Golovkin's best win vs. Wilder's best win

Stiverne was never a top fighter. Wilder prefers opposition outside the top 20, Stiverne was his best win, maybe the 19th best in the division at the time but I could see a case for lower with his KO loss to a bum and getting dropped by a bum not long ago. Wilder couldn't even manage that, he has a 0% KO record against guys in the top 20 even if they've been previously knocked out by someone with a losing record. A lot of these threads just turn into people overrating Arreola because Wilder's entire resume rests on Stiverne and Stiverne's entire resume rests on Arreola. Arreola has no best win, he got schooled by 175lb Adamek when in his prime, surely Stiverne and Wilder can beat him when he's shot? But apparently he's an impressive win for them :lol1:

I'm sorry I just had to take a moment to process that Lil G's best win is a blown up WW. :lol1:

I just looked at the organization's rankings and Wilder has wins over four fighters in the top ten. Golovkin is equal if you count Brook at welterweight.

Thus guy bigging up Stiverne again lol. Does he even have a top 10 win in what was then considered the worst division in boxing? Best scalp Arreola, second best ancient Ray Austin who was schoolling him most of the fight. Has a stoppage loss to a journeyman with a losing record. Great effort xpert lol.

golovkin has the best win.

What makes Brook a better win than Lemeiux? Someone break that down for me. A true 160 pounder who was destroying legitimate opposition or Brook.. Who got past Porter then went back to regional level and waited for a payday. As for GGG vs wilder, GGG has consistently fought the best available opponents. Wilder has every HW chomping at the bit to fight him and deliberately opted for local toughman tournament opponents.

Simple check: Where did you have Bermaine Stiverne rated at heavayweight when he fought Wilder? Where would you have had Kell Brook rated at middleweight when he fought Golovkin? Bermaine Stiverne was a top 5 heavyweight when he fought Wilder; I don't think that anyone would've call Kell Brook (arguably in the top 3 at 147) a top-5 middleweight. That's a good point. Stiverne was a champ and had wins against Arreola and a high KO percentage. Brook was not even a real middleweight. It's pretty clear that Stiverne was a better win.

That has nothing to do with the topic. TS asks a very basic question and we have 2 pages of people who act like they can't read. It's downright childish that people are so insecure as fans that they can't answer the question without adding all sort of fanboy shyt. It's downright pathetic. I've never seen a race with such a low confidence as the white race. I mean, seriously, I ask who got the better win and because Wilder got the better win, then they need to make many pages with reasons why we should remember that the white guy is still best, lol.

GGG has 4 years on Wilder Give him time. He could have had Povetkin on his list but the Russian was dirty. Could have, would have doesn't count mate.. Should have is the only thing that counts.. You don't get credits for fights that haven't happened.. Wilder has been ducking Wlad for ages now.. Wlad had asked to fight Wilder in '12, and even after Wilder won the belt.. So yeah nobody is a newbie to the game here..

Bermane Stiverne and Kell Brook are their best wins. There can be no doubt that Brook is a better fighter than Stiverne, but it can't be ignored that Brook was moving up 2 weight classes, which makes the wins comparable. So which win do you regard higher? Brook moving up 2 weight classes or Stivene? EDIT: The subject here is NOT who got the better resume, so STFU about that. The subject is: Who of them got the one better defining win? Wilder has beaten shoe shiners and part-time shovel salesman. Golovkin has taken down hungry lions and grizzled champions. /thread

No Stiverne is a tank... Brook was hurt by Shenchenko(destroyed by Malinaggi:lol1:) and Carson Jones. Anybody that gets hurt by a Malinaggi victim is not all that. Stiverne was alright but Brook was much better.

Bermane Stiverne and Kell Brook are their best wins. There can be no doubt that Brook is a better fighter than Stiverne, but it can't be ignored that Brook was moving up 2 weight classes, which makes the wins comparable. So which win do you regard higher? Brook moving up 2 weight classes or Stivene? EDIT: The subject here is NOT who got the better resume, so STFU about that. The subject is: Who of them got the one better defining win? Simple check: Where did you have Bermaine Stiverne rated at heavayweight when he fought Wilder? Where would you have had Kell Brook rated at middleweight when he fought Golovkin? Bermaine Stiverne was a top 5 heavyweight when he fought Wilder; I don't think that anyone would've call Kell Brook (arguably in the top 3 at 147) a top-5 middleweight.

Wilder has fought tough warriors like areolla and molina He's fought slick Americans like Malik Scott GGG only fights brit hype jobs and eurobums It's clear who is better https://s21.postimg.io/ycyhkx8mf/432.gif

Just to inject a dose of truth into this convo; The majority of people here picked Stiverne to win and Deontay was only a slight favorite in the betting odds. Almost no one picked Brook. Let's not pretend Brook is suddenly the better win. That's a lie of convenience. Lemieux is his best win and he is probably a higher standard than Stiverne I like both personally GGG and Wilder this ****ty on people resume stuff needs to stop you can only fight what is put out for you It'd be different If he legitimately did duck someone which he nor Wilder has ever really done well I don't think Wilder has. Wilder would have fought Povetkin GGG would have fought Martinez, Sturm, Canelo, Cotto, Jacobs, Quillin and Eubank Jr but there always seems to be some sort of excuse GGG resume at 160 shouldn't be demeaned because of others being cowards and Kell was bigger than GGG on the night all that Kell displayed was that when he didn't have his weight advantage he wasn't so "special".This is exactly right. GGG has always been willing to fight the very best middleweights but they don't want to fight him. Wilder was there, ready to fight high ranked Povetkin and he deserves full credit for that.It sure wasn't his fault the fight didn't happen. Often when posters set out to trash a fighter's resume they aren't the least bit fair about it and leave out important facts and details.

Brook > Stiverne.

The reason GGG was heavily favored to beat Brook while Wilder was only a slight favorite against Stiverne is because everybody knew GGG was a vastly superior fighter than Wilder. It's just that simple. No lie. Just fact. That has nothing to do with the topic. TS asks a very basic question and we have 2 pages of people who act like they can't read. It's downright childish that people are so insecure as fans that they can't answer the question without adding all sort of fanboy shyt.

Bermane Stiverne and Kell Brook are their best wins. There can be no doubt that Brook is a better fighter than Stiverne, but it can't be ignored that Brook was moving up 2 weight classes, which makes the wins comparable. So which win do you regard higher? Brook moving up 2 weight classes or Stivene? EDIT: The subject here is NOT who got the better resume, so STFU about that. The subject is: Who of them got the one better defining win? The better win was obviously Wilder's win over stirvirne. I mean, imagine Wilder fighting Kovalev or Stevenson, what do you think would happen to those poor guys.

How are guys like Geale better than Malik Scott and Johann Duhaupas? Their wins are very much comparable. But that's not the subject of this thread. The subject is who of them that got the one best defining win. Daniel Geale was unified Champion at Middleweight, don't show everyone your true ignorance by comparing him to Malik Scott and the Frenchmen.

Just to inject a dose of truth into this convo; The majority of people here picked Stiverne to win and Deontay was only a slight favorite in the betting odds. Almost no one picked Brook. Let's not pretend Brook is suddenly the better win. That's a lie of convenience.The reason GGG was heavily favored to beat Brook while Wilder was only a slight favorite against Stiverne is because everybody knew GGG was a vastly superior fighter than Wilder. It's just that simple. No lie. Just fact.

Lemieux is his best win and he is probably a higher standard than Stiverne I like both personally GGG and Wilder this ****ty on people resume stuff needs to stop you can only fight what is put out for you It'd be different If he legitimately did duck someone which he nor Wilder has ever really done well I don't think Wilder has. Wilder would have fought Povetkin GGG would have fought Martinez, Sturm, Canelo, Cotto, Jacobs, Quillin and Eubank Jr but there always seems to be some sort of excuse GGG resume at 160 shouldn't be demeaned because of others being cowards and Kell was bigger than GGG on the night all that Kell displayed was that when he didn't have his weight advantage he wasn't so "special".