Golovking still hasn't beaten a P4P fighter

[Madison Boxing]

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...

come on man, seriously....

[KingHippo]

Damn ****ting on nela he isn't p4p to you? 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.

[icha]

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...

[Cutthroat]

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.

[j0zef]

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 ****ing Alcine. Golovkin did nothing Rubio hasn't done before.

I'm not gonna get into this ****** 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.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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.

[KingHippo]

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.

[KingHippo]

I'm not gonna get into this ****** 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.

[Robbie Barrett]

I'm not gonna get into this ****** 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.

Wow this ****** just compared Lemieux to Hopkins, Pac, JMM, Benn, Castillo, Arguello and Salvador Sanchez.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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.