Why Atlas Leaving Golovkin Off His P4P List is Deeply Flawed

By Andreas Hale, photo by Ed Mulholland

Teddy Atlas will always be known as a respected voice in the sport of boxing. However, his recent ESPN column explaining why he left Gennady Golovkin off of his personal pound for pound list is a bit of a head-scratcher. Granted, these lists are wholly subjective and can be entirely nonsensical but it is about as close as we can come to ranking the best fighters regardless of division.  

Atlas’ list is as follows:

1. Vasyl Lomachenko

2. Terence Crawford

3. Andre Ward

4. Keith Thurman

5. Sergey Kovalev

6. Roman Gonzalez

7. Guillermo Rigondeaux

8. Canelo Alvarez

9. Manny Pacquiao

10. Errol Spence Jr.

On the surface, it’s not a bad list by any stretch of the imagination (although the inclusion of Manny Pacquiao is questionable). However, the exclusion of Golovkin from the list is cause for pause.

The primary qualifier is that Atlas’ list is based on recent performances rather than an entire body of work (which makes Pacquiao’s inclusion even more questionable) and his criteria is as follows:

1. Talent: Pure ability

2. Technique: How does he apply his talent?

3. Time and consistency: How long has he performed at this level?

4. Competition: How good is it?

5. Slippage: There's always someone breathing over your shoulder

With Atlas’ criteria in mind, you can see where Golovkin could fall as far as the seven spot. But anything beyond that is difficult to explain. And the reasons why are all based on Atlas’ own criteria.

If you really pick apart Atlas’ rationale for leaving Golovkin off the list, you realize that his list is quite flawed.

Starting with “slippage,” there may be nobody who has demonstrated more slippage on this list than Manny Pacquiao. The legendary fighter is far from what he once was and despite wins against Timothy Bradley and Jessie Vargas, it is evident that he has slipped more than anybody else on this list. From a knockout artist who overwhelmed his opponents with speed and power to a not-quite-as fast fighter who is still awkward enough to keep his foes off balance, Pacquiao’s demonstration of slippage is far more than anything that Atlas suggests Golovkin went through.

Next is level of competition. Which, admittedly, has always been GGG’s weakest point. And if you take recent performances and combine them with quality of competition, you have the main reason why Golovkin was left off the list, which were his recent performances against Kell Brook and probably Dominic Wade. Both were fights that he won by knockout, extending his KO streak to an eye opening 23 in a row. Nevertheless, Atlas suggested that GGG might be slipping. He pointed out that his “technical flaws were evident” and his level of competition has been “questionable or at least very advantageous for him.”

But what exactly is this slippage that Atlas speaks of? There were moments that Kell Brook was able to land, but those moments were few before Golovkin took over and barreled through the British fighter. Canelo dealt with a similar set of issues against Amir Khan and ended up flattening him. But Canelo isn’t penalized for that? More on that later…

When it comes to competition, it’s very difficult to keep Golovkin off the list in lieu of Errol Spence. We all recognize that Spence’s enormous talent. However, his competition in recent fights certainly doesn’t qualify as close to great. Obviously, Spence will get his opportunity to prove whether or not he can life up to the hype if the deal to face Kell Brook is solidified. But using Atlas’ criteria, Spence shouldn’t be ahead of GGG. Atlas admits this to a certain degree but doubles back to suggest that Spence will eventually perform at a higher level than GGG.

But I thought that this pound for pound list was of the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately variety?

While Spence’s opposition is questionable, the same can be said for GGG’s nemesis, Canelo Alvarez. In a straight comparison, if Canelo wasn’t penalized for his opposition, neither should Golovkin. Both faced welterweights who were undersized in Khan and Brook. However, Brook was unbeaten heading into his fight with Golovkin while Khan had proven to have a fragile jaw over the course of his career. Canelo vanquished Khan in six rounds while Golovkin forced Brook to quit in five. Both Brook and Khan had their moments but were ultimately overpowered and sent packing. Canelo’s other fight was against the overmatched Liam Smith, who he stopped in the 9th round last September while GGG dropped previously unbeaten Dominic Wade in just two rounds last April.

The level of opposition is pretty similar and GGG arguably has the edge in quality of opposition. Either way, it’s hard to see how Canelo can slot in at #9 while GGG is left off the list.

Something has to be said about Golovkin’s remarkable knockout streak. If boxing historians are going to credit Bernard Hopkins for his exceptional middleweight title run against relatively underwhelming opposition, the same credit should be given to Golovkin for knocking out a similar set of opponents. No matter what somebody says about Golovkin’s opponents, the fact that he has not allowed a single one to get to the final bell is quite the remarkable feat. Especially when you consider that a few of them had never been stopped. That has to be taken into account in the “talent” department that Atlas speaks of. After all, Golovkin didn’t win a silver medal in the 2004 because he didn’t have talent. But I digress…

Teddy Atlas will always be a beloved figure in the world of boxing. His opinion is a respected one because of what he has brought to the sport and nobody can take that away from him. That being said, leaving Gennady Golovkin off the pound for pound list in favor of Manny Pacquiao, Errol Spence and Canelo Alvarez is unacceptable.

But this sure makes for a good discussion, doesn’t it?