Gennady Golovkin?

[JayE]

Yeah, and that's a bit of an anomaly considering his established pattern. I didn't see that fight. I'll have to check it out. I imagine Joppy wasn't hard to find that night either.

Hopkins outboxes him from the outside (where Joppy was always pretty good) for the first few rounds as they feel each other out, then he proceeds to take him apart inside, and then he chases after him in the late rounds looking for the stoppage but just falling short. People remember Hopkins for being a methodical, low output fighter, but in his prime (and even after his prime) he often did throw a ton of punches. People forget he threw around 700 punches against both Trinidad and Winky (he was 36 against Trinidad and 42 against Winky) and an absolutely massive amount against Glen Johnson in the late 90s (it wasn't tracked by compubox, but I'm sure he was on pace for over 1000 had the fight gone the full 12).

 

[wilddeuces]

Hopkins outboxes him from the outside (where Joppy was always pretty good) for the first few rounds as they feel each other out, then he proceeds to take him apart inside, and then he chases after him in the late rounds looking for the stoppage but just falling short. People remember Hopkins for being a methodical, low output fighter, but in his prime (and even after his prime) he often did throw a ton of punches. People forget he threw around 700 punches against both Trinidad and Winky (he was 36 against Trinidad and 42 against Winky) and an absolutely massive amount against Glen Johnson in the late 90s (it wasn't tracked by compubox, but I'm sure he was on pace for over 1000 had the fight gone the full 12).

Good to know.

I saw the Trinidad fight and saw him run away with it the longer it went on.

I wonder - as I've not seen the others - if Hopkins gets those landslides when the guy has a hard time pressuring and Hopkins has the height and reach coupled with his movement. I see him throwing more in those instances because he can take those risks (his positioning was great and his had speed wasn't all that bad either).

I still know that a pressure fighter that fights at a high pace will fade faster than a pure boxer that doesn't rely on that type of physicality. It's the way the body works. So many instances in boxing history suggest this.

 

[wilddeuces]

I think Golovkin's reign is a clear level down even from Hopkins's reign. More than that, I don't think he performs particularly well head to head with any of Hopkins, Hagler, Monzon, or Robinson, even if he gives them all reasonably good fights. He's a HoFer, but not on their level.

The Hopkins reign benefited from lighter guys moving up to fight him like DLH and Trinidad. Joppy was a Lemieux level win. He needed those fights in the early 2000's to cement his legacy at MW.

Head to head in their primes? People forget that while Monzon hit like a bastard with his right, he wasn't all that well-rounded.

Anyway, I won't make reasons for GGG beating any of these guys. Other than Harry Greb, you just mentioned a best-of, murderer's row of MW's (I'd add LaMotta and Basilio, who were solid fighters in their primes). Who the fuck beats them? Golovkin looks pretty damn good against most everybody else, and if people put him in a top 10 MW's I'd be impressed. It's a deep division if you look at the historical list. There have been some serious names in that division, which, at its time (when there were only 8, and then slowly, more) it was a transient division that saw lots of talent move into it. A lot.

I think if Golovkin ties Hopkins' 20 fight reign of successful defenses, then he has a case for being pretty much at Hopkins' level at MIDDLEWEIGHT. We have to remember that Hopkins was remembered for some of his biggest wins (Pavlik, Pascal, Tarver, Cloud, yes, Cloud was undefeated and Hopkins was decried as old), and those were clearly above the 160 pound weight class. So, as a MW, Golovkin can roll the dice with him, but in other weight classes, that would be like comparing Hagler to Hopkins (who'd do that?).

 

[Sunfish]

The Hopkins reign benefited from lighter guys moving up to fight him like DLH and Trinidad. Joppy was a Lemieux level win. He needed those fights in the early 2000's to cement his legacy at MW.

Head to head in their primes? People forget that while Monzon hit like a bastard with his right, he wasn't all that well-rounded.

Anyway, I won't make reasons for GGG beating any of these guys. Other than Harry Greb, you just mentioned a best-of, murderer's row of MW's (I'd add LaMotta and Basilio, who were solid fighters in their primes). Who the fuck beats them? Golovkin looks pretty damn good against most everybody else, and if people put him in a top 10 MW's I'd be impressed. It's a deep division if you look at the historical list. There have been some serious names in that division, which, at its time (when there were only 8, and then slowly, more) it was a transient division that saw lots of talent move into it. A lot.

I think if Golovkin ties Hopkins' 20 fight reign of successful defenses, then he has a case for being pretty much at Hopkins' level at MIDDLEWEIGHT. We have to remember that Hopkins was remembered for some of his biggest wins (Pavlik, Pascal, Tarver, Cloud, yes, Cloud was undefeated and Hopkins was decried as old), and those were clearly above the 160 pound weight class. So, as a MW, Golovkin can roll the dice with him, but in other weight classes, that would be like comparing Hagler to Hopkins (who'd do that?).

Fat dan?

 

[JeetKunDoGuy]

I just feel like he's been a little too one dimensional to be an ATG like people want to make him. As someone else said, he probably has these other skills dormant (or something) from his amateur career...but i have yet to see him show a different look, or change up his strategy to win a fight. Maybe it's that he hadn't NEEDED to adjust...but It seems like he has one type of style, that while REALLY good, is ultimately limited. When faced with another style that causes him challenges, instead of adapting to his opponent, he just turns up everything. Which has gotten him this far, I mean...he's done very well with that style. However I think both Canelo and Jacobs have exposed his limitations..

I recently listened to an interview with RJJ about what makes a fighter "p4p" - and he described it as the fighter who has "the most tools in his toolbox"

Thinking of this reasoning, it makes a lot of sense. If you're really comparing fighters across weight classes, you can't just compare across a handful of attributes. Rather, you think of the total picture..the combined tool set the fighter has - footwork, defense, offense, ring generalship, boxing IQ...plus intangibles like heart, chin, confidence, etc. Granted, GGG has many of these skills in spades...but something just seems to be missing from the overall package. IDK maybe I'm being too critical, but that's what I see.

 

[moosaev]

Another guy from the past who would beat GGG from his reputation was Charley Burley. One of the slickest boxers that also had power, was ducked by Sugar Ray Robinson, Jake LaMotta, Billy Conn, and many others. If you believe Eddie Futch and Archie Moore, Charley Burley was the greatest MW of all time.

Goes to show you that common perceptions of greatness dont mean shit in boxing, it is not a meritocracy, so many deserving fighters never got title shots. Especially black fighters in the 1930s and 40s.

 

[wilddeuces]

Fat dan?

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

What's your point?

If you're agreeing, fine. If you aren't, don't hide behind allusions.

 

[Sunfish]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

What's your point?

If you're agreeing, fine. If you aren't, don't hide behind allusions.

I was just joking about you saying who would compare hagler to Hopkins. I'll knock it off, I wasn't trying to piss on the point you were making.

 

[wilddeuces]

I just feel like he's been a little too one dimensional to be an ATG like people want to make him. As someone else said, he probably has these other skills dormant (or something) from his amateur career...but i have yet to see him show a different look, or change up his strategy to win a fight. Maybe it's that he hadn't NEEDED to adjust...but It seems like he has one type of style, that while REALLY good, is ultimately limited. When faced with another style that causes him challenges, instead of adapting to his opponent, he just turns up everything. Which has gotten him this far, I mean...he's done very well with that style. However I think both Canelo and Jacobs have exposed his limitations..

I recently listened to an interview with RJJ about what makes a fighter "p4p" - and he described it as the fighter who has "the most tools in his toolbox"

Thinking of this reasoning, it makes a lot of sense. If you're really comparing fighters across weight classes, you can't just compare across a handful of attributes. Rather, you think of the total picture..the combined tool set the fighter has - footwork, defense, offense, ring generalship, boxing IQ...plus intangibles like heart, chin, confidence, etc. Granted, GGG has many of these skills in spades...but something just seems to be missing from the overall package. IDK maybe I'm being too critical, but that's what I see.

P4P is subjective. Atlas doesn't have GGG on there but Lomachenko is? HOF is something that should wait. That's why the committee holds off before inducting.

Joe Frazier was one-dimensional. Rocky Marciano. Harry Greb. Jack Demspey. Mike Tyson. Oh no, they were all agressive fighters! Oh my! Better be prejudiced and oversimplify them, too!

They deserves to be in the HOF. Significant careers look at more than being some well-rounded "cutie" (as Futch would say) in the ring. It's really about what you are able to do with what you have. Golovkin has power and application. He was ducked. Now he has slipped, but has still been looking competitive. Burley was ducked hard, but he deserves credibility. He was good enough that other guys wouldn't fight him. Who looks good against Canelo? Mayweather when Canelo was more inexperienced? Ok, fair. Who argues that? Golovkin is where he ought to be as a 35 year old pressure fighter that gets regular VADA testing, has no fanbase in North America (hence thr need for an exciting style), and has been waited on by belt holders and lineal champs.

You are being too critical. Fighting is really about imposing one's will with what you've got. Nobody bitches about a guy for being in the HOF once he is in the HOF. Mostly. Give it 10 years, you might not be so critical.

Is Golovkin amazing and well-rounded? Hell no. But he is damn good at whatvhe does and has had an uphill battle on his way to the top outside the ring.

 

[wilddeuces]

I was just joking about you saying who would compare hagler to Hopkins. I'll knock it off, I wasn't trying to piss on the point you were making.

I totally see what you were getting at now.

Thanks bud, you're alright.

 

[JayE]

The Hopkins reign benefited from lighter guys moving up to fight him like DLH and Trinidad. Joppy was a Lemieux level win. He needed those fights in the early 2000's to cement his legacy at MW.

Head to head in their primes? People forget that while Monzon hit like a bastard with his right, he wasn't all that well-rounded.

Anyway, I won't make reasons for GGG beating any of these guys. Other than Harry Greb, you just mentioned a best-of, murderer's row of MW's (I'd add LaMotta and Basilio, who were solid fighters in their primes). Who the fuck beats them? Golovkin looks pretty damn good against most everybody else, and if people put him in a top 10 MW's I'd be impressed. It's a deep division if you look at the historical list. There have been some serious names in that division, which, at its time (when there were only 8, and then slowly, more) it was a transient division that saw lots of talent move into it. A lot.

I think if Golovkin ties Hopkins' 20 fight reign of successful defenses, then he has a case for being pretty much at Hopkins' level at MIDDLEWEIGHT. We have to remember that Hopkins was remembered for some of his biggest wins (Pavlik, Pascal, Tarver, Cloud, yes, Cloud was undefeated and Hopkins was decried as old), and those were clearly above the 160 pound weight class. So, as a MW, Golovkin can roll the dice with him, but in other weight classes, that would be like comparing Hagler to Hopkins (who'd do that?).

Oscar certainly was a lighter guy, but Trinidad was a massive WW, a big JMW, and in his single fight before Hopkins against the long term #2 in the division (before and after Tito's MW campaign), he looked great. I don't look at Trinidad as being much different than Canelo, except he was a better JMW than Canelo was, and arguably a better fighter, period.

Joppy was also a better win than Lemieux. He was the long term #2 at the weight and was simply a better fighter than a guy like Lemieux in addition to having a much better resume. Joppy was a more accomplished MW than anyone on Golovkin's resume, and I'd only argue that Jacobs and Canelo were better fighters than him (Joppy would give both Jacobs and Canelo a lot of problems, although, Golovkin would almost certainly stop him). Both Hopkins's and Golovkin's reigns are much more quantity than quality, but Hopkins' clearly had more quality (keep in mind, though, Golovkin's reign isn't over).

As for where Golovkin fits all time at MW, I said just the other day that I could see him getting inside the top 10 or at least very close these days.

 

[wilddeuces]

Oscar certainly was a lighter guy, but Trinidad was a massive WW, a big JMW, and in his single fight before Hopkins against the long term #2 in the division (before and after Tito's MW campaign), he looked great. I don't look at Trinidad as being much different than Canelo, except he was a better JMW than Canelo was, and arguably a better fighter, period.

Joppy was also a better win than Lemieux. He was the long term #2 at the weight and was simply a better fighter than a guy like Lemieux in addition to having a much better resume. Joppy was a more accomplished MW than anyone on Golovkin's resume, and I'd only argue that Jacobs and Canelo were better fighters than him (Joppy would give both Jacobs and Canelo a lot of problems, although, Golovkin would almost certainly stop him). Both Hopkins's and Golovkin's reigns are much more quantity than quality, but Hopkins' clearly had more quality (keep in mind, though, Golovkin's reign isn't over).

As for where Golovkin fits all time at MW, I said just the other day that I could see him getting inside the top 10 or at least very close these days.

I like this.

I think time needs to let things settle, too.

I think anyone with that many consecutive wins is going to be criticized as a quantity over quality guy. The fact that they are consistent over time merits our respect. B level fighters at that level are no joke. They are just short of champ status, or even partial champs. Few fighters are immune to that. Anybody chipping away at a legit A level list non-stop (and few exist here) is gonna go undefeated on that sort of spree.

I think Hopkins early losses and lack of a big punch, coupled with hungry, willing guys put him in an enviable position as a a guy that would get targeted by scrappers like DLH and Trinidad. Ironic, but it helped build his MW legacy I am not too convinced about Joppy, but that is not his fault, it'seems mine. I will watch more tape. I would readily concede his place above Lemieux's, but after I watch some more tape.

This isn't a critique of Bhop's style as a low output boxer, but Golovkin can only go down at 35 by virtue of his age, style as an exerting pressure fighter, and clean testing. Also, he's been clear ducked for years (until now). He's got an uphill battle every fight until he retires. At the end of the day, what is, is, however, he deserves appreciation as a non American with a small fanbase that made the most of what he had.

There are better, there are worse. So far he ducked nobody, much respect. At this point I see why Bhop is rated above him. No doubt.

 

[proncley]

Why doesn't he perform well against them? Robinson lost to Randy Turpin. Boxed a lot of opponents who were shorter than him.

Duran, who started at 130, was doing well against Hagler.

Golovkin is a level (or severel levels) above most, if not all of Monzons opponents.

 

[JayE]

Why doesn't he perform well against them? Robinson lost to Randy Turpin. Boxed a lot of opponents who were shorter than him.

Duran, who started at 130, was doing well against Hagler.

Golovkin is a level (or severel levels) above most, if not all of Monzons opponents.

Perform well against them in the sense that I'd favour him to beat any of them. He doesn't match up well with any of them, stylistically speaking. I'm not saying he gets blown out by them, just that it's hard to see him having a good chance of beating any of them.

 

[proncley]

People are generally too impressed on boxers from the past, while beeing too critical on current boxers. Maybe it's the black and white footage advantage or in Harry Grebs case, no footage at all advantage.

I think we've seen some great middleweights in recent memory - Hopkins slickness, Martinez mobility, Abrahams toughness, Sturms jab, Pirogs overall ability, Jacobs back foot game, Golovkins power and workrate and Canelo is a great MW as well.

 

[JeetKunDoGuy]

P4P is subjective. Atlas doesn't have GGG on there but Lomachenko is? HOF is something that should wait. That's why the committee holds off before inducting.

Joe Frazier was one-dimensional. Rocky Marciano. Harry Greb. Jack Demspey. Mike Tyson. Oh no, they were all agressive fighters! Oh my! Better be prejudiced and oversimplify them, too!

They deserves to be in the HOF. Significant careers look at more than being some well-rounded "cutie" (as Futch would say) in the ring. It's really about what you are able to do with what you have. Golovkin has power and application. He was ducked. Now he has slipped, but has still been looking competitive. Burley was ducked hard, but he deserves credibility. He was good enough that other guys wouldn't fight him. Who looks good against Canelo? Mayweather when Canelo was more inexperienced? Ok, fair. Who argues that? Golovkin is where he ought to be as a 35 year old pressure fighter that gets regular VADA testing, has no fanbase in North America (hence thr need for an exciting style), and has been waited on by belt holders and lineal champs.

You are being too critical. Fighting is really about imposing one's will with what you've got. Nobody bitches about a guy for being in the HOF once he is in the HOF. Mostly. Give it 10 years, you might not be so critical.

Is Golovkin amazing and well-rounded? Hell no. But he is damn good at whatvhe does and has had an uphill battle on his way to the top outside the ring.

I would agree with most of that. I never said he isn't a very good, or maybe even a great fighter...And I think he could compete in any era..its just that I see him losing a lot of fights to top MW in those eras. He's highly proficient, technical fighter with great pressure footwork, power in both hands and a hell of a beard.

 

[PUO3]

People are generally too impressed on boxers from the past, while beeing too critical on current boxers. Maybe it's the black and white footage advantage or in Harry Grebs case, no footage at all advantage.

I think we've seen some great middleweights in recent memory - Hopkins slickness, Martinez mobility, Abrahams toughness, Sturms jab, Pirogs overall ability, Jacobs back foot game, Golovkins power and workrate and Canelo is a great MW as well.

Nostalgia is always comical when eras are diacussed. Just a couple years ago Wlad couldnt hold any ATG jock straps. Now that hes retired he is better than several of them. Same with Floyd.

 

[nac386]

I am not underwhelmed by Golovkin at all. I don't even understand the comment, honestly.

Golovkin is the best middleweight around right now, and that is all anybody ever really claims. Nobody says he's the greatest ever, nobody claims he has an amazing resume, nothing like that.

 

[gmr7494]

Apparently he is, which is why oscar made the fight happen now as opposed to three years ago

 

[dajab]

A little underwhelmed by his performance against canelo. But not underwhelmed by him overall.

Im not going to say he was overrated - for me he is clearly a little older, slower, with a little less stamina. And still arguably beat an outstanding younger boxer in his prime.

With Canelo's faster hands, combinations, and counterpuching, Golovkin could'nt win on the inside. So he fought the correct fight by controlling the range, not overcommitting and using an excellent jab. He could have made more adjustments for sure though.

Straight up and down? Maybe. But being able to impose a simple game plan on a top level opponent is a mark of an impressive fighter.