Golovkin declared Top 24 P4P of last 25 years

[Pigeons]

3 Hopkins 2 Pacquiao 1 TBE

[Golden Boi 360]

Top 3 signature wins: Grzegorz Proksa, TKO5, 2012; Curtis Stevens, TKO8, 2013; David Lemieux, TKO8, 2015.

[techliam]

only on team Gargle Gennady's Gonads


Canelo beat Cotto who beat Martinez who beat Pavlik who beat Taylor who beat Hopkins who beat Trinidad, ODLH, and Holmes to unify the divison

sorry fellas just because a fighter you like hasnt accomplished something doesnt mean it doesnt matter....lineal titles matttered before, they matter now and will after his career is over. get over it

Not a massive fan of Golovkin really, not that this poor deflection means anything

I asked for a justification for why you believe lineal titles should be given special treatment, and you replied with a very basic explanation of how a lineage works. This indicates that you aren't really worth replying to considering you don't understand simple concepts..

However, lineages have always had to be legitimised, just as regular titles have. In most past cases, the lineal title also fell upon the consensus no.1 fighter so the legitimacy was assumed fairly often. But it's not always the case. The point of the lineal system was to highlight who was the lineal 'man', not the best. Where the lineal 'man' doesn't reflect consensus, it loses its value. You yourself have placed unwarranted value on lineal titles (which you need to justify), I prefer to look at the champions instead.

[therealpugilist]

Not a massive fan of Golovkin really, not that this poor deflection means anything

I asked for a justification for why you believe lineal titles should be given special treatment, and you replied with a very basic explanation of how a lineage works. This indicates that you aren't really worth replying to considering you don't understand simple concepts..

However, lineages have always had to be legitimised, just as regular titles have. In most past cases, the lineal title also fell upon the consensus no.1 fighter so the legitimacy was assumed fairly often. But it's not always the case. The point of the lineal system was to highlight who was the lineal 'man', not the best. Where the lineal 'man' doesn't reflect consensus, it loses its value. You yourself have placed unwarranted value on lineal titles (which you need to justify), I prefer to look at the champions instead.

People made a big deal out of the tourney @ 160 last decade cuz the best fought the best n their was a lineal champion

Same with 168 this decade

Same as wlad kicking major tush heavy beating all the top guys

If it didn't matter as much as you say, why is it only GGG die hards minimize the importance

[techliam]

People made a big deal out of the tourney @ 160 last decade cuz the best fought the best n their was a lineal champion

Same with 168 this decade

Same as wlad kicking major tush heavy beating all the top guys

If it didn't matter as much as you say, why is it only GGG die hards minimize the importance

The lineal title wasn't the most important thing in those scenarios, the most important thing with Wlad, Ward and Hopkins was that they were the consensus best at their weight. That factor legitimised their lineal (and other) titles. The same goes for Golovkin's current unified championship (therefore logically the opposite for Canelo's lineal title). I'm really not sure whats hard to grasp there. Another example would be Roy Jones/Dariusz Michalczewski - Roy Jones was the consensus no.1 Light Heavyweight and thus Dariusz' lineal title was illegitimate (as was his WBO title).

As for the bolded, again I don't recognise your assumption. I've consistently argued against the false assumption that lineal = best (or most legitimate) on this forum. The underlying bias for your post is a clear anti-Golovkin (or Golovkin fan) one, much equal to the bias that the GGG-fanboys you refer to have for their idol. You're the flip side of the coin really, and what makes me cringe most is the fact you probably don't recognise it

[Raonic]

Yea I like GGG and think he can be an all time great but this is a big reach.

[SunSpace]

You think so? Cotto was never the best in any division, for Tito you could at least make the case. And doubt Cotto wins, Tito is like a bigger, much better Ricardo Torres

Cotto was the best at 160. He was THE champion. And tell me of one opponent that Cotto lost to that Tito wouldn't have lost to, as well, probably in even worse fashion.

As for Ricardo Torres, he was one heck of a fighter, but let's not skip over the serious weight-issues Cotto was having around that time. He was going into fights drained, and it cost him throughout the Torres fight. And BTW, Torres was also last-minute replacement, so it's also not like Cotto had time to prepare specifically for him. Torres came out to do what he did best, and a great fight came out of it. At the end of it all, though, Cotto won.

Tito would not be able to handle Cotto's boxing skills. No way, no how. Cotto not only beats him in terms of accomplishments, but he'd beat him in the ring, too.

Heck, even Margarito would beat Tito in a prime-vs-prime, wraps-vs-wraps match-up. Too much of a work-rate for Tito to keep up, and Tito was never as good at taking punishment as he was at dishing it out. Margarito walked through everything, in what would eventually cost him an eye.

And I'm mentioning the wraps to put them both in top form. Without them, this wouldn't even be a debate in connection to Cotto, now would it?