Unified middleweight champion Gennady Golovkin will face welterweight Kell Brook on Sept 10 in what is being billed as a middleweight championship bout. This upcoming fight has a lot of boxing fans talking, many of them passionately. The debate largely centers around whether or not Brook – a largely unproven welterweight trinket holder – is worthy of facing the middleweight powerhouse better known to most as “Triple G”.
One of the things that contributed in this fight coming together is Golovkin’s inability to secure relevant fights in his own division. Not many people at 160 pounds are eager to jump in there with the superbly skilled Golovkin who possesses top notch power. Golovkin is widely viewed as the best boxer in the middleweight division, and nobody seems to want to face him. Canelo Alvarez, Miguel Cotto, and Sergio Martinez were all reluctant to face him in recent years when they were each respectively atop the middleweight pecking order. This time Golovkin was forced to settle for a welterweight champion who never even yet proved to be the best in his own weight class.
A lot of fans are considering this situation to be very similar to when the last great middleweight champion faced two high profile former welterweights. This of course is in reference to the great Bernard Hopkins, and his middleweight unification bouts against former pound for pound superstars, Oscar De La Hoya and Felix “Tito” Trinidad. But is this situation with Golovkin and Brook the same as the situations with Bernard and Oscar and/or Bernard and Tito? That’s a major point of debate among rival boxing factions of social media.
This edition of Rummy’s Corner takes a brief glimpse into the upcoming match-up between Golovkin and Brook while trying to make sense of the situation and addressing some interesting questions that surround this upcoming contest. Please watch and enjoy the video for one man’s utterly worthless boxing opinion.