BoxRec

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.

Lots of people consider Wladimir Klitschko an ATG even though he's never fought one. Sometimes guys are just so dominant that they can be considered one even after not fighting another prime ATG.

Because he is The best in his era . He is Unified Champion and holds at least one Title since seven years , also he has an unbelievable Knockout Streak and has beaten Daniel Jacobs relatively clear , despite what a lot of biased People say. His Career is not over , i think he has 3 or 4 years left in the Business and will fight better opposition and will break Hopkins Record , so he is an legitimate ATG at the End of his Career

Niko1209 wrote:Because he is The best in his era . He is Unified Champion and holds at least one Title since seven years , also he has an unbelievable Knockout Streak and has beaten Daniel Jacobs relatively clear , despite what a lot of biased People say. His Career is not over , i think he has 3 or 4 years left in the Business and will fight better opposition and will break Hopkins Record , so he is an legitimate ATG at the End of his Career

Why is it bias if people thought Jacobs won or was a close fight. It doesn't match to your opinion so its bias?

world ranked wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:Because he is The best in his era . He is Unified Champion and holds at least one Title since seven years , also he has an unbelievable Knockout Streak and has beaten Daniel Jacobs relatively clear , despite what a lot of biased People say. His Career is not over , i think he has 3 or 4 years left in the Business and will fight better opposition and will break Hopkins Record , so he is an legitimate ATG at the End of his Career

Why is it bias if people thought Jacobs won or was a close fight. It doesn't match to your opinion so its bias?

Well, officially, Golovkin beat Jacobs. Whether you had Jacobs winning or not, doesn't really matter anymore. Golovkin is the champion and the fight was close. It's like people who give Marquez all 4 Pacquiao fights.

Golovkin definitely edged it

Who really considers Golovkin an ATG right now? If he's an ATG then so are Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor.

world ranked wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:Because he is The best in his era . He is Unified Champion and holds at least one Title since seven years , also he has an unbelievable Knockout Streak and has beaten Daniel Jacobs relatively clear , despite what a lot of biased People say. His Career is not over , i think he has 3 or 4 years left in the Business and will fight better opposition and will break Hopkins Record , so he is an legitimate ATG at the End of his Career

Why is it bias if people thought Jacobs won or was a close fight. It doesn't match to your opinion so its bias?

Because most People who think Jacobs won are in fact African Americans or Golovkin haters.
The most neutral People who watched the fight including me thought that Golovkin won it 115-112 or 114-113 , i can see why People had it a draw , because 1 or 2 Rounds were very Close , but by no means , i can see how People can think that Jacobs won the Fight .
It was not enough for Jacobs to win the Fight .
He was constantly on his backfoot , Golovkins Jab was tremendous and he landed more Punches in nearly every Round , Jacobs was flashier but most of his punches did not land .
You have to beat the Champ to become the Champ and Jacobs was not good enough , especially in the first half of the Fight, were he was knocked down.
Most People think that Jacobs won the Fight , because Golovkin was not as dominant as he used to be in the other Fights , but he still won the Fight.

Niko1209 wrote:Because he is The best in his era . He is Unified Champion and holds at least one Title since seven years , also he has an unbelievable Knockout Streak and has beaten Daniel Jacobs relatively clear , despite what a lot of biased People say.

Plus the brilliant amateur record. The question is not whether he's an ATG, but whether he's TBE.

Is he better than Hagler?

Thomastearns wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:Because he is The best in his era . He is Unified Champion and holds at least one Title since seven years , also he has an unbelievable Knockout Streak and has beaten Daniel Jacobs relatively clear , despite what a lot of biased People say.

Plus the brilliant amateur record. The question is not whether he's an ATG, but whether he's TBE.

Is he better than Hagler?

TBE really biggest win a close fight vs Jacobs I think that's crazy for to even be considered. Sergio Martinez run imo has better quality opponents which should be most important who you beat. Not what you think would happened.

Niko1209 wrote:

world ranked wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:Because he is The best in his era . He is Unified Champion and holds at least one Title since seven years , also he has an unbelievable Knockout Streak and has beaten Daniel Jacobs relatively clear , despite what a lot of biased People say. His Career is not over , i think he has 3 or 4 years left in the Business and will fight better opposition and will break Hopkins Record , so he is an legitimate ATG at the End of his Career

Why is it bias if people thought Jacobs won or was a close fight. It doesn't match to your opinion so its bias?

Because most People who think Jacobs won are in fact African Americans or Golovkin haters.
The most neutral People who watched the fight including me thought that Golovkin won it 115-112 or 114-113 , i can see why People had it a draw , because 1 or 2 Rounds were very Close , but by no means , i can see how People can think that Jacobs won the Fight .
It was not enough for Jacobs to win the Fight .
He was constantly on his backfoot , Golovkins Jab was tremendous and he landed more Punches in nearly every Round , Jacobs was flashier but most of his punches did not land .
You have to beat the Champ to become the Champ and Jacobs was not good enough , especially in the first half of the Fight, were he was knocked down.
Most People think that Jacobs won the Fight , because Golovkin was not as dominant as he used to be in the other Fights , but he still won the Fight.

Fight isn't scored by you got to beat the fighter convincingly. Whoever wins the most rounds should win the fight. If you go by your reasoning no boxer without a punch would always lose a close fight. That most people who think Jacobs won are haters or African Americans is just flat out wrong. What facts u have other than a personal opinion.

world ranked wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:

world ranked wrote:
Why is it bias if people thought Jacobs won or was a close fight. It doesn't match to your opinion so its bias?

Because most People who think Jacobs won are in fact African Americans or Golovkin haters.
The most neutral People who watched the fight including me thought that Golovkin won it 115-112 or 114-113 , i can see why People had it a draw , because 1 or 2 Rounds were very Close , but by no means , i can see how People can think that Jacobs won the Fight .
It was not enough for Jacobs to win the Fight .
He was constantly on his backfoot , Golovkins Jab was tremendous and he landed more Punches in nearly every Round , Jacobs was flashier but most of his punches did not land .
You have to beat the Champ to become the Champ and Jacobs was not good enough , especially in the first half of the Fight, were he was knocked down.
Most People think that Jacobs won the Fight , because Golovkin was not as dominant as he used to be in the other Fights , but he still won the Fight.

Fight isn't scored by you got to beat the fighter convincingly. Whoever wins the most rounds should win the fight. If you go by your reasoning no boxer without a punch would always lose a close fight. That most people who think Jacobs won are haters or African Americans is just flat out wrong. What facts u have other than a personal opinion.

If the Fight is Close , the Champion will get the Decision 9 out of 10 Times , therefore you have to beat the Champion more convincingly , also Jacobs didnt won that Fight , he lost it , he had to win 2 more Rounds to get the Decision , the Judges got it right

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.

jujigatame wrote:Who really considers Golovkin an ATG right now? If he's an ATG then so are Kelly Pavlik and Jermain Taylor.

I consider GGG an all time great, but i don't consider Pavlik or Taylor greats.

Why?

Because Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight since Hagler, possibly better. Pavlik and Taylor clearly aren't.

Ricky_ wrote:I consider GGG an all time great, but i don't consider Pavlik or Taylor greats.

Why?

Because Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight since Hagler, possibly better. Pavlik and Taylor clearly aren't.

Pavlik and Taylor might well have both beaten Golovkin.

He's not beaten anyone better than either of them on paper.

Horse wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:I consider GGG an all time great, but i don't consider Pavlik or Taylor greats.

Why?

Because Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight since Hagler, possibly better. Pavlik and Taylor clearly aren't.

Pavlik and Taylor might well have both beaten Golovkin.

He's not beaten anyone better than either of them on paper.

Not every fighter has the good fortune of a great contemporary. We need to make judgements sometimes. There are many fighters in history considered "greats" who probably also lacked real quality in opposition, Marciano, Wlad, etc.

Ricky_ wrote:Not every fighter has the good fortune of a great contemporary. We need to make judgements sometimes. There are many fighters in history considered "greats" who probably also lacked real quality in opposition, Marciano, Wlad, etc.

I make the judgement that Golovkin doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

It has never seemed like Golovkin has gone too far out of his way to try to get the big fights.

Horse wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:I consider GGG an all time great, but i don't consider Pavlik or Taylor greats.

Why?

Because Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight since Hagler, possibly better. Pavlik and Taylor clearly aren't.

Pavlik and Taylor might well have both beaten Golovkin.

He's not beaten anyone better than either of them on paper.

I think Jacobs and Lemieux are underrated , Lemieux is a very good Fighter and GGG declassed him , he dominated and wrecked him , beat the sh** out of him .
I think Pavlik and Taylor are not a lot better than Lemieux , also it is nonsense to compare Eras.
Povetkin the big fat lumbering Bum would have beaten Jack Johnson , is he a greater Fighter than him ? Absolutely not , you cannot compare Eras , this is Bulls*** , get outta here , GGG is a great Fighter and i am not even a big Fan , you have to accept it

Niko1209 wrote:I think Jacobs and Lemieux are underrated , Lemieux is a very good Fighter and GGG declassed him , he dominated and wrecked him , beat the sh** out of him .
I think Pavlik and Taylor are not a lot better than Lemieux , also it is nonsense to compare Eras.
Povetkin the big fat lumbering Bum would have beaten Jack Johnson , is he a greater Fighter than him ? Absolutely not , you cannot compare Eras , this is Bulls*** , get outta here , GGG is a great Fighter and i am not even a big Fan , you have to accept it

If you don't compare eras then you can't really talk about ATG status.

Golovkin doesn't have the record to be an ATG. I'm not sure that he has the ability either.

He's a very overrated fighter.

Good question, his only saving grace is that he's beaten all of them. I doubt I'd have him top 30 at middleweight.

Horse wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:Not every fighter has the good fortune of a great contemporary. We need to make judgements sometimes. There are many fighters in history considered "greats" who probably also lacked real quality in opposition, Marciano, Wlad, etc.

I make the judgement that Golovkin doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

It has never seemed like Golovkin has gone too far out of his way to try to get the big fights.

I reckon he's been avoided by those with most to lose. I genuinely think he was interested in fighting Froch post Groves 2. Canelo is simply on the run. I'm not sure what battering Canelo will really do for his legacy though, he would be the biggest name on his CV but i think he's beaten Middleweights already that could beat Canelo.

Niko1209 wrote:

Horse wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:I consider GGG an all time great, but i don't consider Pavlik or Taylor greats.

Why?

Because Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight since Hagler, possibly better. Pavlik and Taylor clearly aren't.

Pavlik and Taylor might well have both beaten Golovkin.

He's not beaten anyone better than either of them on paper.

I think Jacobs and Lemieux are underrated , Lemieux is a very good Fighter and GGG declassed him , he dominated and wrecked him , beat the sh** out of him .
I think Pavlik and Taylor are not a lot better than Lemieux , also it is nonsense to compare Eras.
Povetkin the big fat lumbering Bum would have beaten Jack Johnson , is he a greater Fighter than him ? Absolutely not , you cannot compare Eras , this is Bulls*** , get outta here , GGG is a great Fighter and i am not even a big Fan , you have to accept it

Lemieux is overrated as hell. Johnson would have butchered Povetkin.

Horse wrote:

Niko1209 wrote:I think Jacobs and Lemieux are underrated , Lemieux is a very good Fighter and GGG declassed him , he dominated and wrecked him , beat the sh** out of him .
I think Pavlik and Taylor are not a lot better than Lemieux , also it is nonsense to compare Eras.
Povetkin the big fat lumbering Bum would have beaten Jack Johnson , is he a greater Fighter than him ? Absolutely not , you cannot compare Eras , this is Bulls*** , get outta here , GGG is a great Fighter and i am not even a big Fan , you have to accept it

If you don't compare eras then you can't really talk about ATG status.

Golovkin doesn't have the record to be an ATG. I'm not sure that he has the ability either.

He's a very overrated fighter.

He sure will have the record to be an ATG if he breaks Hopkins record , i dont think he will lose soon .
Daniel Jacobs who People forget is a good Fighter , had approximately 15 Pounds on him and couldnt even beat him on his baddest Day.
Who else could beat GGG ? I doubt that anybody at 160 Pounds can , i think ether he will retire unbeaten or lose the first Time when he is 40 and at that Time , he will hold the Record and will be undisputed Middleweight Champion and even when you will compare him to Champions from the past , he will be a top 10 Middleweight ATG

We can't based base fighters off what we think they can do. His resume clearly doesn't show he the best middleweight since Hagler. Resume should be they #1 to rate a fighter who a guy has beat is fact not opinion.

Ricky_ wrote:

Horse wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:I consider GGG an all time great, but i don't consider Pavlik or Taylor greats.

Why?

Because Golovkin is clearly the best middleweight since Hagler, possibly better. Pavlik and Taylor clearly aren't.

Pavlik and Taylor might well have both beaten Golovkin.

He's not beaten anyone better than either of them on paper.

Not every fighter has the good fortune of a great contemporary. We need to make judgements sometimes. There are many fighters in history considered "greats" who probably also lacked real quality in opposition, Marciano, Wlad, etc.

Anytime we say make a judgement call then how the fighter is should be questioned.