could golovkin go down as "the best ever"?

According to a few well intention fans of his around here he already is, all he needs is for the other title holders in his division to hand over the belts.

only time will tell, but looking at the lanscape of his potential division IMO he doesnt have a chance to achieve that. He probably is but you have to win the fights that seal it, and not sure those poeple exist in his potential division that will let me achieve that.

Not in my book. To be a great, I think a fighter has to beat at least one great while they are close to their prime. If Ricardo Lopez had made 10 more defenses, he still wouldn't be great in my opinion because all he had to do was eat one pancake and fight Carbahal or Chiquito Gonzalez and instead decided to fight 10-1 Thai fighters and two guys other guys that were no where near greats. GGG would need to clean out 160-168 to be among the greats and I don't see that. He will win some and lose some, like almost all top fighters. Greatness is rare. Lets not crown him or compare him to greats unless or until he can do that. Check back in 5 years. Till then, the jury is still out. :lol1: Blatant hater.

I think it's going to be tough for him to be ever considered in the discussion. Because in my mind, there really isn't anybody at 160 right now to push him. So pardon my hyperbole, but for him to start entering discussions, he would need victories over Froch and Ward at '68, and then a victory over a Kovalev/Stevenson winner in the future at '75, with some cannon fodder at both weight divisions along the way. And I don't see all those falling in line, whether it be because of defeat, or the fights themselves don't come to fruition. Just my two pennies.

Hall of Famer? He isn't even the best middleweight of the last 3 years. He fights about four times a year, hell be at 40 fights in no time. If a few of those are against some top guys he has a chance.

Look at where just about everybody in the top 50 was accomplishment-wise at 32. They were already HoF locks. If Golovkin retired now (at 32) is he even a hall of famer? :lol1: Hall of Famer? He isn't even the best middleweight of the last 3 years.

Taylor, Pavlik and Martinez ALL have better resumes than the Triple Duck... I think GGG is about even with them. We can debate that if you want but the point of the original post (even if I didn't make it very clear) was that GGG has done nothing to be even be considered an all-time fighter. He's barely the best of the last few years. He's not even close to being a HOF fighter. If he cleans out the middleweight division AND cleans out the Super Middleweight division in the next 2-3 years (which is highly unlikely) then he would be borderline HOF and at that point we can start talking about where he ranks in the all-time standings if he does x. As it is GGG is fun to watch. I think he is the best middleweight out there today. But as far all-time rankings. Nah. Not even close.

Not in my book. To be a great, I think a fighter has to beat at least one great while they are close to their prime. If Ricardo Lopez had made 10 more defenses, he still wouldn't be great in my opinion because all he had to do was eat one pancake and fight Carbahal or Chiquito Gonzalez and instead decided to fight 10-1 Thai fighters and two guys other guys that were no where near greats. GGG would need to clean out 160-168 to be among the greats and I don't see that. He will win some and lose some, like almost all top fighters. Greatness is rare. Lets not crown him or compare him to greats unless or until he can do that. Check back in 5 years. Till then, the jury is still out.

I highly doubt anyone we will ever see will be able to compare with guys who fought 200 fights, even if it wasn't always against the best comp. but who in the sport is even fighting the best comp. in their 2-3 fights a year? No one...the best fighters ever are already set in stone, we could put a few modern guys in the top 50 but that's about as far as it goes.

Look at where just about everybody in the top 50 was accomplishment-wise at 32. They were already HoF locks. If Golovkin retired now (at 32) is he even a hall of famer? :lol1: Hell to the no

NO there's nothing else to discuss....have a nice night Ok say he got all the middleweight titles then smoke Andre Ward and Carl Froch, then beat Kovalev?

Look at where just about everybody in the top 50 was accomplishment-wise at 32. They were already HoF locks. If Golovkin retired now (at 32) is he even a hall of famer? :lol1:

I doubt the opponents he needs to further develop and prove his talents are avalible. You need quality opponents who aren't just talented they must have heart. I like his style and his form, I do think he's open on his left side but no one is exposing it so no harm so far. Ray

He's never even sniffing the top 50.

Even in such relatively clear cut sport as tennis there are endless debates on who is TBE. And it is so much easier to compare, because they have a measuring stick in Grand Slams. Boxing - forget it... Tennis is easy. That would be Rod Laver. But wait... he played with wood rackets and racket tech has evolved so much over the years. Bjorn Borg? The competition in his era was beyond any ever seen before or since. But racket and ball tech has evolved since then, not to mention training methods and court out of bounds sensors, etc... Besides, we all know the best tennis player of all time is Serena. :) No matter the sport, there can never be a 'Best of All Time' athlete as there are simply too many variables. Not even in something such as the 100 Metre sprint where a runner is competing against the clock due to training methods and nutrition advances and even shoe tech. TBE designations are as meaningless as P4P lists.

There is no such thing as 'TBE'. The most anyone can hope for is to be the best of their era. Can he become the best middleweight of his era? Yes, he can. The best MW of all time? There is no such thing. The best BOXER of all time? Most definitely NO SUCH THING. I do not even believe in labels such as ATG as that can only apply to the era in which a boxer fought and is entirely dependant on the opponents available to fight at the time. Even in such relatively clear cut sport as tennis there are endless debates on who is TBE. And it is so much easier to compare, because they have a measuring stick in Grand Slams. Boxing - forget it...

There is no such thing as 'TBE'. The most anyone can hope for is to be the best of their era. Can he become the best middleweight of his era? Yes, he can. The best MW of all time? There is no such thing. The best BOXER of all time? Most definitely NO SUCH THING. I do not even believe in labels such as ATG as that can only apply to the era in which a boxer fought and is entirely dependant on the opponents available to fight at the time.

Nah, doubt it. Exciting fighter but has done nothing to suggest he could be 'TBE'.

Gennady's already 32. He'd have to go on literally the most epic run in the history of the sport for like the next 4-5 years to get into the conversation. I mean he'd have to be demolishing name guys left & right.

what does he has to do, who does he has to beat for you to accept him as TBE? "the best ever" at what?