GOLOVKIN FIRED UP: "I will RETIRE UNDEFEATED!!! ABSOLUTELY!!"

[12TRIBEsRiSe]

Too many fighters duck him so yeah

some fighters duck him but a lot of that ducking GGG talk is his fans going too far, especially with the ward situation

[IMDAZED]

To be fair I can't think of any top p4p guys who have been avoided like this before. I don't recall another situation in modern times where a dominant fighter has had so many top opponents in their division pass them by (Sturm, Ndam, Martinez, Quillin, Jacobs, Canelo, Cotto, Eubank). Rigondeaux comes close at 122 (Quigg, Frampton, LSC, etc). Hell, Golovkin got two belts directly from ducks (WBC from Canelo and WBA from Geale).

I have Rigondeaux in my top 5 because of his talent and because I don't think there is a man that can beat him at 122 or probably even 126, rather than his resume. Likewise I have Golovkin top ten for the same reasons. I do however rate Rigondeaux higher because he has a better win in Donaire, who to his credit was man enough to fight him.

Regardless it's all subjective and the way I think of p4p lists are more based on skills versus resume.

The bottom line is that he doesn't deserve to be ranked that high, whether they are "ducking" him or not. I can't rate skills until I see it against real opposition. Lord knows, a lot of people look good against nondescript fighters.

[Eff Pandas]

I'll take the over on him retiring with 1 L. I'll take the over on Canelo retiring with 4 L's.

[IMDAZED]

That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it.

I don't think someone who isn't an elite fighter would absolutely destroy every top ten opponent he's faced in the division like Golovkin has. The way he's consistently destroyed quality contenders and title holders like Geale, Murray, Lemeuix, Stevens, Monroe, Rubio wouldn't be possible for some regular or average fighter. We can see his skills in the ring, they aren't illusions.

Again though, it's subjective. You are neither right or wrong, nor am I.

Yeah, he's elite. I have him 9-12 in the p4p rankings. But if skills were the way I judged a fighter, I would have had Mayweather #1 before he even won a title. And there have been many times where a fighter who is more "skilled" loses to a simply better "fighter." The truth is, you can't judge skill until it is tested. But yup to each his own.

[IMDAZED]

Then we're really not that far off. We're talking about a few spots. If I have him around 6-7 and you can have him as high as 9, we're both in the top 10 or at worst very close to it. So if some people have him #5, it's not a huge leap where logic is completely out the door. I would agree with you if someone has him top 3, that's too high. In my mind, the top 1-3 must have some big wins.

Also, lets consider the state of boxing in 2016 and then think of previous years. Example - if Golovkin was a fighter in the year 2000 with his current resume, he wouldn't be top 10. If he was fighting in the year 2005, he wouldn't be top 10. And so on because in those years, there were more proven talented guys (2000 for example: Shane Mosley, Trinidad, Roy Jones, Oscar, Diego Corrales, Hamed, Floyd, Lewis, Morales, Hopkins...there wouldn't be room for Golovkin yet).

In 2016, we are coming to an end of an era with the old elite aging or retired (Floyd, Pac, JMM, Hopkins, etc) and a lot of younger talented guys who aren't proven or even refuse to fight other proven guys. Because of that, a clearly talented/elite fighter like Golovkin who has consistently dominated top 10 opponents of his own weight class, albeit in a weaker division, can make the top 10 p4p list.



I think once you start talking about the #1 spot, meaning the best fighter in the world, you need to have a big win to be considered the best fighter and somewhat recent, otherwise I would have Andre Ward #1 right now.

P4P has always been a combination of skill & resume. Outside of the top 2-3 guys, it's just shuffling the names around really. I mean who can really say if Naoya Inoue, a guy with 10 fights, is three spots lower than Lomachenko, a guy with 7 fights? Both have won titles in multiple divisions in an extremely small amount of fights. Then you have Rigondeaux who to no fault of his own really hasn't fought a great opponent since Donaire and Crawford who has had a very impressive recent run but no one as good as Donaire is higher. Anyone can make an argument for any of these guys mentioned to be on the list, off the list, higher, lower, there's no right or wrong here because this isn't the year 2000 where there were a solid 10 definite deserving top 10 guys. It's not as clear in 2016 with our current state.

Skill untested is just that. I can't imagine applying for a job with no experience but plenty of skill and being offered anything more than something entry level. Plenty of fighters have looked skilled until they were measured against high caliber fighters. To me, it's all about resume because that's where skill is applied.

[Golden Boi 360]

when it's all said and done you don't get credit for fights that never happened. you don't get credit for fighters not fighting you.

which is pretty sad cause GGG might retired with lack luster resume

[Golden Boi 360]

when it's all said and done you don't get credit for fights that never happened. you don't get credit for fighters not fighting you.

which is pretty sad cause GGG might retired with lack luster resume

[just the facts]

Sure it is, Mayweather did it his whole career he fought boring and couldn't stop anyone.

I see where this fits your agenda but even a dolt like you can easily see that Floyd has at least 15 scalps on his belt that are better than anyone g string has fought so far.

Kicking 35 in the arse and not one defining fight yet and no concrete plan to fight one.

[IMDAZED]

Resume alone typically is not how p4p lists are made, otherwise Carl Froch would have been #1-#2 in the sport. Having a good resume is great, obviously but right now there are a bunch of factors, for some reason you glanced over all my points about the current state of boxing in 2016. There aren't a ton of proven skillful fighters right now. You have Gonzalez, Ward, Crawford somewhat, outside of that there's a lot of talent but no huge wins recently.

Actually, I think resume is the primary factor in rating fighters. When we argue who should be greater between two cats, it's all about who they beat and when (and who they lost to). And I don't know what you mean by Carl Froch would have been #1 or #2. Almost all of the fighters rated above him had a better resume.

Regarding 2016, there are many proven skillful fighters who also have a better resume than Gennady Golovkin. Even the "ducker" Saul Alvarez has a better resume than Golovkin. Ward. Gonzalez. Crawford. Garcia. Frampton. Kovalev. Fury. Bradley. Cotto. Rigo. GGG is nice with his hands but his opposition is a major demerit. At least we agree he isn't top 5.

[vitalisfist]

not happening