Wilder vs GGG Better Resume

G has him 6-1 in wins over top 10 dudes

This should be interesting. To me both are the same. You aren't very knowledgeable about boxing if you say they are the same. While Golovkin's resume leaves a lot to be desired. It is better than Wilder's.

It's not even close. That's how bad Wilder's resume is.

ThaBoxingXpert is a troll or an idiot. Golovkin clearly has the better resume. This discussion is not thread-worthy.

Stiverne had wins against Arrealo and Mitchell. While not great wins, they're good enough wins to put Stiverne higher than any guy on Golovkin's resume. All Golovkin's wins are near journeyman status. Stiverne never fought Mitchell. His second best win is that struggle vs ancient Ray Austin. You're clueless

Yep, the only people we have to blame here are his opponents for not fighting him as they were expected to. Credit to Geale though, he did man up and fight him eventually But Golovkin has 11 title defences ok cool...imo the defenses are a bit hollow, he never fought anyone for the super title. looking at who he fought its like "meh"

Golovkin. ,,,,,,,,

that crap is too confusing. Would have been nice and easier to count if he actually won the belt in the ring. the WBA belt is worthless they have like 8 belts. When he won his belt he wasnt even the main titleholder. Yep, the only people we have to blame here are his opponents for not fighting him as they were expected to. Credit to Geale though, he did man up and fight him eventually But Golovkin has 11 title defences

I'm a fan of both but it's not even close right now, Wilder hasn't fought anywhere near enough top 10 fighters. With that said, both have a long way to go to establish a legacy that will remain in boxing history and I believe both of them can easily do so if they are presented those opportunities. Coincidentally both were just cheated out of great legacy making fights.

If we're using the same logic as we used with Hopkins, then Golovkin has 11 defences, counting from the time he was the sole WBA champion and then the Super WBA champion (Rosado onwards) that crap is too confusing. Would have been nice and easier to count if he actually won the belt in the ring. the WBA belt is worthless they have like 8 belts. When he won his belt he wasnt even the main titleholder.

Um, Arreola and Mitchell practically define 'journeymen' I wouldn't even call Mitchell a journeyman. He was a side show act, a less durable version on Butterbean. Michell was feed fighters worst than bad and was sparked out in one round. TS is a clown mentioning him.

Stiverne had wins against Arrealo and Mitchell. While not great wins, they're good enough wins to put Stiverne higher than any guy on Golovkin's resume. All Golovkin's wins are near journeyman status. Um, Arreola and Mitchell practically define 'journeymen'

when do the defenses start? he was wba regular champion and got elevated so he doesnt have 15 defenses of the super wba title. If we're using the same logic as we used with Hopkins, then Golovkin has 11 defences, counting from the time he was the sole WBA champion and then the Super WBA champion (Rosado onwards)

Golovkin easily

I don't want to accuse you of being blinded by a paper trinket. Because we all know, the lineage of the current WBC title at HW is beyond joke. It literally means nothing. Casting the worthless belt aside.. So, explain to me why you think Stiverne was such a good win? Its true that he was expected to beat Wilder. But thats not because he was good, we just assumed Wilder was a lot worse due to his awful resume. Stiverne's best win is Chris Arreola. A top 30 HW. The only reason he was allowed to fight for a paper WBC belt is because he beat Seth Mitchell, who was never to be seen again. The same Arreola we see here, losing against Kassi (the scorecards universally condemned): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yvcf-2ceKg So tell me, what above screams out 'quality' Stiverne had wins against Arrealo and Mitchell. While not great wins, they're good enough wins to put Stiverne higher than any guy on Golovkin's resume. All Golovkin's wins are near journeyman status.

GGG by quantity, he defended his title 15th times. Not that GGG has beaten really better opposition. They are both been beating B level fighters, contenders on the world stage, but GGG has been working a lot more and overhall was more impressive. GGG wouldn't last 11 rounds with a Duhaupas level guy. when do the defenses start? he was wba regular champion and got elevated so he doesnt have 15 defenses of the super wba title.

Dude. Stiverne is better than any win on Golovkin's resume. It's not only about quantity, but also quality. I don't want to accuse you of being blinded by a paper trinket. Because we all know, the lineage of the current WBC title at HW is beyond joke. It literally means nothing. Casting the worthless belt aside.. So, explain to me why you think Stiverne was such a good win? Its true that he was expected to beat Wilder. But thats not because he was good, we just assumed Wilder was a lot worse due to his awful resume. Stiverne's best win is Chris Arreola. A top 30 HW. The only reason he was allowed to fight for a paper WBC belt is because he beat Seth Mitchell, who was never to be seen again. The same Arreola we see here, losing against Kassi (the scorecards universally condemned): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yvcf-2ceKg So tell me, what above screams out 'quality'

Both have only fought bad opposition. The one exception is Wilder's win against Stiverne, which sh1ts all over any Golovkin-win. And Wilder has a higher KO percentage. /threadTheBoxingXpert picks Wilder's resume as the best. That's proof positive that GGG has the better resume. Expert has always consistently been wrong on anything to do with boxing. He has never ever been correct.

If you go to boxrec who may not be perfect but they are neutral, you will see than GGG's rersume is about 100 times better than Wilder's resume. Boxrec is the only one that ranks all boxers in the world in each weight class. Most rating places just rank the top 10 or 15 boxers which lets out almost all of Wilder's opponents. Boxrec ranks some of Wilder's opponents as low as 400th. The guy Wilder won his piece of the title from was ranked 10th by boxrec and he is the only top 10 guy Wilder ever fought. The rest of the guys Wilder fought on the way up or in title defenses aren't even close to being rated in the top 10 or even the top 15 in the world. GGG has fought his share of bums like all boxers sometimes do. The difference is GGG has KOed a number of legitimate top 10 world rated middleweights. Lemieux was rated the 5th best middleweight in the world when GGG KOed him and he is still ranked 7th. Murray was rated 6th at middleweight when GGG stopped him and he is currently ranked 5th at 168. Geale was ranked 6th in the world when GGG KOed him. Wade was ranked 11th and Macklin was ranked 10th when GGG KOed them. A couple of other guys GGG KOed in title defenses were also near or at top 10 in the world when he fought them. He doesn't only fight bums like his haters falsely say.

GGG and not even close. Stivern is maybe comparable to Macklin. GGG has atleast 6 wins better than Wilder. Even a win over Povetkin would not push Wilder's resume over GGG's.