How would you honestly rate Golovkin?

[DreamFighter]

on equal H2H ability with the light middleweight elite Canelo.

[Scipio2009]

Are you fking kidding? Only NSB can entertain nonsense like this. Did you have any clue the kind of national coverage his death got? His death got more coverage than any of Danny Jacob's fights. Lol. People can hardly bring up Ali without mentioning his great fights with Frazier. Dude is a legend.
Pls don't come at me with stupid shyt like that as if that's some kind of reasonable argument. Danny is no where near Joe in talent, fame, achievement, etc.

And, yes, that's why I said 40 years. Not sure what point you were making with the first part.

I will ask the same question again.

It's now 2018, and Joe Frazier died in 2011.

How many times has Joe Frazier been brought up in a single boxing conversation that you've had in the last 5 years?

Ali will live on for years upon years, because he's Ali. Folks will talk about his status as "GOAT", his social stances throughout his life, his rebirth in the eye of the public after Parkinson's set in, the rope-a-dope with George Foreman, the Ali-Frazier series, the beating that he had at the hands of Larry Holmes, the Wepner fight being part of the inspiration for Rocky, and the fights with Ken Norton, among other things.

You remove Ali's name and what's there to say about Frazier?

[FlatLine]

Golovkin is undoubtedly elite level but he met his match in Danny Jacobs so his skill-set has been shown to be beatable by another elite level boxer. Exciting fighter to watch and makes for some great entertainment. One of the best middleweights of this generation, matched by Jacobs and with question marks still lingering over Canelo and Saunders. Could be that those 4 fighters are around the same level and could potentially beat each other in very close fights and rematches.

[Citizen Koba]

no thats your reckoning.

I count the actual ONE title, not necessarily a "super title". You can make up what shyt you need to believe to make a post, however, feel free. But why you gotta make up what you think other people people is beyond me.

But when there's no 'super' champion the 'World' title is the ONE title, ain't it? And you can't say anything about the 'super' being special because it's won in the ring rather than a fighter being elevated because the 'super' title is always an elevation - the WBAs own rules state that it's granted to fighters with 5 defenses... so Golovkin should have been elevated to Super after the Proksa fight anyway.

EDIT: But hey, man. It's cool. You're allowed to reckon it any damn way you please. I'm just pointing out that some folk might consider your way of toting it up to be slightly flawed.

[Redd Foxx]

I will ask the same question again.

It's now 2018, and Joe Frazier died in 2011.

How many times has Joe Frazier been brought up in a single boxing conversation that you've had in the last 5 years?

Ali will live on for years upon years, because he's Ali. Folks will talk about his status as "GOAT", his social stances throughout his life, his rebirth in the eye of the public after Parkinson's set in, the rope-a-dope with George Foreman, the Ali-Frazier series, the beating that he had at the hands of Larry Holmes, the Wepner fight being part of the inspiration for Rocky, and the fights with Ken Norton, among other things.

You remove Ali's name and what's there to say about Frazier?

You're trying to steer the argument because your point is weak. Let me drag you back to the subject; someone said to me that a close fight with Jacobs isn't bad because Ali had close fights with Frazier. Are you seriously trying to defend that standpoint? I will straight up laugh at anyone who thinks GG/Jacobs should be compared to Ali/Frazier when discussing the quality of a fighter.

[Citizen Koba]

If you think Canelo and Jacobs are parallels to guys like Frazier and Norton, then we have vastly different views on the sport. Joe Frazier is a legend. Who is going to be talking about Danny Jacobs in 40 years?

That's almost exactly the point I was gonna make myself. I'm an unashamed Golovkin fan but aside from the length of title run (which I put as 15) there really isn't anything to make his record stand out. I've been arguing the toss about how many title defenses Golovkin should be credited with on this and other threads, but that's just cos I'm a bit of a rules nerd, not because it really matters - no, what's actually important is the names you have on that resume, not how long it is.

As you correctly point some dude running his eye down GGGs resume on Boxrec in 30 or 40 years time is gonna be scratching his head... maybe he'll recognise Canelo depending on what happens to the Ginger, but that's probably about it.

[Redd Foxx]

That's almost exactly the point I was gonna make myself. I'm an unashamed Golovkin fan but aside from the length of title run (which I put as 15) there really isn't anything to make his record stand out. I've been arguing the toss about how many title defenses Golovkin should be credited with on this and other threads, but that's just cos I'm a bit of a rules nerd, not because it really matters - no, what's actually important is the names you have on that resume, not how long it is.

As you correctly point some dude running his eye down GGGs resume on Boxrec in 30 or 40 years time is gonna be scratching his head... maybe he'll recognise Canelo depending on what happens to the Ginger, but that's probably about it.

That's the frustrating thing. Every time I bring up the fact that I want GG to fight quality fighters, ppl seem to think it's because I want him to lose or something. Hell no. I really believe he's game for anyone in 160 and 168. I want the guy to leave a legacy and it's sad that he's probably going to be defined by two Canelo fights. Canelo is very good, but you aren't going to be remembered if all you did was fight Canelo twice.

And, if he loses to Canelo... Yikes.
When 1 loss could cause you to lose your place in boxing history, it means your resume is thin. Pac is an example of a true great because several late career losses won't change his legend status.

Like I said in my first post, it's not too late for GG to establish an A status in terms of "all-time" conversations go. But, time is not on his side.

[davef]

elite imo is someone who on top form will outclass other A class fighters and since golovkin won close but competitive fights vs jacobs and canelo (ggg won that fight lets be fair) i dont think he is that much superior to be classed as elite compared to the best at his weight class

A class fighter a solid champ with a chin like granite no head movement is my assessment any talk of best ever MW is far fetched i dont care how many times he defended his title vs nigerian witch doctors in monaco

[Hewito]

You put anyone in front of him with some boxing craft and toughness, and Golovkin ends up becoming an ordinary fighter. Has happened in too many fights to really be argued otherwise.

Geale not really being able to punch did him in, but Rosado, Geale, Brook, Jacobs, and Canelo all provided windows into what Golovkin reverts when put in with someone who can actually fight; eat punches with his face, march forward, and try to get busy with a jab while he hopes that you set your feet for him to fire.

There are too many things that Golovkin doesn't do to earnestly rate him much higher than a B.

And yet he still has his 0

[Scipio2009]

And yet he still has his 0

Beauty of massaging the matchmaking the way that K2 did.

Golovkin gets 15 defenses into his title reign, yet the only real middleweight who could fight that he's been in with was Daniel Jacobs.