Do you consider Golovkin a slick fighter?

I wouldn't call him slick, but whenever someone says that he's easy to hit or has "basic defense", it makes me laugh. Look at compubox stats and compare it to his opponents' averages. That has more to do with the fact that his opponents are usually **** and highly defensive in response to his offense and power. When fighters stand and trade with Golovkin, he gets hit. Problem is most go in with a wrong game plan or don't have the skills to do what is needed to pressure him and make him defensive. His defense i's ok. But is it special or "slick"? Canelo is more slick than Golovkin tbh.

I wouldn't call him slick, but whenever someone says that he's easy to hit or has "basic defense", it makes me laugh. Look at compubox stats and compare it to his opponents' averages.

Put it this way. It's easy to look good against the cans he's been fighting. No, he's not slick. rigo looks horrible and he has fought worse opponents than GGG recently. its easy to say that they are cans but if you are beating top 10 middleweights the way GGG beats them then you know he got something special. no body claims that his competition is all stars, but at the same time no one looks this good consistently fighting top 10 fighters in your own division (except the very few

Nope. He's an excellent textbook boxer/puncher that sets all his shots up well and has decent, fundamental defense and footwork. What he does isn't slick though. Slick goes beyond the textbook and into the realm of setting traps with feints and drawing the opponent into shots, slipping, rolling, ducking punches and coming back with counter shots, making the opponent do things he doesn't even know he's doing, creating angles through sneaky footwork, pivots and capitalising on the opponents mistakes. But that's why he's exciting to watch to some degree. Slick doesn't necessarily mean better, even though slickness tends to need, or show, a very high degree of skill, ring savvy, and high boxing IQ. What he does is all standard, textbook boxing stuff, but he does it to a very high degree and he does it exceptionally well. excellent post, i think that there is a level to slickness in his execution but maybe its my definition of slick vs. yours. Either way appreciate the input.

I voted very basic to make the OP mad. not mad at all. by very basic i mean he is very good but very basic by the book. standard stuff. your opinion of GGG doesn't effect me in any way shape or form. thanks for your vote.

Put it this way. It's easy to look good against the cans he's been fighting. No, he's not slick.

Being slick isn't primarily about defence. It's about using your skills to land your shots while avoiding your opponent's, i.e. hit and not get hit. Golovkin's great at doing the former and pretty handy at doing the latter. So yeah, he's slick. When did this happen?

Nope. He's an excellent textbook boxer/puncher that sets all his shots up well and has decent, fundamental defense and footwork. What he does isn't slick though. Slick goes beyond the textbook and into the realm of setting traps with feints and drawing the opponent into shots, slipping, rolling, ducking punches and coming back with counter shots, making the opponent do things he doesn't even know he's doing, creating angles through sneaky footwork, pivots and capitalising on the opponents mistakes. But that's why he's exciting to watch to some degree. Slick doesn't necessarily mean better, even though slickness tends to need, or show, a very high degree of skill, ring savvy, and high boxing IQ. What he does is all standard, textbook boxing stuff, but he does it to a very high degree and he does it exceptionally well.

Being slick isn't primarily about defence. It's about using your skills to land your shots while avoiding your opponent's, i.e. hit and not get hit. Golovkin's great at doing the former and pretty handy at doing the latter. So yeah, he's slick.

I define slick as slipping punches. Blocking like Abraham/Clottey don't count, and neither does just jumping back out of range. He's pretty slick yea. People see the second portion of the Monroe fight and act like that's his usual style.

Depends on your definition of your slick. But probably more slick than many would give him credit for.

I voted very basic to make the OP mad.

As someone else said, depends on the definition of slick. GGG is not defensive minded first. His game is to make his opponent defensive minded. That alone limits how much he will get hit. He also has a very uneven and off timed offensive attack, looking to get opponents to open up. His offense attack makes opponents panic. They do not know what is coming. I would say offensively he is very slick while his defense is passive and dependant on positioning, but overall pretty good.

Slick is being deceptive, making your opponent react to a mirage and making them pay as a result of that. Displaying that kind of slickness throughout the fight is what defines that fighter as slick. One doesn't even need to mention movement, speed or defense to describe that.

I agree. I think people are confusing boxing fundamentals with being slick. They do because there are many ways to be an excellent boxer (hit and not get hit back), being slick is a very specific form of it. I get it because being slick is very high end stuff, but it is not the only way to be a high end boxer.

As stated^, many GGG fans on this forum will come in here to say their own definition of slick and try to force GGG to be slick. But that won't make him slick.

I'm sure many of you would say a slick fighter is one who can throw quick, sharp and effective combinations, accurate too and limit the amount of offense he himself gets hit with...that's GGG is a nutshell. Sadly, most of the idiots on here think a slick fighter is running and jabbing. One who is offensive can't possibly be slick...

I hate polls like that, it's very unfair. When I make a poll I make it cut and dry, to the point, no added features in it. GGG is not basic, or very basic. He's well rounded, just no slick. GGG is a cut above Danny Garcia, with more devastating power and better defense. But they fight very similar. I agree. I think people are confusing boxing fundamentals with being slick.

Not slick at all and at the same time definitely not basic, basic is more Felix Sturm, Zaveck or Kotelnik.

Excellent example, Kev. Winky vs Tito was an example of a guy sneaking in jabs at will, countering a guy to the point that his output dropped, brilliantly slipping just enough to deflect the impact of punches, and putting himself in the right place at the right time. But, it was not slick. One of my favorite examples of "slick" comes from an unlikely source. A few years back, Kessler fought a tune-up in which the opponent was throwing a lazy jab. Kessler let the guy get comfortable with it, even confident, then leaned back and threw a left hook while the guy jabbed and laid and him out. Another is Ward throwing the cross to the body vs Dawson. After several rounds of this he got chad to finally drop his hands, at which point Ward faked to the body and went upstairs with a left hook. Brilliant stuff. Slick is not all about setting traps, but I use them as an example to separate counter-punching from actual slick boxing. Everyone counter-punches. Baiting is another form of technique entirely and involves psychology. Yeah, the key thing is, if you have to ask, then the fighter is probably not slick. Slick is something that is apparent immediately, and it's a very obvious style.