Comments Thread For: Gennady Golovkin Still Has Time To Enhance His Legacy

[Boxing 956]

Then why say anyone from 154-168 gets knocked the *** out??? See GGG is a hype job who fests on bums and guys moving UP in weight classes. He could of been the Cotto or Canelo but he chose to be a 5th year senior waiting on 8th graders to get to High School...

Everyone ducked him at 160 even ur daddy canelo. WILLINGLY gave up his belt. He knew he would be put to sleep amd said no ill wait till later and when later came he ran like a little bi**h. Even Jacobs at cruiserweight weight got dropped by GGG.

[AKAcronym]

Then why say anyone from 154-168 gets knocked the *** out??? See GGG is a hype job who fests on bums and guys moving UP in weight classes. He could of been the Cotto or Canelo but he chose to be a 5th year senior waiting on 8th graders to get to High School...

****ing ask Sanchez then. He's faced about as many guys who have moved up as much as anyone else has. And I'm not like you guys who consider damn near everybody bums and hype jobs.

[Tysonfury]

They say he ain’t fought nobody. No, he just makes em look like nobody!

[Mzembe]

when discussing TRUE greatness, only one thing counts.....

..... when Golovkin finally did face an opponent who was considered elite – Jacobs – he struggled, escaping with a close unanimous decision.....

beating 20 cans = whoop-de-shht. and he has little/no time left to enhance his legacy if he loses to the fat red kid in September

----------------------------------------

If you compare GGG's record to Hopkins prior to Hopkins moving up in weight to fight Tarver, would you say Hopkins resume was better?
Hopkins claim to fame was beating two smaller but extremely popular super stars, Felix Trinidad and Oscar. Before that, nobody cared for Hopkins.
After beating Tito, he still continued to fight BUMS for three years before fighting Oscar who had lost to Sturm and was given a massive gift decision.

After that, it was still the same case of fighting smaller guys (Winky, Pavlik etc).
I was never a fan of Hopkins but I got to appreciate him as he got older and moved on to 175 and beat a lot of guys. Guys that were much younger than him and were title holders too.

GGG is 35 and has literally beaten a who is who list at Middleweight. Better boxers than Hopkins beat. Canelo is a good boxer and has a shot at beating GGG if he doesn't gas out like he always does. Regardless, to diminish GGG's record the way you are is just silly

[S7V7N]

His best and only real top level win was against Jacobs and IMO he lost that fight.

I'll bite in hopes that you're more level headed than some here.

Now I'm not going to go through Golovkin's entire resume here, but it's known that he's fought 8 middleweights that were ranked in the top 10 at the time they fought (#2x2, #4x2, #5, #6, #9 & #10). He's also fought 2 top 10 p4p & about to re-match one of those so we can add another to both those totals. Click link if you want more facts.

Now let's look at the current MW rankings. He's the only one that's fought 3 of them. Obviously Canelo is also missing & will soon add 2 more fights to that total making it 5 once Saul is re-inserted into the current MW rankings. The next closest (Jacobs, Saunders, Canelo) all will only be making their 2nd fight against a current top 10 MW opponent.

TBRB Middleweight Rankings
Champion: Open
1. Gennady Golovkin
2. Billy Joe Saunders
3. Daniel Jacobs
4. Jermall Charlo
5. David Lemieux
6. Sergiy Derevyanchenko
7. Ryoto Murata
8. Martin Murray
9. Demetrius Andrade
10. Walter Kautondokwa

Some say they'll give credit to Golovkin once he beats, Charlo & Andrade even though neither has EVER faced a single top 10 MW opponent. How are either a good metric to use for validation?

Others say when Golovkin has stepped up to his best tests he hasn't looked dominant yet they refuse to switch that standard around. Did Jacobs look dominant against Golovkin? It's his only marque opponent. What about Canelo? Floyd, Lara, Trout? Only if you throw in past his prime Cotto that even Trout & WW Ali looked more dominant against?

I won't go into all the potential scalps that Golovkin could have notched along the way, have other threads for that, we're only talking about his existing resume, yet some choose to only apply one way thinking when trying to discredit what GGG has done in the era he has done it.

[IronDanHamza]

I'll bite in hopes that you're more level headed than some here.

Now I'm not going to go through Golovkin's entire resume here, but it's known that he's fought 8 middleweights that were ranked in the top 10 at the time they fought (#2x2, #4x2, #5, #6, #9 & #10). He's also fought 2 top 10 p4p & about to re-match one of those so we can add another to both those totals. Click link if you want more facts.

Now let's look at the current MW rankings. He's the only one that's fought 3 of them. Obviously Canelo is also missing & will soon add 2 more fights to that total making it 5 once Saul is re-inserted into the current MW rankings. The next closest (Jacobs, Saunders, Canelo) all will only be making their 2nd fight against a current top 10 MW opponent.

TBRB Middleweight Rankings
Champion: Open
1. Gennady Golovkin
2. Billy Joe Saunders
3. Daniel Jacobs
4. Jermall Charlo
5. David Lemieux
6. Sergiy Derevyanchenko
7. Ryoto Murata
8. Martin Murray
9. Demetrius Andrade
10. Walter Kautondokwa

Some say they'll give credit to Golovkin once he beats, Charlo & Andrade even though neither has EVER faced a single top 10 MW opponent. How are either a good metric to use for validation?

Others say when Golovkin has stepped up to his best tests he hasn't looked dominant yet they refuse to switch that standard around. Did Jacobs look dominant against Golovkin? It's his only marque opponent. What about Canelo? Floyd, Lara, Trout? Only if you throw in past his prime Cotto that even Trout & WW Ali looked more dominant against?

I won't go into all the potential scalps that Golovkin could have notched along the way, have other threads for that, we're only talking about his existing resume, yet some choose to only apply one way thinking when trying to discredit what GGG has done in the era he has done it.

By all means he has beaten some solid guys. Solid, top 10 guys. I give him credit for that especially how he dealt with most of them.

But I still think Jacobs is the only top top level guy he's beaten. Obviously there's Canelo too who's obviously a top guy but despite popular opinion I don't think that was a robbery and was fine with thw draw so that's not a win.

[wildman]

I love GGG. But realistically, he's beaten Jacobs and Alvarez.....and that's it. He held a phony belt most of his reign. I expect he'll beat Alvarez again, but get robbed again. HOF is borderline in my opinion. And that's coming from one of his biggest fans.

[Marvlus Marv]

the writer should have seen that same movie, many times

a pile of " good " wins..... does not make a great resume

no idea why supposed insiders seem like they're on the outside looking in

They all keep fallin for it. Another one is Kovalev. He's hit a brick wall since he's stepped it up. The facts don't care about emotions.

[Metacom]

If people can point to Cotto beating a drained to the point of looking sickly Geale to discredit Geale as a legitimate win why not use Canelo not even being able to ko Jr?

[Mzembe]

At his 36? No, he is done. He should retire if he doesn't want to be knocked out badly.

-------------------------

That's what a lot of people said about Hopkins at 40. What happened after that?