused mind. Once you do that, get back to me.

[Enlightened-One]

That's correct, i'm reviewing opinion pieces written in the bible of boxing, The Ring, by boxing journalists who do not appear to have the same horrific bias against GGG that you do. You are completely unable to be objective when it comes to GGG, that is very very clear.

So whose evidence and points of view am I going to take as being of a higher degree of credibility when weighing up and making my own decision? The opinions of professional boxing journalists, or the repetitive spewed out biased bile of a self indulgent, petulant manchild? Thanks, but i'll go with the non-biased respected writers for The Ring.

You clearly need more sleep, go and have a lie-down.

Do you consider BoxRec as a reputable source? How about you watching GGG's world title fights, like I have done, and comprehend the names of the titles conveyed by the ring announcer during the pre-fight introductions?

Let's start by discussing the situation one fight at-a-time, shall we?

What world title did Gennady Golovkin capture when he defeated Milton Nunez?

And assuming we both agree that the WBA's interim belt isn't a world legitimate title, then what title was on the line for GGG's following fight against Nilson Julio Tapia?

Until you go and have a lie-down, catch up on your lost sleep from the weekend, and get your lifestyle and mind back in sync then this discussion is pointless. You are horrifically biased during normal brain operating times, you will be even worse operating with a tired and confused mind. Once you do that, get back to me.

I asked you simple questions that you refuse to answer, because the truth, which cannot possibly be misinterpreted, illustrates the fact that GGG has only performed ten successful defences of a legitimate version of a world title.

I’ll give you one more chance...

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

If you can’t even answer that one simple question, then you’re essentially admitting to knowing nothing about the situation.

[The Gratest]

Do you consider BoxRec as a reputable source? How about you watching GGG's world title fights, like I have done, and comprehend the names of the titles conveyed by the ring announcer during the pre-fight introductions?

Let's start by discussing the situation one fight at-a-time, shall we?

What world title did Gennady Golovkin capture when he defeated Milton Nunez?

And assuming we both agree that the WBA's interim belt isn't a world legitimate title, then what title was on the line for GGG's following fight against Nilson Julio Tapia?

Until you go and have a lie-down, catch up on your lost sleep from the weekend, and get your lifestyle and mind back in sync then this discussion is pointless. You are horrifically biased during normal brain operating times, you will be even worse operating with a tired and confused mind. Once you do that, get back to me.

I asked you simple questions that you refuse to answer, because the truth, which cannot possibly be misinterpreted, illustrates the fact that GGG has only performed ten successful defences of a legitimate version of a world title.

I’ll give you one more chance...

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

If you can’t even answer that one simple question, then you’re essentially admitting to knowing nothing about the situation.

There has only been 9 minutes from your previous post to this post. That is not enough time for you to get enough sleep after a night of posting at 10pm, 11pm, 2am, 5am, 6am and 7am. You are still extremely tired in no fit mental state to put forth a decent non-biased argument. This you cannot deny.
I have already informed you this discussion would not take place until you had a rest, you appear to be looking for an easy way out by default. If I best you, you have a readymade excuse of which i'd take no pleasure.

Go and have a rest. If you donot, then I will take that as you conceding and ultimate defeat.

[Enlightened-One]

Until you go and have a lie-down, catch up on your lost sleep from the weekend, and get your lifestyle and mind back in sync then this discussion is pointless. You are horrifically biased during normal brain operating times, you will be even worse operating with a tired and confused mind. Once you do that, get back to me.

I asked you simple questions that you refuse to answer, because the truth, which cannot possibly be misinterpreted, illustrates the fact that GGG has only performed ten successful defences of a legitimate version of a world title.

I’ll give you one more chance...

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

If you can’t even answer that one simple question, then you’re essentially admitting to knowing nothing about the situation.

There has only been 9 minutes from your previous post to this post. That is not enough time for you to get enough sleep after a night of posting at 10pm, 11pm, 2am, 5am, 6am and 7am. You are still extremely tired in no fit mental state to put forth a decent non-biased argument. This you cannot deny.
I have already informed you this discussion would not take place until you had a rest, you appear to be looking for an easy way out by default. If I best you, you have a readymade excuse of which i'd take no pleasure.

Go and have a rest. If you donot, then I will take that as you conceding and ultimate defeat.

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

[The Gratest]

I asked you simple questions that you refuse to answer, because the truth, which cannot possibly be misinterpreted, illustrates the fact that GGG has only performed ten successful defences of a legitimate version of a world title.

I’ll give you one more chance...

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

If you can’t even answer that one simple question, then you’re essentially admitting to knowing nothing about the situation.

There has only been 9 minutes from your previous post to this post. That is not enough time for you to get enough sleep after a night of posting at 10pm, 11pm, 2am, 5am, 6am and 7am. You are still extremely tired in no fit mental state to put forth a decent non-biased argument. This you cannot deny.
I have already informed you this discussion would not take place until you had a rest, you appear to be looking for an easy way out by default. If I best you, you have a readymade excuse of which i'd take no pleasure.

Go and have a rest. If you donot, then I will take that as you conceding and ultimate defeat.

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

Go and have a rest. If you donot, then I will take that as you conceding and ultimate defeat.

Can you read? Yes? Good.
You just conceded.

[Enlightened-One]

There has only been 9 minutes from your previous post to this post. That is not enough time for you to get enough sleep after a night of posting at 10pm, 11pm, 2am, 5am, 6am and 7am. You are still extremely tired in no fit mental state to put forth a decent non-biased argument. This you cannot deny.
I have already informed you this discussion would not take place until you had a rest, you appear to be looking for an easy way out by default. If I best you, you have a readymade excuse of which i'd take no pleasure.

Go and have a rest. If you donot, then I will take that as you conceding and ultimate defeat.

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

Go and have a rest. If you donot, then I will take that as you conceding and ultimate defeat.

Can you read? Yes? Good.
You just conceded.

In other words, you already realise that answering that one question alone undermines Dougie Fischer’s claims.

So you refuse to answer it.

[The Gratest]

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

Go and have a rest. If you donot, then I will take that as you conceding and ultimate defeat.

Can you read? Yes? Good.
You just conceded.

In other words, you already realise that answering that one question alone undermines Dougie Fischer’s claims.

So you refuse to answer it.

In other words, you're conceding again.

I laid out the simple rules, I do not wish to take apart a sleep deprived version of you. I've bested you on here many times before (most notably the Manny Pac drugs cheat debate), so what pleasure or feeling of accomplishment would I get from besting a weakened you? None. You knew that and took the easy way out.

I am now 5-0 against you. I expect i'll soon be in The Ring top 10 at this rate!

[Enlightened-One]

Can you read? Yes? Good.
You just conceded.

In other words, you already realise that answering that one question alone undermines Dougie Fischer’s claims.

So you refuse to answer it.

In other words, you're conceding again.

I laid out the simple rules, I do not wish to take apart a sleep deprived version of you. I've bested you on here many times before (most notably the Manny Pac drugs cheat debate), so what pleasure or feeling of accomplishment would I get from besting a weakened you? None. You knew that and took the easy way out.

I am now 5-0 against you. I expect i'll soon be in The Ring top 10 at this rate!

Nonsense.

It’s good to see you throw the towel in by refusing to answer you one simple question.

[The Gratest]

In other words, you already realise that answering that one question alone undermines Dougie Fischer’s claims.

So you refuse to answer it.

In other words, you're conceding again.

I laid out the simple rules, I do not wish to take apart a sleep deprived version of you. I've bested you on here many times before (most notably the Manny Pac drugs cheat debate), so what pleasure or feeling of accomplishment would I get from besting a weakened you? None. You knew that and took the easy way out.

I am now 5-0 against you. I expect i'll soon be in The Ring top 10 at this rate!

Nonsense.

It’s good to see you throw the towel in by refusing to answer you one simple question.

It had already been thrown kid.

6-0

[Ruthless-RKO]

I asked you simple questions that you refuse to answer, because the truth, which cannot possibly be misinterpreted, illustrates the fact that GGG has only performed ten successful defences of a legitimate version of a world title.

I’ll give you one more chance...

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

If you can’t even answer that one simple question, then you’re essentially admitting to knowing nothing about the situation.

There has only been 9 minutes from your previous post to this post. That is not enough time for you to get enough sleep after a night of posting at 10pm, 11pm, 2am, 5am, 6am and 7am. You are still extremely tired in no fit mental state to put forth a decent non-biased argument. This you cannot deny.
I have already informed you this discussion would not take place until you had a rest, you appear to be looking for an easy way out by default. If I best you, you have a readymade excuse of which i'd take no pleasure.

Go and have a rest. If you donot, then I will take that as you conceding and ultimate defeat.

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

Regular

[Enlightened-One]

Bottom line is 38 y/o Golovkin beat Kamil Szeremeta-rated as No. 6 by Ring Magazine. Golovkin fought against top 10 Ring Magazine world rated MW's like :

Grzegorz Proksa - 2012 No. 10 by Ring Magazine
Curtis Stevens - 2013 No. 10 by Ring Magazine
Matthew Macklin - 2013 No. 6 by Ring Magazine
Daniel Geale - 2014 No. 4 by Ring Magazine
David Lemieux - 2015 No. 4 by Ring Magazine
Daniel Jacobs - 2017 No. 2 by Ring Magazine
Saul Alvarez - 2017 Champion by Ring Magazine
Saul Alvarez - 2018 Champion by Ring Magazine
Sergiy Derevyanchenko - 2019 No. 4 by Ring Magazine
Kamil Szeremeta - 2020 No. 6 by Ring Magazine

Golovkin's resume is pretty damn solid. It's crazy that still exists morons on this forum that doesn't give Golovkin his props for fighting top 10 world class opponents.

During many of the years you’ve listed, there would have been a RING champion, which means that anyone rated as the tenth best contender, was actually considered the 11th best middleweight, such as Grzegorz Proksa, Curtis Stevens etc.

This would have obviously affected all the other rankings as well – they would have been moved down a position (i.e. Matthew Macklin’s rating, since Sergio Martinez [Champion], Gennadiy Golovkin, Felix Sturm, Daniel Geale, Peter Quillin and Darren Barkerw were all rated above him).

Also, I acquired my rankings from The RING based on the website pages that were archived immediately before the respective dates of GGG’s bouts, as stored by the WayBackMachine, rather than using the annual ratings recorded by BoxRec.

Therefore:

• Grzegorz Proksa and Curtis Stevens were never top-ten world-rated middleweights.
• Matthew Macklin was 7th
• Daniel Geale was 3rd
• Lemieux was 5th
• Jacobs, I haven’t checked but he may have been 2nd or 3rd
• Derevyanchenko was 5th
• Szeremeta was 7th

And what’s interesting is that ESPN never considered Szeremeta as a top-ten middleweight. And The RING, whose owner has business ties with DAZN, have also ejected the Polish fighter from their rankings.

Basically, you haven’t done your research. You haven’t thought things through. And this has resulted in you posting a load of nonsense that you cannot possibly defend!!!

"It's crazy that still exists morons on this forum that GIVES Golovkin his props for fighting top 10 world class opponents", when it's abundantly clear he hasn't done this!!!

[Enlightened-One]

There has only been 9 minutes from your previous post to this post. That is not enough time for you to get enough sleep after a night of posting at 10pm, 11pm, 2am, 5am, 6am and 7am. You are still extremely tired in no fit mental state to put forth a decent non-biased argument. This you cannot deny.
I have already informed you this discussion would not take place until you had a rest, you appear to be looking for an easy way out by default. If I best you, you have a readymade excuse of which i'd take no pleasure.

Go and have a rest. If you donot, then I will take that as you conceding and ultimate defeat.

What title was on the line when GGG defeated Nilson Julio Tapia?

Regular

Thank-you!

[fanman]

Well ... 10 defenses is quite a lot. Plus 10 more 'regular' defenses.
How many ring mag defenses? Actually he never won that, Canelo won it off Cotto first.
Still a great middleweight though, the Canelo fights testify to that.

[margaret thatcher]

I wonder if GGG's next fight will come against yet another ring magazine rated opponent

[gilgamesh]

Bottom line is 38 y/o Golovkin beat Kamil Szeremeta-rated as No. 6 by Ring Magazine. Golovkin fought against top 10 Ring Magazine world rated MW's like :

Grzegorz Proksa - 2012 No. 10 by Ring Magazine
Curtis Stevens - 2013 No. 10 by Ring Magazine
Matthew Macklin - 2013 No. 6 by Ring Magazine
Daniel Geale - 2014 No. 4 by Ring Magazine
David Lemieux - 2015 No. 4 by Ring Magazine
Daniel Jacobs - 2017 No. 2 by Ring Magazine
Saul Alvarez - 2017 Champion by Ring Magazine
Saul Alvarez - 2018 Champion by Ring Magazine
Sergiy Derevyanchenko - 2019 No. 4 by Ring Magazine
Kamil Szeremeta - 2020 No. 6 by Ring Magazine

Golovkin's resume is pretty damn solid. It's crazy that still exists morons on this forum that doesn't give Golovkin his props for fighting top 10 world class opponents.

During many of the years you’ve listed, there would have been a RING champion, which means that anyone rated as the tenth best contender, was actually considered the 11th best middleweight, such as Grzegorz Proksa, Curtis Stevens etc.

This would have obviously affected all the other rankings as well – they would have been moved down a position (i.e. Matthew Macklin’s rating, since Sergio Martinez [Champion], Gennadiy Golovkin, Felix Sturm, Daniel Geale, Peter Quillin and Darren Barkerw were all rated above him).

Also, I acquired my rankings from The RING based on the website pages that were archived immediately before the respective dates of GGG’s bouts, as stored by the WayBackMachine, rather than using the annual ratings recorded by BoxRec.

Therefore:

• Grzegorz Proksa and Curtis Stevens were never top-ten world-rated middleweights.
• Matthew Macklin was 7th
• Daniel Geale was 3rd
• Lemieux was 5th
• Jacobs, I haven’t checked but he may have been 2nd or 3rd
• Derevyanchenko was 5th
• Szeremeta was 7th

And what’s interesting is that ESPN never considered Szeremeta as a top-ten middleweight. And The RING, whose owner has business ties with DAZN, have also ejected the Polish fighter from their rankings.

Basically, you haven’t done your research. You haven’t thought things through. And this has resulted in you posting a load of nonsense that you cannot possibly defend!!!

"It's crazy that still exists morons on this forum that GIVES Golovkin his props for fighting top 10 world class opponents", when it's abundantly clear he hasn't done this!!!

Proksa was Top 10 when GGG fought him.

I don't know if Stevens was. Probably not.

Golovkin had a fine career. He wasn't the best middleweight ever, but he wasn't a joke either.

Everybody seems to go to extremes with him. He had a fine career, and one of the longest Middleweight title reigns ever. Other guys had BETTER reigns no doubt, but he had a noteworthy reign.

And the 1st fight against Canelo counts as a successful defense as well seeing as how he walked in as Champion and walked out as Champion. A draw is still a successful defense, whether or not you agree with the verdict (I personally don't because Golovkin won that fight clear)