Would a win over Canelo put Golovkin's resume above Kovalev's?

For me it comes down to is a win over Canelo better than a win over a 50 year old Hopkins? I'm g strings biggest critic but I say yes!

We'll, looks like Golovkin will fight Johnson. Surely after such an elite win he'll surpass Kovalev for sure. :lol1:

Not surprised we had so many thinking he already has a better resume, that is simply not true. You also get people over-ranking his opponents, There is no way Curtis Stevens was in the top 10 when he fought GGG, neither was Monroe Jr or Rosado. Kovalev meanwhile beat Campillo who was highly ranked, Cleverly who was highly ranked, Hopkins who was the #1 LHW and had 2 titles (despite being nearly 50) and Pascal who was probably the number 3 ranked LHW. Those wins to me easily trump Macklin, Geale, Lemieux and Murray. I will admit GGG has not had such luck in luring the highly ranked middleweights into the ring with him BUT you can not elevate his resume because of that. With that said I voted for the first option because Canelo would have been the best fighter that either guy went against, so if GGG despatched him in dominant fashion (which I suspect he will) then his resume would then be slightly superior to me. Resume is also about how you beat the good opponents you faced.

Huh. The one draw on Kovalev's resume was a TD against Grover was at the Playboy Mansion. Peculiar. I would say yes depending how Golivkin beats him.

I don't give much credit to Kovalev for the Hopkins win because Hopkin's age. I think if GGG beats Canelo he takes this.

I don't think so. Hopkins is a great fighter even at his age, he was like what, #1 ranked LHW? While Kovalev was #2 and Stevenson was champ. Kovalev beat a 2 time Ring champ at LHW who had been fighting at the weight for like 10 years. He also beat Pascal, a former Ring champ himself.

Interesting turn out so far....

GGG is at the cusp of having a great resume if he can get the right fights made this year, canelo would put him over kovalev

I was not one of the 11 (picked first option), but to say it's clearly better is incorrect IMO. Hopkins is a legend, but he was 50. Outside of Bhop, their resumes are similar, both have beaten good, highly ranked fighters who were not stars. I'd say Golovkin has beaten better opposition if we take out Hopkins, so the argument is how do you value a 50 year old Hopkins. Hopkins and Pascal are both far more accomplished and far better than anyone Golovkin has been in the ring with. And even other than those two, Kovalev has Campillo, who should have been a unified titlist when Kovalev slaughtered him and is also a better, more accomplished fighter than anyone Golovkin has beaten. Kovalev's resume is clearly better. There is no serious debate here, just Golovkin fans who don't want to admit the truth. It's not his fault, but he doesn't get imaginary credit for those who wouldn't fight him.

Kovalev and GGG to me are top 10, Canelo is in the top 5. A win over Canelo would put GGG in the top 5, therefore he would be above Kovalev.

I was not one of the 11 (picked first option), but to say it's clearly better is incorrect IMO. Hopkins is a legend, but he was 50. Outside of Bhop, their resumes are similar, both have beaten good, highly ranked fighters who were not stars. I'd say Golovkin has beaten better opposition if we take out Hopkins, so the argument is how do you value a 50 year old Hopkins. It wasn't just Kovalev beating BHop that impressed me, but the way he did it. He went in with a game plan that was different from any he'd used before, and he executed it perfectly. I feel the same way about Golovkin's win over Lemieux. Like Kovalev with BHop, he fought aggressively, but used the jab and footwork to keep distance between himself and a potentially dangerous opponent. Kovalev had the tougher job with BHop though. Even at nearly 50 yo, Hopkins was still harder to keep under control and harder to catch clean than Lemieux.

Yes it would, unless Kov beats Ward of course.

I don't know. It's not like Kova doesn't have some huge opportunities in '16 himself with potential fights with Stevenson and Ward on the horizon. He beats both, and a GGG win over Canelo is kinda "meh".

Whoever the 11 people are that voted for Golovkin already having a better resume are just wrong. It's not even opinion, Kovalev clearly has a better resume. I was not one of the 11 (picked first option), but to say it's clearly better is incorrect IMO. Hopkins is a legend, but he was 50. Outside of Bhop, their resumes are similar, both have beaten good, highly ranked fighters who were not stars. I'd say Golovkin has beaten better opposition if we take out Hopkins, so the argument is how do you value a 50 year old Hopkins.

Yes, for sure IMO.

Whoever the 11 people are that voted for Golovkin already having a better resume are just wrong. It's not even opinion, Kovalev clearly has a better resume.

Maybe, GGG need to just do what his two jefe did http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2012/2/29/2012229155016398580_8.jpg Get all the belt

Is that the bar now is to accumulate a better Resume than Kovalev? I'm sure GGG has higher aspirations than just matching or surpassing Kovalev resume But I guess a win over Kovalev would at least match Kovalev Resume :dunno:

and to answer the question, yes it would! canelo IS a mw. 155 lbs is a MW. his team are trying some silly stuff keeping him there. it's obvious they want to portray canelo as a small MW, and get a catchweight when they fight golovkin. canelo will probably weigh within 5 lbs of golovkin on fight night. he might even weigh more! canelo's a heck of a fighter. i really believe that. he's not lightning quick, but he's got a lot of the other tools. very calculated offense. hard puncher. solid chin. he's got a world of experience for a fighter so young. he reminds me of fernando vargas. vargas, if any of you care to remember, was a heck of a fighter. he just happened to run into felix trinidad and oscar de la hoya, two brutal punchers and bonafide stars, early in his career.

thats because "resume" is not the leadng qualifier when it comes to P4P, nor should it be. Resume only shows what fights they have been able to get made. It is not a complete picture of the fighters skillset or intangibles. P4P on the other hand, looks at the totality of the fighters qualities, and a prediction is made as to how they would do against fantasy opponents regardless of weight. Sure, resume is one of many factors that go into it, but amateur career, physical attributes, skillsets, power, ring generalship, all those other factors go into it. Now YOU might give resume more weight than someone else, but P4P is totally subjective, and merely someones opinion. There is no right or wrong...... big bang boom. p4p lists are about fights handicapped for size, not resumes. if these guys were all the same size, who do you favor based on abilities and accomplishments? that's what a p4p list asks.