How is Golovkin is an ATG having never fought one

[crusader]

Resume is simply one factor that should be considered when evaluating how good a fighter is, and it's hardly an oddity for fighters to get beaten by opponents with weaker resumes. Did Andre Ward go into the SS with the strongest resume?

Rating greatness isn't necessarily just about how good someone is though.

[Horse]

He has beat the best middleweights in his era though they might not have been that good.

No, he hasn't.

[world ranked]

He has beat the best middleweights in his era though they might not have been that good.

No, he hasn't.

Who hasn't he beat at middleweight who is proven at the weight. What proof says Canelo better than Jacobs. Cotto

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Resume is simply one factor that should be considered when evaluating how good a fighter is, and it's hardly an oddity for fighters to get beaten by opponents with weaker resumes. Did Andre Ward go into the SS with the strongest resume?

Rating greatness isn't necessarily just about how good someone is though.

Odd point, if ward retired before the super 6 he wouldn't be considered great. Resume means nothing for predictions. It means everything for all time standing.

[crusader]

Not an odd point if you actually understand my post

Ward started the SS as one of the least proven fighters, yet handily beat the higher ranked Kessler in his first bout and eventually took the tournament. Kovalev destroyed Campillo despite not having the same quality of wins at the time, and so on. Having a stronger resume doesn't equate to being the better fighter, and surely you know that.

As I acknowledged, evaluating 'greatness' isn't necessarily just a matter of how good someone is or was.

[Horse]

Who hasn't he beat at middleweight who is proven at the weight. What proof says Canelo better than Jacobs. Cotto

Martinez, Sturm, Pavlik, Taylor, Soliman, Quillin, Lee, Saunders, Alvarez, Cotto etc.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Not an odd point if you actually understand my post

Ward started the SS as one of the least proven fighters, yet handily beat the higher ranked Kessler in his first bout and eventually took the tournament. Kovalev destroyed Campillo despite not having the same quality of wins at the time, and so on. Having a stronger resume doesn't equate to being the better fighter, and surely you know that.

As I acknowledged, evaluating 'greatness' isn't necessarily just a matter of how good someone is or was.

Odd response, I clearly stated that resume has nothing to do with predictions or results for that matter. Who says they are?

[world ranked]

Who hasn't he beat at middleweight who is proven at the weight. What proof says Canelo better than Jacobs. Cotto

Martinez, Sturm, Pavlik, Taylor, Soliman, Quillin, Lee, Saunders, Alvarez, Cotto etc.

1) Pavlik, Taylor isn't even in the same era is GGG

2) Sturm , Cotto, Martinez ducked Golovkin several and paid him several to step aside. Golovkin left Universum because they allowed Sturm to duck him. And we know how WBC played with him when Cotto and Martinez was champions.

3) Soliman, Lee really

4) Quillin didn't he beat the guy that Ko'ed Quillin in one round.

5) And Canelo beating Cotto at middleweight doesn't makes you one of the best middleweights of this era

Try again muddasucker!

[crusader]

Not an odd point if you actually understand my post

Ward started the SS as one of the least proven fighters, yet handily beat the higher ranked Kessler in his first bout and eventually took the tournament. Kovalev destroyed Campillo despite not having the same quality of wins at the time, and so on. Having a stronger resume doesn't equate to being the better fighter, and surely you know that.

As I acknowledged, evaluating 'greatness' isn't necessarily just a matter of how good someone is or was.

Odd response, I clearly stated that resume has nothing to do with predictions or results for that matter. Who says they are?

My post was directed towards world ranked's comments about a resume being the measure of how good a fighter is; you write ' I clearly stated that....' but I wasn't addressing your statements the first place. WR has wrote explicitly in several threads that you shouldn't consider one fighter better than or as good as another if their resume isn't of the same quality, but I don't think that's accurate, and hence I mentioned cases of less proven fighters beating more proven fighters. Sergey Kovalev was better than Campillo entering their bout, but did his career rank higher at the time? Obviously not...which is why I acknowledged that measuring greatness or the strength's of one career has more to it.

Now, maybe WR is using terms like 'good' in a different manner than I'm used to when addressing fighters, such that one can have far more ability than the other and be vastly better in the ring, yet not as good.

[Horse]

1) Pavlik, Taylor isn't even in the same era is GGG

2) Sturm , Cotto, Martinez ducked Golovkin several and paid him several to step aside. Golovkin left Universum because they allowed Sturm to duck him. And we know how WBC played with him when Cotto and Martinez was champions.

3) Soliman, Lee really

4) Quillin didn't he beat the guy that Ko'ed Quillin in one round.

5) And Canelo beating Cotto at middleweight doesn't makes you one of the best middleweights of this era

Try again muddasucker!

Keep laughing, jock-sniffer. Golovkin's record stinks.

These were all top fighters in his division that he didn't fight, since he won his WBA title in 2010, that would have made his record significantly stronger.

[world ranked]

Not an odd point if you actually understand my post

Ward started the SS as one of the least proven fighters, yet handily beat the higher ranked Kessler in his first bout and eventually took the tournament. Kovalev destroyed Campillo despite not having the same quality of wins at the time, and so on. Having a stronger resume doesn't equate to being the better fighter, and surely you know that.

As I acknowledged, evaluating 'greatness' isn't necessarily just a matter of how good someone is or was.

Odd response, I clearly stated that resume has nothing to do with predictions or results for that matter. Who says they are?

My post was directed towards world ranked's comments about a resume being the measure of how good a fighter is' you write ' I clearly stated that....' but I wasn't addressing you in the first place. WR has stated explicitly in several threads that you shouldn't consider one fighter better than the other if their resume isn't as good, but I don't think that's accurate, and hence I mentioned cases of less proven fighters beating more proven fighters. Sergey Kovalev was better than Campillo entering their bout, but did his career rank higher at the time? Obviously not...

Your point about Kovalev is true but again Kovalev was a better talent but shouldn't be ranked higher until he beats the better resume fighter is my point. Luke Campbell was a better talent than Yvan Mendy and should have won but didn't so in your eyes he still should be ranked higher or even a more recent fight Roman Gonzalez who is clearly a better fighter than the Thai he lost to he shouldn't be ranked higher at 115 because he didn't win. But I understand your point but that the debate talent vs resume.

[crusader]

Okay, so when you suggest that a resume is the measure of how good a fighter is, do you simply mean how proven they are? How their career ranks rather than how their ability ranks?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Not an odd point if you actually understand my post

Ward started the SS as one of the least proven fighters, yet handily beat the higher ranked Kessler in his first bout and eventually took the tournament. Kovalev destroyed Campillo despite not having the same quality of wins at the time, and so on. Having a stronger resume doesn't equate to being the better fighter, and surely you know that.

As I acknowledged, evaluating 'greatness' isn't necessarily just a matter of how good someone is or was.

Odd response, I clearly stated that resume has nothing to do with predictions or results for that matter. Who says they are?

My post was directed towards world ranked's comments about a resume being the measure of how good a fighter is; you write ' I clearly stated that....' but I wasn't addressing your statements the first place. WR has wrote explicitly in several threads that you shouldn't consider one fighter better than or as good as another if their resume isn't of the same quality, but I don't think that's accurate, and hence I mentioned cases of less proven fighters beating more proven fighters. Sergey Kovalev was better than Campillo entering their bout, but did his career rank higher at the time? Obviously not...which is why I acknowledged that measuring greatness or the strength's of one career has more to it.

Now, maybe WR is using terms like 'good' in a different manner than I'm used to when addressing fighters, such that one can have far more ability than the other and be vastly better in the ring, yet not as good.

Still odd, but ok.

[world ranked]

Okay, so when you suggest that a resume is the measure of how good a fighter is, do you simply mean how proven they are? How their career ranks rather than how their ability ranks?

both career and how proven a resume doesn't tell you ability. But ability doesn't always translate but resume should always be the basis for a pick, a debate who' s better if who you beat doesn't matter then what's the point.

[world ranked]

1) Pavlik, Taylor isn't even in the same era is GGG

2) Sturm , Cotto, Martinez ducked Golovkin several and paid him several to step aside. Golovkin left Universum because they allowed Sturm to duck him. And we know how WBC played with him when Cotto and Martinez was champions.

3) Soliman, Lee really

4) Quillin didn't he beat the guy that Ko'ed Quillin in one round.

5) And Canelo beating Cotto at middleweight doesn't makes you one of the best middleweights of this era

Try again muddasucker!

Keep laughing, jock-sniffer. Golovkin's record stinks.

These were all top fighters in his division that he didn't fight, since he won his WBA title in 2010, that would have made his record significantly stronger.

At no point Soliman would have helped his resume in an ATG debate.

[crusader]

Odd response, I clearly stated that resume has nothing to do with predictions or results for that matter. Who says they are?

My post was directed towards world ranked's comments about a resume being the measure of how good a fighter is; you write ' I clearly stated that....' but I wasn't addressing your statements the first place. WR has wrote explicitly in several threads that you shouldn't consider one fighter better than or as good as another if their resume isn't of the same quality, but I don't think that's accurate, and hence I mentioned cases of less proven fighters beating more proven fighters. Sergey Kovalev was better than Campillo entering their bout, but did his career rank higher at the time? Obviously not...which is why I acknowledged that measuring greatness or the strength's of one career has more to it.

Now, maybe WR is using terms like 'good' in a different manner than I'm used to when addressing fighters, such that one can have far more ability than the other and be vastly better in the ring, yet not as good.

Still odd, but ok.

Can't see what's odd about it if actually understand my points, which should be quite easy to follow.

Ward was less proven than Kessler, yet showed himself to be the superior of the two when they fought. Whatever 'greatness' he subsequently derived was not relevant to my point, which was merely that a fighter can be better than someone with a stronger resume. Wasn't Ward was the better man stepping into the ring? Didn't Kessler have a stronger record? If you agree with both points, you should've gotten it.

WR has suggested in many threads that a fighter should not be considered better than another if their resume isn't as good, yet here the less proven fighter showed his superiority over the more proven fighter. Same thing goes for Kovalev vs Campillo...

Typically more goes into rating 'greatness' than ability, which I acknowledged in my first post.

[Horse]

At no point Soliman would have helped his resume in an ATG debate.

Yes, it would.

Just look at his record. He needs all the help he can get.

[world ranked]

At no point Soliman would have helped his resume in an ATG debate.

Yes, it would.

Just look at his record. He needs all the help he can get.

Soliman not good enough to make a dent on anybody resume. If Soliman has to be mentioned in your argument u need a new one.

[Horse]

Soliman not good enough to make a dent on anybody resume. If Soliman has to be mentioned in your argument u need a new one.

So Soliman wouldn't make it into Golovkin's top 10 best wins?

[world ranked]

Soliman not good enough to make a dent on anybody resume. If Soliman has to be mentioned in your argument u need a new one.

So Soliman wouldn't make it into Golovkin's top 10 best wins?

When you look at ATG or just looking resume u don't need to go 10 deep to determine how good a fighter is. The top two or three would be sufficient to tell what level there on.

[Horse]

When you look at ATG or just looking resume u don't need to go 10 deep to determine how good a fighter is. The top two or three would be sufficient to tell what level there on.

How shallow.

Golovkin's record looks terrible however many fighters down his list you go.

His record simply isn't ATG calibre as it is.

[world ranked]

When you look at ATG or just looking resume u don't need to go 10 deep to determine how good a fighter is. The top two or three would be sufficient to tell what level there on.

How shallow.

Golovkin's record looks terrible however many fighters down his list you go.

His record simply isn't ATG calibre as it is.

I agree than his resume isn't ATG caliber but his resume isn't as terrible as you think it is. He beat the two or the top 3 guys in the division, beat a few former world champs in Ouma, Geale.

[Enlightened-One]

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.

Golovkin isn’t an all-time-great fighter yet, even though he may have the potential to do so, he needs to achieve something truly special inside the ring to prevent his legacy from diminishing to the point of obscurity decades after his retirement, where his name will only be remembered by a select few hard-core fight fans.

Some points to consider:
• His popularity hasn’t crossed over to the mainstream.
• He hasn’t been engaged in a rivalry where his bouts were deemed so exciting that they captured the public imagination.
• In terms of historical contribution to the sport, he hasn’t done anything remarkable that will never be forgotten.
• Since 2008, whether it’s his fault or not, he hasn’t faced the very best 160lb-ers the division has to offer.
• Despite claiming that no fighter between 154lbs to 175lbs can beat him, he hasn’t competed in other weight classes.
• Even if he breaks Hopkins’ 20 middleweight title defences record, it’ll be diminished greatly by the poor quality contenders he faced, coupled with the fact that he was a long-time holder of a junior belt, at a time where there were more senior titleholders.
• GGG has never had to overcome adversity inside the ring and he has only ever engaged in one truly evenly-contested contest.

To be honest, GGG is a fantastic fighter, but his talents are only appreciated by hard-core fight fans, but whether it’s his fault or not, he hasn’t done anything remarkable inside or outside the ring. And please bear in mind, the bar for “all-time-greatness” has to be set really high.

Gennady might even be technically better than several Hall-of-Famers, but we can’t bestow “all-time-greatness” based on theories, where there is a distinct lack of real-world evidence to backup this claim.

Golovkin is simply a very highly-skilled fighter with a fantastic chin and good punching power, but he hasn’t been given the opportunity to achieve genuine “ all-time greatness”, which is a shame, because the potential might be there, but so-far, it’s unfulfilled.

[DannyMCR]

What's an ATG?

Top 100 of all time? Top 200?

He wouldn't be in my top 100, possibly not in the top 200 either.

Could you list your entire top 200?

[boxing_rocks]

He is definitely a top 10 MW of all times.