Who has faced better competition? Broner or Golovkin?

GGG wiling to go up to 168 to fight Chavez Jr >>>>> anything Bummner has done in the ring! Wait....his "willingness" to fight Chavez Jr, a guy most fans think he could beat, is better than anything Broner has done in his career? Explain how this makes sense, please.

Broner has also gone up 4 divisions and fought world champions, while Golovkin hasn't even gone up 1 division nor faced 1 current world champion It's much easier to start at 130 and move up t 147 than to start at 160 and move just two divisions up to 175

GGG wiling to go up to 168 to fight Chavez Jr >>>>> anything Bummner has done in the ring!

I do not understand why ya'll say GGG has more ability when he hasn't even faced a world champion to prove it...Broner was knocking out people and beating them down also when he was facing the level fighters GGG is facing. So how can you explain that? Well Verstyle, until we see Golovkin get a gift decision over a fighter like a Ponce de Leon or have terrible performances against guys like Malignaggi and Molina, then we can safely assume he is the better fighter. :lol1:

I do not understand why ya'll say GGG has more ability when he hasn't even faced a world champion to prove it...Broner was knocking out people and beating them down also when he was facing the level fighters GGG is facing. So how can you explain that?

Bruh, HBO tried to televise the fight but the venue could not accommodate the needs of HBO production staff. also, you doing triangle theory talking about molina's competition vs. adama's competition. worthless. THEN, to make things worse...you short sell GGG and expose the worthlessness of your opinions by saying Broner is a better fighter :lol thats complete bs. do you watch boxing matches or do you skim through them? Broner hasn't shown any noticeable improvement in years. still has that too-wide stance, leaky shoulder-roll defense, and low punch output. he's the #2 hype job in recent years, barely behind Seth Mitchell. In short...go somewhere, sit down and stfu when grown folks are talking. lol@you acting like you know boxing when in reality you know jack ****.....GGG hasn't proven ANYTHING!!!! do you watch boxing matches? broner was running through his mediocre comp just like ggg but unlike ggg, broner stepped up and decided to test his skills. you mad because broner is more proven and accomplished then that hypejob??? kick rocks bytch and get off my dick you fanboy.....damn an alts man i swear.

So a fighter being undefeated is extremely important to you I assume? I thought the majority view on here was Loss's don't matter, if you don't have Loss's it means you didn't fight the best, and wernt a big deal and an "0" isn't important. Now one loss dimishes your legacy. being undefeated matters contextually, if you fought everyone under the sun you could fight and you beat them all like Marciano, your undefeated record holds weight.

vote and discuss Broner thus far, but Golovkin is the better fighter, albeit unproven at the elite level still.

who are those fighters who didnt go into the tournament who were top fighters?? Bute? Ward became top 10 p4p by beating Froch,Kessler,Abraham,Dawson....not because of a damn gold medal...and travel?? wtf does that even matter?? a boxing ring is a boxing ring Bute is one of them, yes. He may not be irrelevant now like he used to but he was one of those at the top of the division food chain. Oh and I do give him props for beating Kessler and Froch. Abraham, Froch got to first along with the list of others. Dawson was a decent win but going up to face him would of been much much better, that's just my opinion on that. While I completely understand your point about a ring is a boxing ring, I look at it differently cause others sacrificed while Ward, not so much into going to the opponent's backyard. It changes the mentality of a boxer sometimes.

No I'm asking you a question. I don't know what your view on Loss's are, hence the question. Considering like I just said, the majority view I read on here is that Loss's are fine and don't diminish anything. Clearly you think otherwise. I think that's a silly way to look at it myself. All the greatest fighters ever have Loss's and in a lot of cases plenty of Loss's. A lot more than 1 and to worse opposition than Maidana. a loss takes you a step back but it doesn't stop there...it all depends on what are you going to do after a loss.

Adama is a cab driver....the fact that GGG fought him is a disgrace, so much so that hbo said f*ck you we're not televising that BS! he could have went up in weight or down in weight and fought better opposition. you said malinaggi wasn't good but isn't that the same guy everyone is giving porter credit for beating? molina has fought tougher guys than adama.....GGG resume is not better than broner's and i'm not even sold on him being the better overall fighter. Bruh, HBO tried to televise the fight but the venue could not accommodate the needs of HBO production staff. also, you doing triangle theory talking about molina's competition vs. adama's competition. worthless. THEN, to make things worse...you short sell GGG and expose the worthlessness of your opinions by saying Broner is a better fighter :lol thats complete bs. do you watch boxing matches or do you skim through them? Broner hasn't shown any noticeable improvement in years. still has that too-wide stance, leaky shoulder-roll defense, and low punch output. he's the #2 hype job in recent years, barely behind Seth Mitchell. In short...go somewhere, sit down and stfu when grown folks are talking.

eh you're muddling the discussion with fanboy stuff. i don't care about your sentiments or your perceptions of posters opinions here. that **** doesn't apply to me. No I'm asking you a question. I don't know what your view on Loss's are, hence the question. Considering like I just said, the majority view I read on here is that Loss's are fine and don't diminish anything. Clearly you think otherwise. I think that's a silly way to look at it myself. All the greatest fighters ever have Loss's and in a lot of cases plenty of Loss's. A lot more than 1 and to worse opposition than Maidana.

So a fighter being undefeated is extremely important to you I assume? I thought the majority view on here was Loss's don't matter, if you don't have Loss's it means you didn't fight the best, and wernt a big deal and an "0" isn't important. Now one loss dimishes your legacy. eh you're muddling the discussion with fanboy stuff. i don't care about your sentiments or your perceptions of posters opinions here. that **** doesn't apply to me.

So a fighter being undefeated is extremely important to you I assume? I thought the majority view on here was Loss's don't matter, if you don't have Loss's it means you didn't fight the best, and wernt a big deal and an "0" isn't important. Now one loss dimishes your legacy. A loss only matters when it comes to undefeated fighters they dont like...what happened to " IF YOU ARE UNDEFEATED YOU HAVEN'T FOUGHT ANYONE"??? posters on here are full of sh1t

He did not cleaned out 168. He fought guys in a tournament and won. Props to him but he didn't do what other did and travel which made me think he's a future diva in the making and I don't think I was mistaken. You fail to realize, a lot of other guys did not go into that tournament and guys that are at the top now, Froch has been taking care of them, not Ward. who are those fighters who didnt go into the tournament who were top fighters?? Bute? Ward became top 10 p4p by beating Froch,Kessler,Abraham,Dawson....not because of a damn gold medal...and travel?? wtf does that even matter?? a boxing ring is a boxing ring

Doing so little?? he cleaned out 168 in a huge tournament and became lineal champion man...wtf?? he wasn't even the favorite going into the tournament...Kessler was He did not cleaned out 168. He fought guys in a tournament and won. Props to him but he didn't do what other did and travel which made me think he's a future diva in the making and I don't think I was mistaken. You fail to realize, a lot of other guys did not go into that tournament and guys that are at the top now, Froch has been taking care of them, not Ward.

it does to me...a loss takes away something from a fighter. that's strange if you think it doesn't. it's a competition and a loss is a loss. of course fighters always have a chance to recover from that loss and sometimes they recover more than what they lost. So a fighter being undefeated is extremely important to you I assume? I thought the majority view on here was Loss's don't matter, if you don't have Loss's it means you didn't fight the best, and wernt a big deal and an "0" isn't important. Now one loss dimishes your legacy.

Broner easily, but Golovkin hasn't been undressed and fuxked up the same way Ade has. Once Ward has finished sabotaging his career, I expect him to deliver on that front.

Don't be silly, Maidana isn't a "top fighter". He's a tough brawler, but definitely not an elite boxer. Broner's close win over a shot Malignaggi doesn't count for much. Look what Porter did to the faded Paulie. Of course he is a top fighter. He's proven that much. Not an "elite boxer" but you don't need to be an elite boxer to be a top fighter.

To those mentioning Broners lose to Maidana..that was in his 4th weightclass...17 pounds over where he started..lets see how Golovkin even does at 175