Where Does Golovkin Rank Among The All Time Middles?

[JAB5239]

Thats a fair opinion, but if Joe Louis were a better fighter than Ali (based on in ring ability, and assuming we could know such things) would there ever be a possible way for him to prove that? He never would have had the opportunity to be better in your mind because there simply werent the available opponents for him to prove it by having as good of a resume. So in essence we arent measuring how good the given fighter is, just how good his opponents were.

Moreover, though resumes are tangible, its not as if there is some standardized objective measurement to resumes, so in the end its still who we think is better- its just that instead of us thinking about a given fighter now we are thinking about their opponents.

I agree there isn't a standard objective measurement, but it far better than just using your imagination to say who would beat who in my opinion.if you're going to do that I'd think it best to incorporate resume to come to those subjective conclusions.

[DeeMoney]

I agree there isn't a standard objective measurement, but it far better than just using your imagination to say who would beat who in my opinion.if you're going to do that I'd think it best to incorporate resume to come to those subjective conclusions.

No I agree, looking at who a fighter beat, and taking that into context (opponents age, weight, etc) helps play a part. But there has to be some subjectivity in this matter as there isn't standardized scheduling and opponents- notably so across eras.

This is especially true if you are trying to determine who was better in the ring, as opposed to who just accomplished more, which is part of the discussion.

[Dr Z]

[QUOTE=joseph5620;n32514129]

Look at their resumes and you'll understand why. You can debate Ketchel but Flowers resume craps all over Golovkin's.

Ketchel's win over Jack O'Brian is better than any win on Golovkin's resume..Also, Ketchel stepped up and fought Sam Langford and Jack Johnson. Golovkin didn't even want to move beyond four pounds to fight Andre Ward. That alone puts him over Golovkin in my rankings.[/QUOTE





Ketchel's films stink and show him to be a stationary target with next to no defense or imagination on offense. Do you factor in the career and losses and draws? And BS decisions?

An answer would be nice.

Ketcehl had 5 loses and 3 draws. And none of those can use the excuse that he was past his prime because he was dead at 23.

Flowers soft chin and numerous losses make his inclusion in the ATG as middle highly questionable.

[Bronson66]

I know this isn't your list, but you did cite it so I figured I'd ask you about it. Who does Fitzsimmons have on his MW resume that you feel justifies him earning a spot on this list? I know he beat Corbett and Jack O'Brien, and he drew with Choynski, but all of those fights were above the middleweight limit. Even one of his few MW title fights he was a lot heavier than 160. His MW resume is full of 3 and 4 round fights against mostly up and comers. So why do we rate him so highly as a MW?

Or is the rating number a vote based on their whole career, and then we later assigned him to the MW division because he spent some time there?

Jab is a terrific poster,but on this subject I am inclined to agree with you,Dempsey was what154lbs?
I don't see any scalps on Fitz's resume at160 that puts him in the top ten.

[DeeMoney]

Jab is a terrific poster,but on this subject I am inclined to agree with you,Dempsey was what154lbs?
I don't see any scalps on Fitz's resume at160 that puts him in the top ten.

Yeah, hes a good smart dude frim what Ive seen. I think he was just reposting the ranking. But I think it was an overall ranking that was then parsed down to those who fought at Mw.

I feel the same way about Langford, his best fights were above 160

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=Dr Z;n32514179]

Look at their resumes and you'll understand why. You can debate Ketchel but Flowers resume craps all over Golovkin's.

Ketchel's win over Jack O'Brian is better than any win on Golovkin's resume..Also, Ketchel stepped up and fought Sam Langford and Jack Johnson. Golovkin didn't even want to move beyond four pounds to fight Andre Ward. That alone puts him over Golovkin in my rankings.[/QUOTE





Ketchel's films stink and show him to be a stationary target with next to no defense or imagination on offense. Do you factor in the career and losses and draws? And BS decisions?

An answer would be nice.

Ketcehl had 5 loses and 3 draws. And none of those can use the excuse that he was past his prime because he was dead at 23.

Flowers soft chin and numerous losses make his inclusion in the ATG as middle highly questionable.

Most of Flowers losses were to HOF fighters. He also beat a boatload of HOF fighters. I'd say his inclusion is anything but questionable.

[joseph5620]

[QUOTE=Dr Z;n32514179]

Look at their resumes and you'll understand why. You can debate Ketchel but Flowers resume craps all over Golovkin's.

Ketchel's win over Jack O'Brian is better than any win on Golovkin's resume..Also, Ketchel stepped up and fought Sam Langford and Jack Johnson. Golovkin didn't even want to move beyond four pounds to fight Andre Ward. That alone puts him over Golovkin in my rankings.[/QUOTE





Ketchel's films stink and show him to be a stationary target with next to no defense or imagination on offense. Do you factor in the career and losses and draws? And BS decisions?

An answer would be nice.

Ketcehl had 5 loses and 3 draws. And none of those can use the excuse that he was past his prime because he was dead at 23.

Flowers soft chin and numerous losses make his inclusion in the ATG as middle highly questionable.

If he

I factor in who they actually beat and who they fought during their careers. In other words the reality of what they actually did. I don't judge based on fantasy in terms of what fighters I think they could have beaten. That's fantasy.

Flowers beat a number of hall of fame fighters and I already explained to you about Ketchel. Golovkin's best win is Danny Jacobs and it wasn't an overly impressive win at that. That's not going to get him on my top 10 list regardless of who people think he could have beaten.

My rankings are based on resume because that's the one real thing we can use. We can't use fantasy fights for that purpose. I can't make it any more clear than that.

[Biledriver]

Top 20 or so

First ballot HOF

Good looking woman in your sig

[DeeMoney]

[QUOTE=joseph5620;n32514228]

I factor in who they actually beat and who they fought during their careers. In other words the reality of what they actually did. I don't judge based on fantasy in terms of what fighters I think they could have beaten. That's fantasy.

Flowers beat a number of hall of fame fighters and I already explained to you about Ketchel. Golovkin's best win is Danny Jacobs and it wasn't an overly impressive win at that. That's not going to get him on my top 10 list regardless of who people think he could have beaten.

My rankings are based on resume because that's the one real thing we can use. We can't use fantasy fights for that purpose. I can't make it any more clear than that.

But can you look within a fight itself and parse out different levels of success? Or is it just- fighter A won or fighter A lost.
What I mean is do you look at how good a given fighter was during a fight and let that be taken into account?

For example, lets say two different fighters fought the same opponent, at the same weight class, within roughly the year or so. Both fighters beat the common opponent, but the first one did so with a dominant KO, having won most of the rounds leading up to it. While the second got a razor thin decision win, not looking as dominant as the other winner.

For you, or others who feel the same way, do you feel that both fighters got the win over a common opponent, so both fighters should be viewed the same? Or do you feel the dominant fighter has proved (at least with this example and within this sample size) to have been better?

[joseph5620]

[QUOTE=DeeMoney;n32514304]

But can you look within a fight itself and parse out different levels of success? Or is it just- fighter A won or fighter A lost.
What I mean is do you look at how good a given fighter was during a fight and let that be taken into account?

For example, lets say two different fighters fought the same opponent, at the same weight class, within roughly the year or so. Both fighters beat the common opponent, but the first one did so with a dominant KO, having won most of the rounds leading up to it. While the second got a razor thin decision win, not looking as dominant as the other winner.

For you, or others who feel the same way, do you feel that both fighters got the win over a common opponent, so both fighters should be viewed the same? Or do you feel the dominant fighter has proved (at least with this example and within this sample size) to have been better?

That's a different topic when comparing resumes of current fighters with past fighters. When doing that I look at the quality of opponents when comparing resumes. For example, Marvin Hagler beating Thomas Hearns and Roberto Duran is a lot more impressive than beating David Lemieux.

As far as common opponents of two fighters, again, that's totally different and there would be a lot of other factors to determine who the better fighter is.