How can anyone rank GGG over Kovalev or Wlad?

First, what makes Dirrell a great fighter. He very limited for one and has no heart. And not putting down Dirrell but don't understand why the SMW version of NDaM is such a great win. Second, Cotto is a HOF, stand out amateur, and world class. He presented speed Geale never saw before and had to drop down in weight. Froch is none of that. And Hatton got his lights put out by Manny. Does that mean everything he did in his career before that was meaningless. No one said Dirrell was a great fighter. I don't know what the rest of your post is about, but again I ask, who on gggs limited resume is a better win than Dirrell?

Dirrell always lost when is mattered. NDaM won when it mattered. That's why one is a former champion and the other is a former title challenger. Career loser vs former titlist, lmao. Bronze medalist vs Silver Medalist, lmao. Who has N'dam beat and what title did he win?

I don't even know who you are talking about any more. I can't even take you seriously. Froch = Geale Dirrell = N'dam :lol1: Any other ridiculous comparisons you want to make to excuse GGG's piss poor resume? Dirrell always lost when is mattered. NDaM won when it mattered. That's why one is a former champion and the other is a former title challenger. Career loser vs former titlist, lmao. Bronze medalist vs Silver Medalist, lmao.

I know it was pretty funny comparing a career loser to an former titlist lmao. I don't even know who you are talking about any more. I can't even take you seriously. Froch = Geale Dirrell = N'dam :lol1: Any other ridiculous comparisons you want to make to excuse GGG's piss poor resume?

This guy is laugh-a-minute :lol1: I know it was pretty funny comparing a career loser to an former titlist lmao.

The P4P rankings are like the defnintion of beautiful. It is all subjective. People who DKSAB will rank Golovkin in the top three P4P. People who actually do know something about boxing won't even put him in the top 10. Let me guess your P4P list... 1. Floyd 2. Floyd 3. Floyd 4. Ward 5. Stevenson 6. Broner 7. Wilder 8. Garcia 9. Spence 10. Beiber (future TBE yo)

Because Hype man! The hype factor can't be discounted.

First, what makes Dirrell a great fighter. He very limited for one and has no heart. And not putting down Dirrell but don't understand why the SMW version of NDaM is such a great win. Second, Cotto is a HOF, stand out amateur, and world class. He presented speed Geale never saw before and had to drop down in weight. Froch is none of that. And Hatton got his lights put out by Manny. Does that mean everything he did in his career before that was meaningless. This guy is laugh-a-minute :lol1:

fanboys will be fanboys.

Fighting in that weak division he is in, he better be winning in a more dominant fashion than what Kovalev did against the tougher Pascal, Hopkins, Cleverly. Rubio, Geale, Stevens, Lemiuex are completely different levels than what is available at 168-175. A lower level. Disagree. The whole 'MW is weak' is simply not true, especially when compared to SMW and LHW. SMW has aging AA, chunky, Jack and Dirrell. Not an impressive list. There's a thread on these forums talking about how weak SMW is. LHW is even worse. It's literally Kovalev, Ward and a protected, aging Adonis. Pascal lost to 50 year old Hopkins, and Cleverly is far from impressive. He's basically Geale :-/

So exactly who on gggs less than stellar resume is a better fighter than Dirrel? First, what makes Dirrell a great fighter. He very limited for one and has no heart. And not putting down Dirrell but don't understand why the SMW version of NDaM is such a great win. Second, Cotto is a HOF, stand out amateur, and world class. He presented speed Geale never saw before and had to drop down in weight. Froch is none of that. And Hatton got his lights put out by Manny. Does that mean everything he did in his career before that was meaningless.

Froch is a caveman, a natural 168lb Geale's gives Froch absolute hell. You act like Froch is Marvin Hagker when he lost to a guy Calzaghe toyed with. Froch isn't on that level where I just assume he wins. He was getting ass kicked by Jermaine Tayler, humiliated by Ward, struggled with a prospect Dirrel, got put on his ass by Groves, went to war with Groves the second time, couldn't put away an old Glen Johnson, and would have been Calzaghe's bytch had they fought. Froch is good and I would favor him over Geale due to size but Froch ain't GGG and he ain't Cotto. He doesn't process half the skills they do. But a natural and prime 168 Geale gives Froch hell and anyone who knows boxing knows that. The same Geale that got his lights put out by Cotto? You're really reaching with this one.............

Dirrel is better, why because you say he is? Dirrel is a mental midget who hasn't beaten anyone at all. So exactly who on gggs less than stellar resume is a better fighter than Dirrel?

DeGale is 29, 4 years younger than Golovkin. He beat Andre Dirrell, better than anyone on GGG's resume. The majority of GGG's opponents are low quality fighters. Murray is a good fighter, that's about the only guy. GGG has a good resume for a fighter in his 20s. Not a guy with 400 amateur fights, 33 years old, 9 years as a pro and will be in pro boxing for a decade in June 2016. I think that when DeGale gets to the 10 year mark in his pro career, he will have a significantly better resume than Golovkin at 10 years. Tremendously and emphatically put.

Well if you do a p4p list based on who looks the most unbeatable then yeah I could easily see him being ranked over WK and Kov. He looks unstoppable at 160, kovalev looks beatable at 175 and Wlad can always get caught. Personally for me I see no reason as to why GGG should move up, he's comfortable fighting at 160 and he should remain there unless otherwise. If he wants to chase greatness and take the risk of moving up then yeah he should but no one should be pressured into fighting in a division that's not naturally there's.

WRF does being a sparring partner have to do with anything. Porter was Pacquiao sparring partner does that make him less of a fighter. If Froch is as good as you think then wouldn't that mean Barker gained valuable experience going into the fight. You don't understand the sport and that's ok but there's no such thing as sure bet in boxing especially when taking about a limited fighter like Froch. It's Darren Barker though..... He beat Geale with the hips of an 80 year old man :lol1:

I don't even think I need to respond much to this ....I'll just let people read it and judge for themselves Geale....the guy who got outfought and lost to Darren Barker....Froch's sparring partner :lol1: WRF does being a sparring partner have to do with anything. Porter was Pacquiao sparring partner does that make him less of a fighter. If Froch is as good as you think then wouldn't that mean Barker gained valuable experience going into the fight. You don't understand the sport and that's ok but there's no such thing as sure bet in boxing especially when taking about a limited fighter like Froch.

Froch is a caveman, a natural 168lb Geale's gives Froch absolute hell. You act like Froch is Marvin Hagker when he lost to a guy Calzaghe toyed with. Froch isn't on that level where I just assume he wins. He was getting ass kicked by Jermaine Tayler, humiliated by Ward, struggled with a prospect Dirrel, got put on his ass by Groves, went to war with Groves the second time, couldn't put away an old Glen Johnson, and would have been Calzaghe's bytch had they fought. Froch is good and I would favor him over Geale due to size but Froch ain't GGG and he ain't Cotto. He doesn't process half the skills they do. But a natural and prime 168 Geale gives Froch hell and anyone who knows boxing knows that. I don't even think I need to respond much to this ....I'll just let people read it and judge for themselves Geale....the guy who got outfought and lost to Darren Barker....Froch's sparring partner :lol1:

I admit it I'm a hater where as you think Froch isn't any better than Geale or Macklin which makes you a true boxing fan who knows the sport! Froch is a caveman, a natural 168lb Geale's gives Froch absolute hell. You act like Froch is Marvin Hagker when he lost to a guy Calzaghe toyed with. Froch isn't on that level where I just assume he wins. He was getting ass kicked by Jermaine Tayler, humiliated by Ward, struggled with a prospect Dirrel, got put on his ass by Groves, went to war with Groves the second time, couldn't put away an old Glen Johnson, and would have been Calzaghe's bytch had they fought. Froch is good and I would favor him over Geale due to size but Froch ain't GGG and he ain't Cotto. He doesn't process half the skills they do. But a natural and prime 168 Geale gives Froch hell and anyone who knows boxing knows that.

How is it even possible? all 3 have only fought in 1 division but Wlad and Kovalev have beaten more world champions AND ALSO END FIGHTS VIA KNOCKOUT..Please help me understand how GGG can be ranked higher then either This whole "pound for pound" thing is just so much bullsh*t anyway IMO. Why do some people get so worked up about other people's hypothetical "ratings"? Just agree to differ.