Golovking still hasn't beaten a P4P fighter

If ordinary means what he did to Brook then you need to get real. It was a slaughter. He broke his eye socket and when he decided to end it he landed a beautiful combination when Brook was on the ropes and hurt him badly. Brook stopped fighting after that and just looked to survive. Again with Brook? WTF?

The crux of my argument isn't the fact that Pirog beat Jacobs more convincingly, but that Golovkin couldn't beat a B level fighter convincingly enough to warrant a top 3 position. And Jacobs is a level B fighter. Second, I don't care if you only gave Jacobs 3 rounds. You clearly have a dog in this fight. The official scorecards were 115-112, 115-112 and 114-113. Not even close to a shutdown, but you probably saw it that way because you're blinded by bias. According to most people's accounts, even the staunchest Golovkin fans, it was a competitive fight. And everytime Golovkin looks ordinary it's either because a) he's sick b) he's having an off night or c) he's getting hit on purpose to look beatable. This is getting tiresome. Can we let go of the myth of invincibility and accept that he can be made to look human by a half decent fighter and that his dominance was mostly due to the fact that he's faced mediocre competition most of his career? And let me remind you that this thread is about P4P rankings. The main criteria is level of opposition. Therefore dominating a division is irrelevant if the division isn't competitive, unless you sincerely believe David Lemieux and Danny Jacobs are world class fighters. If ordinary means what he did to Brook then you need to get real. It was a slaughter. He broke his eye socket and when he decided to end it he landed a beautiful combination when Brook was on the ropes and hurt him badly. Brook stopped fighting after that and just looked to survive.

The crux of my argument isn't the fact that Pirog beat Jacobs more convincingly, but that Golovkin couldn't beat a B level fighter convincingly enough to warrant a top 3 position. And Jacobs is a level B fighter. Second, I don't care if you only gave Jacobs 3 rounds. You clearly have a dog in this fight. The official scorecards were 115-112, 115-112 and 114-113. Not even close to a shutdown, but you probably saw it that way because you're blinded by bias. According to most people's accounts, even the staunchest Golovkin fans, it was a competitive fight. And everytime Golovkin looks ordinary it's either because a) he's sick b) he's having an off night or c) he's getting hit on purpose to look beatable. This is getting tiresome. Can we let go of the myth of invincibility and accept that he can be made to look human by a half decent fighter and that his dominance was mostly due to the fact that he's faced mediocre competition most of his career? And let me remind you that this thread is about P4P rankings. The main criteria is level of opposition. Therefore dominating a division is irrelevant if the division isn't competitive, unless you sincerely believe David Lemieux and Danny Jacobs are world class fighters. Yeah they are world class fighters in the middleweight division. Lemieux held a middleweight title and Jacobs was ranked #2 by most boxing pundants. If Golovkin wasn't fighting there would be a lot of competitive fights in the middleweight division. I personally didn't agree with Jacobs ranked so highly but he surprised his critics.

OP says GGG hasn't dominated his competition at MW. Prior to Jacobs, over 20 straight fights ended in KO. Maybe OP is expecting GGG to commit murder every fight. If OP wants to bring up the Jacobs fight being "close," that's fine. However, Danny was put on his ass in front of his home town, out landed the entire fight, given the benefit of the doubt by the judges in his home town (similar to AW's gift), and he STILL lost.

If for arguments sake I agree that Daniel Jacobs hasn't improved since his fight against Dmitry Pirog (not that I do), you still haven't addressed the stylistic principles of boxing. GGG and Dmitry Pirog have another common opponent(Ishida) which GGG knocked out that Dmitry Pirog couldn't. This is evidence of 'styles make fights'. Furthermore, a boxer is allowed to have one fight where he isn't at his ABSOLUTE best, firing on all cylinders. Every boxer, if they compete for long enough will have such nights. If anyone is entitled to such a performance, it's certainly GGG. So I'm not entirely sure what exactly you're trying to infer by claiming GGG didn't beat Daniel Jacobs 'convincingly'. It wasn't entirely a 'shutdown', but it was as close as. Daniel Jacobs didn't win more than 3 rounds max in my scorecards. Guillermo Rigondeaux was in a fight that was just as close against Drian Francisco (nowhere near the same caliber of opposition as Daniel Jacobs). Terence Crawford lost more rounds against Yuriorkis Gamboa than GGG did against Daniel Jacobs even though Crawford eventually got the late round stoppage. Again, I care very little about P4P rankings. Therefore, feel free to rank GGG wherever you please. P4P rankings are not based on any objective criteria / standards or anything truly factual. Until such a thing is established, P4P rankings remain irrelevant and valueless to me as I am an objective individual that values objectivity. Objectively speaking, the rankings that mainly matter to me are the rankings of a particular weight division. I judge / evaluate boxers by their respective weight divisions. Meaning, I judge GGG as a middleweight (GGG's weight division) and Canelo Alvarez as a light middleweight (Canelo Alvarez's weight division). As it stands, GGG is the best middleweight in the world with very little doubt! That's an unsubstantiated statement / claim! Thus, it can be dismissed as something that is valueless. Merely making a statement doesn't make it true. It has to be substantiated. The crux of my argument isn't the fact that Pirog beat Jacobs more convincingly, but that Golovkin couldn't beat a B level fighter convincingly enough to warrant a top 3 position. And Jacobs is a level B fighter. Second, I don't care if you only gave Jacobs 3 rounds. You clearly have a dog in this fight. The official scorecards were 115-112, 115-112 and 114-113. Not even close to a shutdown, but you probably saw it that way because you're blinded by bias. According to most people's accounts, even the staunchest Golovkin fans, it was a competitive fight. And everytime Golovkin looks ordinary it's either because a) he's sick b) he's having an off night or c) he's getting hit on purpose to look beatable. This is getting tiresome. Can we let go of the myth of invincibility and accept that he can be made to look human by a half decent fighter and that his dominance was mostly due to the fact that he's faced mediocre competition most of his career? And let me remind you that this thread is about P4P rankings. The main criteria is level of opposition. Therefore dominating a division is irrelevant if the division isn't competitive, unless you sincerely believe David Lemieux and Danny Jacobs are world class fighters.

Unfortunately, I don't see that much of a difference between the Danny Jacobs who fought Pirog and the one who faced Golovkin. I'm sure you can enlighten me on that. And as far as Golovkin beating Jacobs convincingly, it surely wasn't a shutdown like Crawford - Postol or Rigondeaux - Donaire, so it wasn't convincing enough to warrant a top 3 let alone a number one position. The middleweight division is weak. Just face it. Having a reigning champion like Billy Joe Saunders is just a testament to this fact. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Stop kidding yourself. Unfortunately, I don't see that much of a difference between the Danny Jacobs who fought Pirog and the one who faced Golovkin. I'm sure you can enlighten me on that. If for arguments sake I agree that Daniel Jacobs hasn't improved since his fight against Dmitry Pirog (not that I do), you still haven't addressed the stylistic principles of boxing. GGG and Dmitry Pirog have another common opponent(Ishida) which GGG knocked out that Dmitry Pirog couldn't. This is evidence of 'styles make fights'. Furthermore, a boxer is allowed to have one fight where he isn't at his ABSOLUTE best, firing on all cylinders. Every boxer, if they compete for long enough will have such nights. If anyone is entitled to such a performance, it's certainly GGG. So I'm not entirely sure what exactly you're trying to infer by claiming GGG didn't beat Daniel Jacobs 'convincingly'. And as far as Golovkin beating Jacobs convincingly, it surely wasn't a shutdown like Crawford - Postol or Rigondeaux - Donaire, It wasn't entirely a 'shutdown', but it was as close as. Daniel Jacobs didn't win more than 3 rounds max in my scorecards. Guillermo Rigondeaux was in a fight that was just as close against Drian Francisco (nowhere near the same caliber of opposition as Daniel Jacobs). Terence Crawford lost more rounds against Yuriorkis Gamboa than GGG did against Daniel Jacobs even though Crawford eventually got the late round stoppage. so it wasn't convincing enough to warrant a top 3 let alone a number one position. Again, I care very little about P4P rankings. Therefore, feel free to rank GGG wherever you please. P4P rankings are not based on any objective criteria / standards or anything truly factual. Until such a thing is established, P4P rankings remain irrelevant and valueless to me as I am an objective individual that values objectivity. Objectively speaking, the rankings that mainly matter to me are the rankings of a particular weight division. I judge / evaluate boxers by their respective weight divisions. Meaning, I judge GGG as a middleweight (GGG's weight division) and Canelo Alvarez as a light middleweight (Canelo Alvarez's weight division). As it stands, GGG is the best middleweight in the world with very little doubt! The middleweight division is weak. That's an unsubstantiated statement / claim! Thus, it can be dismissed as something that is valueless. Merely making a statement doesn't make it true. It has to be substantiated.

If you're referring to Daniel Jacobs, then simply put, he was 'destroyed' by Dmitry Pirog when he was much younger and inexperienced compared to now. Boxers improve. To argue that Daniel Jacobs was just as good when he fought Pirog as he is now is inaccurate and false. Chances are, Dmitry Pirog wold be unlikely to score a KO if he fought the current version of Daniel Jacobs. Just for your information, GGG has already knocked out some common opponents who Dmitry Pirog himself couldn't knockout, or opponents who were previously not knocked out and some not knocked out after GGG knocked them out (Martin Murray). Or even better, he has knocked out many opponents that were previously unbeaten prior to facing him! For example, GGG knocked Ishida out cold and out of the ring. Dmitry Pirog went 12 rounds with the same Ishida and won a decision. In addition to Daniel Jacobs being a more improved fighter now compared to when he lost against Dmitry Pirog, styles also make fights. Dmitry Pirog might still be able to knock Daniel Jacobs out (probably with more effort), but it doesn't mean much other than styles make fight. There are also other opponents who GGG would knockout that Dmitry Pirog wouldn't. GGG going 12 rounds against Daniel Jacobs isn't any evidence of the middleweight division being weak / poor. As far as winning convincingly, I actually thought GGG did win pretty convincingly. Not as convincingly as knocking a guy out or beating a guy pillar to post, but convincingly enough! If any current boxer deserves to have a comfortable win, it's GGG! Considering the number of fights where GGG has destroyed or knocked out opponents, he deserves and warrants one close fight. That doesn't mean that the middleweight division is 'weak' or poor. Pretty much every boxer at some point will be in a close fight. Pretty much any top level boxers from their respective divisions are having similar types of wins as GGG did against Jacobs. However, it seems to be GGG that gets criticized more than those other top boxers who get into more closer fights more frequently yet not as many people complain that their weight division is poor / weak or that they aren't as good. GGG's dominance was real. He may have fought many low level opposition too, but the margin in which he beat those 'low caliber' opposition was better and more convincing than many of the other top 'P4P boxers'. Kell Brook that faced GGG and Miguel Cotto that faced Canelo Alvarez are both similar caliber of opposition. One might argue that Kell Brook is even better than Cotto due to being younger, unbeaten and in his prime when he fought GGG compared to when Miguel Cotto fought Canelo Alvarez where he was old, past his best, previously beaten many times and knocked out. However, both were top welterweights and both were similar in size. Against similar caliber of opposition, GGG destroys Kell Brook with a jetlag in 5 rounds, nearly ending Brook's boxing career whereas Canelo Alvarez goes life and death and gets into a very close fight, having to go the distance against a worse, older cotto. That's just one of many examples. GGG beats similar caliber of opposition (top or low quality) by a bigger and more impressive margin than most of the other top P4P boxers like Canelo Alvarez. Unfortunately, I don't see that much of a difference between the Danny Jacobs who fought Pirog and the one who faced Golovkin. I'm sure you can enlighten me on that. And as far as Golovkin beating Jacobs convincingly, it surely wasn't a shutdown like Crawford - Postol or Rigondeaux - Donaire, so it wasn't convincing enough to warrant a top 3 let alone a number one position. The middleweight division is weak. Just face it. Having a reigning champion like Billy Joe Saunders is just a testament to this fact. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Stop kidding yourself.

If that is the case, he has to do a better performance against non ranked fighters to justify his position. Pretty simple, nah? Golovkin has been devastating in his division. Whether he is number one P4P or not he's dominated.

The problem is that he wasn't able to convincingly beat an opponent that was destroyed by a previous opponent who had no ranking at all and still remains unknown, which destroys the myth of the middleweight division being made to look weak because of Golovkin. His dominance was all but a myth, which was fueled by the way he fights and the disingenuous agenda of many fans and observers. If you're referring to Daniel Jacobs, then simply put, he was 'destroyed' by Dmitry Pirog when he was much younger and inexperienced compared to now. Boxers improve. To argue that Daniel Jacobs was just as good when he fought Pirog as he is now is inaccurate and false. Chances are, Dmitry Pirog wold be unlikely to score a KO if he fought the current version of Daniel Jacobs. Just for your information, GGG has already knocked out some common opponents who Dmitry Pirog himself couldn't knockout, or opponents who were previously not knocked out and some not knocked out after GGG knocked them out (Martin Murray). Or even better, he has knocked out many opponents that were previously unbeaten prior to facing him! For example, GGG knocked Ishida out cold and out of the ring. Dmitry Pirog went 12 rounds with the same Ishida and won a decision. In addition to Daniel Jacobs being a more improved fighter now compared to when he lost against Dmitry Pirog, styles also make fights. Dmitry Pirog might still be able to knock Daniel Jacobs out (probably with more effort), but it doesn't mean much other than styles make fight. There are also other opponents who GGG would knockout that Dmitry Pirog wouldn't. GGG going 12 rounds against Daniel Jacobs isn't any evidence of the middleweight division being weak / poor. As far as winning convincingly, I actually thought GGG did win pretty convincingly. Not as convincingly as knocking a guy out or beating a guy pillar to post, but convincingly enough! If any current boxer deserves to have a comfortable win, it's GGG! Considering the number of fights where GGG has destroyed or knocked out opponents, he deserves and warrants one close fight. That doesn't mean that the middleweight division is 'weak' or poor. Pretty much every boxer at some point will be in a close fight. Pretty much any top level boxers from their respective divisions are having similar types of wins as GGG did against Jacobs. However, it seems to be GGG that gets criticized more than those other top boxers who get into more closer fights more frequently yet not as many people complain that their weight division is poor / weak or that they aren't as good. GGG's dominance was real. He may have fought many low level opposition too, but the margin in which he beat those 'low caliber' opposition was better and more convincing than many of the other top 'P4P boxers'. Kell Brook that faced GGG and Miguel Cotto that faced Canelo Alvarez are both similar caliber of opposition. One might argue that Kell Brook is even better than Cotto due to being younger, unbeaten and in his prime when he fought GGG compared to when Miguel Cotto fought Canelo Alvarez where he was old, past his best, previously beaten many times and knocked out. However, both were top welterweights and both were similar in size. Against similar caliber of opposition, GGG destroys Kell Brook with a jetlag in 5 rounds, nearly ending Brook's boxing career whereas Canelo Alvarez goes life and death and gets into a very close fight, having to go the distance against a worse, older cotto. That's just one of many examples. GGG beats similar caliber of opposition (top or low quality) by a bigger and more impressive margin than most of the other top P4P boxers like Canelo Alvarez.

I'm not gonna get into this stupid argument again. No, Daniel Jacobs' loss at age 23 against a highly skilled, decorated amateur in his absolute prime (30) has absolutely no standing and no impact on the quality of the fighter he is in 2017. It's the dumbest argument people on here throw out. Getting overmatched early on says absolutely nothing about the kind of fighter you turn out to be in your prime. The same goes for Lemieux - losing to two veterans when he was 23 says absolutely nothing how good he is today. There is ton of fighters who have lost early in their career. Hopkins, Pac, JMM, Benn, Castillo, Arguello, even Salvador Sanchez. That list goes on man. None of their losses have defined them and say anything about how good they were in their prime. But Lemieux still hasn't accomplished much to date. Just went to a decision against an absolute unknown. And in all honesty, I still haven't seen the fight. David Lemieux isn't the type of fighter I follow. All the fighters you mentioned when on to have legendary careers spanning across multiple divisions against world class fighters. If you sincerely believe this is where Lemieux is heading, you are entitled to your opinion.

There isn't any FACTUAL evidence at all that the middleweight division is ACTUALLY weak that I've ever encountered. Unless it's actually substantiated, it remains a mere statement which can be dismissed as nothing more than just a mere guess, speculation or assumption. How someone is rated in their own respective weight division ABSOLUTELY is relevant, but mainly / only in the context of that division. Sometimes, the best a boxer could do is become the very best in their own respective division. Which is exactly what GGG is at the moment. I do agree, beating a bigger opponent that is also very skilled and higher ranked is definitely more impressive. Beating a bigger skilled opponent is more impressive than beating a lighter / smaller skilled opponent. However, ultimately weight divisions exist for a reason. So that boxers face opponents their own size / weight. As everything being equal, the bigger / heavier boxer will almost always be the favorite over the smaller / lighter boxer. So I have nothing against any boxer deciding to only stick to their own respective division without moving to a different weight division. As far as P4P is concerned, it absolutely is subjective and most of it is mainly based on just guess work and conjecture. There isn't any universal criteria that can be used to determine where a boxer should be ranked P4P. Quality of opposition can differ from division to division and it's near impossible to determine whether a division is weak or not relative to others. It's entirely possible GGG simply made the middleweight division look weak, because of his dominance even though it really isn't. One closer than usual bout doesn't discount his other more impressive wins. Again, I value P4P rankings as much as a grain of salt. What's more important is a boxer's ranking in his / her own respective weight division. That's far more important to me at least. The problem is that he wasn't able to convincingly beat an opponent that was destroyed by a previous opponent who had no ranking at all and still remains unknown, which destroys the myth of the middleweight division being made to look weak because of Golovkin. His dominance was all but a myth, which was fueled by the way he fights and the disingenuous agenda of many fans and observers.

There was probably a 10 pound difference between the two and again, how he is rated in the weak middleweight division is irrelevant. And you know what's really impressive? Beating a fighter that is both higher ranked and bigger. P4P rankings are subjective, only to a certain point. The main criteria are level of opposition and dominance. Golovkin supposed dominance was inflated by the poor level of opposition he faced, which was proven against Jacobs. Him beating Jacobs at least more convincingly than a no name would've justified his position. There isn't any FACTUAL evidence at all that the middleweight division is ACTUALLY weak that I've ever encountered. Unless it's actually substantiated, it remains a mere statement which can be dismissed as nothing more than just a mere guess, speculation or assumption. How someone is rated in their own respective weight division ABSOLUTELY is relevant, but mainly / only in the context of that division. Sometimes, the best a boxer could do is become the very best in their own respective division. Which is exactly what GGG is at the moment. I do agree, beating a bigger opponent that is also very skilled and higher ranked is definitely more impressive. Beating a bigger skilled opponent is more impressive than beating a lighter / smaller skilled opponent. However, ultimately weight divisions exist for a reason. So that boxers face opponents their own size / weight. As everything being equal, the bigger / heavier boxer will almost always be the favorite over the smaller / lighter boxer. So I have nothing against any boxer deciding to only stick to their own respective division without moving to a different weight division. As far as P4P is concerned, it absolutely is subjective and most of it is mainly based on just guess work and conjecture. There isn't any universal criteria that can be used to determine where a boxer should be ranked P4P. Quality of opposition can differ from division to division and it's near impossible to determine whether a division is weak or not relative to others. It's entirely possible GGG simply made the middleweight division look weak, because of his dominance even though it really isn't. One closer than usual bout doesn't discount his other more impressive wins. Again, I value P4P rankings as much as a grain of salt. What's more important is a boxer's ranking in his / her own respective weight division. That's far more important to me at least.

If he beats Canelo convincingly there is no debate. Golovkin is top 3. And Canelo is on the TBRB and Ring P4P list by the way. Jacobs was universally rated as a B level fighter entering the fight, and Golovkin did not look dominant enough to warrant his ranking. Jacobs was his test, and he barely passed it. And yes, the way Pirog iced him weighs in the balance. There is not much difference between the Jacobs Golovkin faced and the one who faced Pirog. Difference is Pirog was much more unpredictable and hard to hit. And Lemieux is garbage, you and I know that. Best win is a decision against Hassan Ddam, worst lost is against Joachim focking Alcine. Golovkin did nothing Rubio hasn't done before.I'm not gonna get into this stupid argument again. No, Daniel Jacobs' loss at age 23 against a highly skilled, decorated amateur in his absolute prime (30) has absolutely no standing and no impact on the quality of the fighter he is in 2017. It's the dumbest argument people on here throw out. Getting overmatched early on says absolutely nothing about the kind of fighter you turn out to be in your prime. The same goes for Lemieux - losing to two veterans when he was 23 says absolutely nothing how good he is today. There is ton of fighters who have lost early in their career. Hopkins, Pac, JMM, Benn, Castillo, Arguello, even Salvador Sanchez. That list goes on man. None of their losses have defined them and say anything about how good they were in their prime.

why do you all keep bringing up pirog, he was a good fighter, losses happen in boxing. Jacobs was a decent win Geegg is a bit overrated but hes tough as nails GGG failed to separate himself from Jacobs, they're pretty equal. However nobody I know considers DJ a top 50 fighter in the sport, arguably even top 100. P4P fighters can't be struggling with guys that aren't anywhere close to their own status. DJ's defense is leaky as hell, so is Lemieux's, even ggg's as he was getting lit up by Brook. The fighters at 160 have some of the worst defense I've ever seen.

come on man, seriously....he did better than pac, marquez and canelo imo... but even without that fight he was still ranked by most respected sites, and he was also highly ranked by ggg him self...

Damn ****ting on nela he isn't p4p to you? :lol1: cause gggs beating him come September Canelo is a P4P fighter. No 8 both on the Ring and TBRB. The TBRB has Golovkin at no 7 by the way. Must be haters.

**** knows how, how the **** can he be on p4p4 list after losing almost every round to trout, garbage list that is he put up a good fight with floyd, lost to a young undefeated champ in trout, then destroyed delvin, maravilla and geale in a row... im sure if you can find any other list from repectable sites before the canelo fight cotto was in their top 10 in most of them ... by the way isnt espn the same site that has ggg as number 1? and as a side note, ggg him self was in nacion espn (spanish show) giving his p4p list prior to canelo-cotto and he held both high in his list...

P4P rankings are irrelevant and subjective. What matters are his rankings in his respective division, which is middleweight and he has beaten many top ranked middleweights. I could careless if Canelo Alvarez goes on to beat more higher ranked 'P4P' boxers like Guillermo Rigondeaux, Roman Gonzalez and etc. Doesn't make him a better 'middleweight' than GGG. Beating higher ranked P4P opponents who are much smaller isn't as impressive as beating lower ranked P4P opponents who are much bigger, heavier and are also top ranked in your own natural weight division that you compete in. There was probably a 10 pound difference between the two and again, how he is rated in the weak middleweight division is irrelevant. And you know what's really impressive? Beating a fighter that is both higher ranked and bigger. P4P rankings are subjective, only to a certain point. The main criteria are level of opposition and dominance. Golovkin supposed dominance was inflated by the poor level of opposition he faced, which was proven against Jacobs. Him beating Jacobs at least more convincingly than a no name would've justified his position.

Damn ****ting on nela he isn't p4p to you? :lol1: cause gggs beating him come September

Less put it this way, Daniel Jacobs might be ranked lower in a P4P sense than someone like Manny Pacquiao or Shane Mosley, but he is still a more dangerous opponent than them. Canelo fights skillful opponents that are lighter than himself and sometimes much lighter. GGG fights skillful opponents who are his own size or even bigger. That's the main difference! GGG isn't a weight bully, Canelo Alvarez is.