BoxRec

read it at fightnews.

58 % GGG

42 % Mayweather

while i personly have rigondeaux at #1 spot, I realy do like the fact people are now more appreciating GGG and yes, I also do like them going by skill and power and not by stupid records!!!

If you base p4p on who beats who if they were the same weight versus resumes, then yes, GGG should be higher than Floyd.

GGG does not have the resume to be #1 yet.There is just not the competition at 160
for him.He needs Froch and Ward.Maybe Canelo and Cotto to enter the discussion for #1.

hahahaha.....peops get so confused with records...

maidana had such good moments against chickenweather and ggg has twice as much power and punch variety than maidana. ggg would totaly wreck any human being under 72 kg

first middleweight division and maybe some 154 fights, than it is time to step up for super middleweight

Golovkin hasn't faced anything like the level of competition Floyd has yet.

He's looking very good so far, but there's tests to come.

Cotto, as shopworn as he is, would be by far the biggest scalp to date, and Floyd already handled a younger version of Cotto with relative ease.

Rating GGG above Mayweather is ludicrous, when you compare their careers.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Golovkin hasn't faced anything like the level of competition Floyd has yet.

He's looking very good so far, but there's tests to come.

Cotto, as shopworn as he is, would be by far the biggest scalp to date, and Floyd already handled a younger version of Cotto with relative ease.

Rating GGG above Mayweather is ludicrous, when you compare their careers.

That's the problem it's all because of the name. Mayweather could beat a five years past his best Pacquiao and that name would look great on his resume still whereas Golovkin could beat someone with a lesser reputation but at his peak and in terms of merit both wins could be just as equal. Nothing is an exact science in boxing.

ikorolev is right, if you base it on who beats who if they were same size and weight then Golovkin is number one P4P for me but if you judge it on resume then Mayweather is number one. That pretty much sums up why this P4P stuff is largely rubbish.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Golovkin hasn't faced anything like the level of competition Floyd has yet.

He's looking very good so far, but there's tests to come.

Cotto, as shopworn as he is, would be by far the biggest scalp to date, and Floyd already handled a younger version of Cotto with relative ease.

Rating GGG above Mayweather is ludicrous, when you compare their careers.

You do know, I presume, that this is a troll thread, like most of the other 10 GGG threads currently on CS. Feeding a troll by trying to answer him or her only spurs him or her to further mental masturbation

Ian1973 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Golovkin hasn't faced anything like the level of competition Floyd has yet.

He's looking very good so far, but there's tests to come.

Cotto, as shopworn as he is, would be by far the biggest scalp to date, and Floyd already handled a younger version of Cotto with relative ease.

Rating GGG above Mayweather is ludicrous, when you compare their careers.

That's the problem it's all because of the name. Mayweather could beat a five years past his best Pacquiao and that name would look great on his resume still whereas Golovkin could beat someone with a lesser reputation but at his peak and in terms of merit both wins could be just as equal. Nothing is an exact science in boxing.

ikorolev is right, if you base it on who beats who if they were same size and weight then Golovkin is number one P4P for me but if you judge it on resume then Mayweather is number one. That pretty much sums up why this P4P stuff is largely rubbish.

The whole bloody point of P4P is that you judge them as if they were men of equal stature, it's about skills, resume and achievement, not 'who would beat who.'

So you think that if Mayweather was weighing around 170+ on fightnight that GGG would beat him!? I don't.

ward is better than either dude

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Golovkin hasn't faced anything like the level of competition Floyd has yet.

He's looking very good so far, but there's tests to come.

Cotto, as shopworn as he is, would be by far the biggest scalp to date, and Floyd already handled a younger version of Cotto with relative ease.

Rating GGG above Mayweather is ludicrous, when you compare their careers.

That's the problem it's all because of the name. Mayweather could beat a five years past his best Pacquiao and that name would look great on his resume still whereas Golovkin could beat someone with a lesser reputation but at his peak and in terms of merit both wins could be just as equal. Nothing is an exact science in boxing.

ikorolev is right, if you base it on who beats who if they were same size and weight then Golovkin is number one P4P for me but if you judge it on resume then Mayweather is number one. That pretty much sums up why this P4P stuff is largely rubbish.

The whole bloody point of P4P is that you judge them as if they were men of equal stature, it's about skills, resume and achievement, not 'who would beat who.'

So you think that if Mayweather was weighing around 170+ on fightnight that GGG would beat him!? I don't.

Yes.

Based on which of GGG's previous wins over actual opponents are you basing that? He's never faced anyone even remotely as skilled, tough, and hard to hit as Floyd.

Golovkin may look impressive now, but he's not even fought a single elite level opponent, by which I mean someone who is a proven world class fighter, with several wins at world class level, not one! I remember years ago, Nigel Benn looked unstoppable, until he ran into Michael Watson and Chris Eubank - now I'm not saying GGG isn't more skilful than Benn, but he's looking incredible against guys who are a tier below at best from elite level, proven world class fighters.

Unfortunately, Cotto isn't really a proper middleweight, and is near the end of a long, very tough career, so even if that fight happens, we may not really see him tested properly.

I'd like to see him move up and fight Froch or Ward, because there's not a great talent pool at 160 - I suspect that he's going to have to, because he's pretty big at 160 already, and will probably need to, unless he somehow gets his fight with Floyd at 160 or 154.

I just think it's really a big early to be making such huge claims for a guy who really hasn't faced the kind of competition you need to, to prove yourself a great fighter.

the fans have spoken.

Golovkin is the best fighter on the planet, peroid.

Floyd didn't look like the P4P #1 boxer in his past two fights against Maidana.

In contrast, GGG looked great in his past two fights.

I gotta leave this thread you guys breath smells like Golovkins balls.

Ian1973 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Golovkin hasn't faced anything like the level of competition Floyd has yet.

He's looking very good so far, but there's tests to come.

Cotto, as shopworn as he is, would be by far the biggest scalp to date, and Floyd already handled a younger version of Cotto with relative ease.

Rating GGG above Mayweather is ludicrous, when you compare their careers.

That's the problem it's all because of the name. Mayweather could beat a five years past his best Pacquiao and that name would look great on his resume still whereas Golovkin could beat someone with a lesser reputation but at his peak and in terms of merit both wins could be just as equal. Nothing is an exact science in boxing.

ikorolev is right, if you base it on who beats who if they were same size and weight then Golovkin is number one P4P for me but if you judge it on resume then Mayweather is number one. That pretty much sums up why this P4P stuff is largely rubbish.

Isnt floyd out of his prime now though using that logic?

Freedom2013 wrote:Floyd didn't look like the P4P #1 boxer in his past two fights against Maidana.

In contrast, GGG looked great in his past two fights.

Oh yea because Maidana isn't a better fighter at his class
than Marco Rubio or Dan Geale or anything.

diddy wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:Floyd didn't look like the P4P #1 boxer in his past two fights against Maidana.

In contrast, GGG looked great in his past two fights.

Oh yea because Maidana isn't a better fighter at his class
than Marco Rubio or Dan Geale or anything.

You will be banging your head against the wall trying to argue this.It is easier to
just go to the next thread.It saves the migraines that accompany using common sense in
a boxing forum.

Proof that Golovkin's nuthuggers are the most obnoxious, ignorant f*ggots in all of boxing fandom. Golovkin's career thus far has not even equaled what Bute's was in 2011. He has not done enough to necessitate even a top 10 spot p4p. I can't fathom how anyone could hug nuts that shamelessly. Have some dignity.

lefty wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Golovkin hasn't faced anything like the level of competition Floyd has yet.

He's looking very good so far, but there's tests to come.

Cotto, as shopworn as he is, would be by far the biggest scalp to date, and Floyd already handled a younger version of Cotto with relative ease.

Rating GGG above Mayweather is ludicrous, when you compare their careers.

That's the problem it's all because of the name. Mayweather could beat a five years past his best Pacquiao and that name would look great on his resume still whereas Golovkin could beat someone with a lesser reputation but at his peak and in terms of merit both wins could be just as equal. Nothing is an exact science in boxing.

ikorolev is right, if you base it on who beats who if they were same size and weight then Golovkin is number one P4P for me but if you judge it on resume then Mayweather is number one. That pretty much sums up why this P4P stuff is largely rubbish.

Isnt floyd out of his prime now though using that logic?

Yes, to be fair, I think he is on the decline. I don't think he's declined quite as much as Manny has though. I've nothing to back that up. just my opinion.

I've never seen a guy get slurped this vigorously for beating nothing but gatekeepers.

That's the answer. Not only does GGG beat his opponents he KTFO. Everyone likes a puncher. How can anyone not say that KO of Rubio was awesome. I have been to at least three or four fights at Stub Hub. I went to Margarito Williams that was not near a sell out. First time I ever recall seeing the Stub Hub packed to the brim was last night. . Fans will pay to see a puncher like GGG. It's as simple as that.

diddy wrote:I've never seen a guy get slurped this vigorously for beating nothing but gatekeepers.

I would not of said it as crudely. But i agree with the sentiment 100%..GGG may be the next big thing.
But until he beats some "A" game opponents he should not be rated as #1.

Lackeos wrote:Proof that Golovkin's nuthuggers are the most obnoxious, ignorant f*ggots in all of boxing fandom. Golovkin's career thus far has not even equaled what Bute's was in 2011. He has not done enough to necessitate even a top 10 spot p4p. I can't fathom how anyone could hug nuts that shamelessly. Have some dignity.

Here's an idea, use your eyeballs. What bearing does Floyd beating DeLaHoya 8 years ago have on Golovkins skill set? He's the best fighter on the planet peroid. When Floyd wiped the floor with Coralles he was at his absolutel prime yet only rated about 6 in pfp rankings cause shitebags need to wait for the obvious skillset to overcome an established name first. It's like the Klitchko bashing, they haven't had the competition but any idiot can see either Brother would be a handful for any heavyweight in history.

tiny_acres wrote:

diddy wrote:I've never seen a guy get slurped this vigorously for beating nothing but gatekeepers.

I would not of said it as crudely. But i agree with the sentiment 100%..GGG may be the next big thing.
But until he beats some "A" game opponents he should not be rated as #1.

There are no A opponents left at MW. Martinez is shot, everybody else is nowhere near GGG, so wouldn't probably qualify for an "A" game opponents in your book.