Golovkin is not P4P top 5

p4p lists are inherently subjective. you're handicapping guys based on their size and ranking them in order based on accomplishments and ability, and you have to make conclusions based on incomplete evidence. i think we've got a better idea at this point of what golovkin has or what he can be in his next fihgt. with lomachenko i see constant improvement. i think he's already the more able fighter at present, and i see him improving in his next fight. golovkin's taken punches for a living for a long time now and he's likely as good as he'll ever be, so we are assuming less about how good he is than we are with lomachenko. that said, lomachenko's W over walters isbetter than anything golovkin has done. walters was a good fighter wtth power who proved that he could beat an aging great in donaire. lomacheko was able to so thoroughly outclass him that i've got him ranked higher on my list. he was also totally dominant against rocky martinez, who was an ok fighter and certaily no less than the dominic wade's of the world. i think lomachenko might be the best fighter on the planet, actually. the best. i just don't have enough to go on to say that with certainty and confidence. i'm fairly confident that he'd box circles around golovkin if they were the fight size. there'd be a puncher's chance got golovkin, but i think that lomachenko's tools would totally offset his only glaring weakness in the match on paper in a year or so i think it's goign to be obvious who the bst fighter on the planet is, and it will be a litle ukranian kid named vasyl Yea I agree with most of what you are saying except for the part of this being GGG's ceiling, but I still maintain my position. I think you are right about Lomachenko but still won't rank him too highly because I want to see more fights, I am fair with the way I rank fighters and won't make exceptions even if I feel the guy is spectacular. He will still put in the work everyone else on the list did imo before he earns the recognition. Fortunately for both of us, as you say, p4p lists are subjective.

Quality over quantity, bro. What he did to one of the most elite blue chip prospects in and around the weight class (Gary Russell Jr.), and the most feared knockout artist in and around the weight class (Walters), was nothing short of phenomenal. Loma is unquestionably in the conversation. The guy has did more in just 8 (EIGHT!!) career fights than 95% of aspiring professional boxers will do in entire careers. Quality over quantity for you maybe, that's not my criteria - I need both among other things to give you a high p4p ranking.

No you're the idiot. I never said over Gonzalez and Crawford. :bottle: So over Ward? Dumba$$.

He's top 3 over fighters like Ward, Gonzalez, Crawford? Idiot. No you're the idiot. I never said over Gonzalez and Crawford. :bottle:

Wrong. Golovkin is definitely pound for pound top 3. Its not his fault Ward and Canelo ducked him hard. He's top 3 over fighters like Ward, Gonzalez, Crawford? Idiot.

Outside of Donaire, Rigo's resume is absolute hot garbage. He's fought 1 other guy who was anywhere close to top20. If he actually fights Flores and wins, my opinion of him will change. But right now, Rigondeux is one of the most overrated fighters in the world. Uh, Isn't 1 good win is better than 0 good wins?

If you have GG in your top 3 you're a fukin fool.

If the #1 criteria for making P4P lists isn't resume (bullshyte) but this "informed eye test" you speak of, why aren't Errol Spence and Anthony Joshua #1 and #2? That's right, you can say it. They lack the resume. Nuff said Well they can be if you want. Nobody agrees on this BS anyways. Closest thing you get is stuff like TBRB when you take an broad sample and average it out, or the poll done on NSB not so long ago. Resume of course informs the judgement, but for me it's just about who seems the best. Purely subjective, and my list has no better claim to be accurate than anyone elses... well except yours of course since you seem to think you have some kind of handle on this rubbish.

And what makes your opinion on what's credible more credible than anyone else's? Are you like the P4P police or something? And anyway who judges what resume is best? How do you decide if, say, one Salido is worth 2 Trouts or vice versa? How do you prove this or that division sucks or is particularly strong? How much is a good win worth 5 years later? Nah man. Either you go down the computerised route (a la Boxrec) to remove bias or you just admit that the whole P4P concept is a subjective pile of BS and acknowledge that the informed eyetest is the only honest way. You simply can't 'prove' any of this ish, so why bother pretending that you can? If the #1 criteria for making P4P lists isn't resume (bullshyte) but this "informed eye test" you speak of, why aren't Errol Spence and Anthony Joshua #1 and #2? That's right, you can say it. They lack the resume. Nuff said

Come on now, he most certainly is. Smh.

Yada, yada, yada. I'll say it again, the #1 criteria when compiling any CREDIBLE P4P list always has been and always will be resume. My father told me never try to teach a pig to sing, as it will only waste your time and annoy the pig. He was right.

And what makes your opinion on what's credible more credible than anyone else's? Are you like the P4P police or something? And anyway who judges what resume is best? How do you decide if, say, one Salido is worth 2 Trouts or vice versa? How do you prove this or that division sucks or is particularly strong? How much is a good win worth 5 years later? Nah man. Either you go down the computerised route (a la Boxrec) to remove bias or you just admit that the whole P4P concept is a subjective pile of BS and acknowledge that the informed eyetest is the only honest way. You simply can't 'prove' any of this ish, so why bother pretending that you can? I think 'just the facts' has got several distorted views as i remeber thinking once before about how his name should be changed as it doesn't represent his opinions. But you know what they say - don't argue with an idiot, or he'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

I feel it's pretty generous of you. I'm a big Lomachenko fan but I can't put him into my top 5 yet, the man just hasn't done enough imo, volume wise. The quality for a small sample size is great, I just want more fights under his belt, I want to see that consistency. I always had trouble ranking Rigo for the same reason. On another note, Golovkin can't move down for me because he has been active and hasn't lost. I'd rather he have names like Jacobs and Canelo on his resume over this last year but I don't really punish a guy on a p4p list for guys he hasn't fought, only for losses and eye test regressions. Guys moving past him, I can accept that take, but I wouldn't move Lomachenko past him, might not pass him up with Crawford either, but I have to think about Crawford. I like the guy a lot and have high expectations of him but I need to do a Crawford analysis before I move him around. p4p lists are inherently subjective. you're handicapping guys based on their size and ranking them in order based on accomplishments and ability, and you have to make conclusions based on incomplete evidence. i think we've got a better idea at this point of what golovkin has or what he can be in his next fihgt. with lomachenko i see constant improvement. i think he's already the more able fighter at present, and i see him improving in his next fight. golovkin's taken punches for a living for a long time now and he's likely as good as he'll ever be, so we are assuming less about how good he is than we are with lomachenko. that said, lomachenko's W over walters isbetter than anything golovkin has done. walters was a good fighter wtth power who proved that he could beat an aging great in donaire. lomacheko was able to so thoroughly outclass him that i've got him ranked higher on my list. he was also totally dominant against rocky martinez, who was an ok fighter and certaily no less than the dominic wade's of the world. i think lomachenko might be the best fighter on the planet, actually. the best. i just don't have enough to go on to say that with certainty and confidence. i'm fairly confident that he'd box circles around golovkin if they were the fight size. there'd be a puncher's chance got golovkin, but i think that lomachenko's tools would totally offset his only glaring weakness in the match on paper in a year or so i think it's goign to be obvious who the bst fighter on the planet is, and it will be a litle ukranian kid named vasyl

ya really depends how u do ur p4p mine has nothing to do with resume personally mine is all about literal p4p best in the world regardless of weight not best resume p4p. i have rigo in my p4p for example but ya the thing about ggg tho most people that have him top 5 have to go against their own criteria for deciding p4p. one of the many enigmas with ggg many one day loughler will be able to get him a big fight against the likes of jacobs let alone a mega fight but im not holding my breath unless ggg decides to take less then hes worth. my guess is ggg will continue to fight journeyman and people smaller then him and keep saying hes being ducked instead of moving up and taking a real challenge like every other great fighter in history has done i just cant see him taking less then hes technically worth to get a canelo fight not that i blame him or moving up to fight even a degale or ward i just cant see it happening. my worry is he stays at 160 forever which is beyond a weak division (tho hopefully charlo is the real deal which will spice up 160). at some point ggg gonna have to make a decision tho cause hes not getting any younger

But you just slammed Donaires resume and are now trying to praise GGG's...HOW DOES THAT WORK? I did not praise Golovkin. I said that when people say that his resume are 'cab drivers', 'bum of the month', 'alexander brand level' they are low life trolls who are obsessed over a guy who they don't like. Be objective, don't be a troll.

Donaire literally had just been named fighter of the year and then went up to Rigo and got demolished. He's not an ATG obviously but he's no question better than what's on GGG's resume. Fighter of the year by who? And without boxrecing, name 2 guys that Donaire beat that people would know. I basically can't. Montiel? Yeah, Donaire was on a P4P list and looked good for awhile, but his resume is lacking, and Rigo's resume basically consists of Donaire. To make a comparison, let's say Danny Jacobs beats Golovkin next year. Golovkin has a spot on a p4p list. Are people gonna walk around calling Jacobs a HOF and putting him on a p4p list for 5 years after that? No, they'll say "who has Golovkin beaten?" I also have a serious problem with people claiming that Donaire "got demolished". That's so far from the truth it's not even close. Donaire dropped Rigo, but got outjabbed and lost a relatively close fight. Saying he got "demolished" is absolute BS. And yes GGG's opponents aren't all Alexander Brand level but that doesn't mean they are all that great. I had made a poll regarding one of GGG's premiere wins over Daniel Geale and the average rating of the quality of that win, as voted by members of the forum, has been hovering around a 6/10. I'd be shocked if anyone on GGG's resume garnered a substantially higher score.Again, two problems with that statement. "aren't all Alexander Brand level" is a loaded statement in itself. Brand was a 40th ranked, 40 year old fighter from 1 weight class below. Unless you go back to the first 10 fights of his career, NOBODY that Golovkin has fought is Alexander Brand level. We're basically having a discussion ITT whether a fighter with a few 6/10 quality wins is worthy of being in the top 5 P4P. I mean, is that even a question that needs to be asked?Correct. Let's say I agree with you in that Geale was a 6/10. And let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt that Donaire was an 8/10. Golovkin has ~10 wins that are in the 5-7 range. Rigondeux has one 8/10 and one other win that maybe makes a 5/10. All of his other wins hover between 2-3. And yeah, that question absolutely should be asked. Rigo has ONE name on his resume - a guy that just lost to Jesse Magdaleno. EDIT: To be clear though, I'm not necessarily suggesting that Rigo should be higher P4P than GGG right now. But I am definitely saying that GGG's resume lacks substance consistent with his high standing and that Rigo's win was obviously enough to move him deep into the P4P list at the time. P4P is NOT a measure of a resume. It's a quality of the fighter. Golovkin dominated everyone they put in front of him. Rigo got dropped but won a decision in his only good win. He's also gotten dropped several other times by guys who shouldn't be able to touch him. People talk about Rigo's reusme like it's amazing, when it has 1 name. They also put his name up there with Flyod as best defensive fighter of the generation, which is an insult to Floyd. Floyd didn't yoyo when fighting C level opposition.

Yada, yada, yada. I'll say it again, the #1 criteria when compiling any CREDIBLE P4P list always has been and always will be resume. And what makes your opinion on what's credible more credible than anyone else's? Are you like the P4P police or something? And anyway who judges what resume is best? How do you decide if, say, one Salido is worth 2 Trouts or vice versa? How do you prove this or that division sucks or is particularly strong? How much is a good win worth 5 years later? Nah man. Either you go down the computerised route (a la Boxrec) to remove bias or you just admit that the whole P4P concept is a subjective pile of BS and acknowledge that the informed eyetest is the only honest way. You simply can't 'prove' any of this ish, so why bother pretending that you can?

I feel it's pretty generous of you. I'm a big Lomachenko fan but I can't put him into my top 5 yet, the man just hasn't done enough imo, volume wise. The quality for a small sample size is great, I just want more fights under his belt Quality over quantity, bro. What he did to one of the most elite blue chip prospects in and around the weight class (Gary Russell Jr.), and the most feared knockout artist in and around the weight class (Walters), was nothing short of phenomenal. Loma is unquestionably in the conversation. The guy has did more in just 8 (EIGHT!!) career fights than 95% of aspiring professional boxers will do in entire careers.

Grrrr Gennady I hate you why can't you just lose and retire already. Grrrrrrr. Given that g string only fights 2nd and 3rd rate fighters, it might be a long time before he loses.

We all know fights get made on popularity, politics, money etc. P4P isn't a pissing contest (who's got the best resume) as it's not fair. P4P is about who is the best boxer, irrespective of size and weight. ▪Just because your the more popular/bigger star, it doesn't mean you are a better boxer. The word 'duck' gets used very loosely on this site but we should only refer to a duck when its VERY clear the fighter has been avoided (obviously in same weight division). If you are adamant a p4p list requirement is a fighters resume, its only fair that fighters who have ducked them should be taken into consideration also. A p4p list should take into consideration resume as a factor but not the main factor. Overall record, resume, how they won, qaulity of opposition, moving weight divisions to fight best (not because you've outgrown it), and getting ducked are all factors. I think most org's give GGG some leniency when factoring in his resume, given the amount of people who have avoided him. After all, if he had fought these people, more than likely we wouldn't be having this debate, as his resume would be solid (why avoid him if you/your promotor and/or manager think you could beat him). GG's resume would look ok: DUCKS: Sturm, Cotto, Conelo, Eubank Jn, Hassan N'Dam AVOIDED: Martinez, Barker, Saunders, Sylvester, Quillin Notable mention: Pirog (career ending injury), Jacobs (looking doubtful) Yada, yada, yada. I'll say it again, the #1 criteria when compiling any CREDIBLE P4P list always has been and always will be resume.