Putting BHOP in Perspective
How many men have been both the LEGITIMATE middleweight and light heavy champions of the world?
Bob Fitzsimmons, Dick Tiger and Bernard Hopkins
How many men have been LEGITIMATE champions in their forties?
Bob Fitzsimmons, Archie Moore, George Foreman and BHOP
How many men have been LEGITIMATE four division champions?
Manny Pacquiao
How many men have been LEGITIMATE three division champions?
Bob Fitzsimmons, Henry Armstrong, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Ray Leonard, Emile Griffith, Alexis Arguello and Floyd Mayweather
How many men have been LEGITIMATE two division champions?
The aforementioned Tiger and Fighting Harada, Terry McGovern, Ruben Olivares, Eder Jofre, Sandy Saddler, Rafael Marquez, Wilfredo Gomez, Carlos Ortiz, Roberto Duran, Ray Robinson, Carmen Basilio, Nino Benvenuti, Pernell Whittaker, Oscar de La Hoya, Julio Cesar Chavez, Mickey Walker, Wilfred Benitez, Thomas Hearns, Shane Mosely, Michael Spinks and arguably Joe Calzaghe.
How many men have been LEGITIMATE two division champs in the original eight divisions?
Tiger, Harada, McGovern, Olivares, Jofre, Duran, Leonard, Pacquiao, Griffith, Basilio, Walker, Spinks and BHOP
BHOP has entered rarified boxing air. Before this I had him somewhere in the 40-60 range with guys like Jones and Finito and Burley and LaMotta and Hearns and Gavilan and Basilio and Floyd and guys like that.
Now he starts to look a lot like Dick Tiger to me. 160 and 175 king, fought HOFers Benvenuti, Giardello, Griffith, Foster, Torres and Fullmer and went 6-5-1.
BHOP has fought likely HOFers Trinidad, Oscar, Jones and Calzaghe and gone 3-2.
Tiger had a total of five defenses of his two crowns, BHOP had a total of seven of his 160.
Tiger beat a total of 20 or so ranked guys. So has BHOP.
Tiger went 60-19 and fought past 40, BHOP is 52-5 and the Energizer Bunny!
So now where does Dick Tiger belong all-time? Most lists I've seen have Tiger somewhere in the 40ish range give or take. That puts him around guys like Foster or Pascual Perez or Miguel Canto. Bert Sugar has Tiger 63rd which seems a mistake to me.
Those resumes look an awful lot alike to me.
Regardless of where one places him BHOP is a marvel and we saw a bit of boxing history tonight.
[Edit] Look for JazzMerkins corrections below. Thanks Jazz!
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
I'd stand in quicksand to watch Hopkins and Tiger fight.
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Great post marblehead. B Hop is definitely one of the greats of our, or indeed any era..
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
not only is 46 really old but the fighter he beat is legitimately the best in the division. wow!!
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
I'd stand in quicksand to watch Hopkins and Tiger fight.
I'd just ask for some rope to hold onto to make sure I lasted the full 15!
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pavlik
not only is 46 really old but the fighter he beat is legitimately the best in the division. wow!!
Just extraordinary isn't it? We got to see genuine history last night!
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
I think it should be pointed out that "lineal/legitimate" doesn't necessarily mean BEST.
For instance - Roy Jones doesn't get a mention amongst the legit holders yet he comfortably beat Hopkins at middleweight before moving up in weight. Hopkins became the MAN at middleweight, but during his time there was clearly a fighter that had proved himself better than him.
Hopkins was arguably already the lineal lightheavy champ when he beat Tarver. Which of course stems from a line through Roy Jones. And, of course, Jones had beaten Tarver.
Hopkin's legitimate title wins came against Tito (160) and Pascal (175). They are two excellent wins, but are they the best fighters he's faced? Tito was definitely an A-lister. But his pomp was at welterweight. Although he succesfully moved to middleweight before the Hopkins fight, beating Joppy, no-one believes this was his best division, right?
Pascal has never been P4P rated or an A-lister. He established himself as no.1 at lightheavy and is clearly a world-class fighter. But he'll never be considered "great."
So - is a legitimate claim to being the MAN more important than actual individual victories?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I think it should be pointed out that "lineal/legitimate" doesn't necessarily mean BEST.
For instance - Roy Jones doesn't get a mention amongst the legit holders yet he comfortably beat Hopkins at middleweight before moving up in weight. Hopkins became the MAN at middleweight, but during his time there was clearly a fighter that had proved himself better than him.
Hopkins was arguably already the lineal lightheavy champ when he beat Tarver. Which of course stems from a line through Roy Jones. And, of course, Jones had beaten Tarver.
Hopkin's legitimate title wins came against Tito (160) and Pascal (175). They are two excellent wins, but are they the best fighters he's faced? Tito was definitely an A-lister. But his pomp was at welterweight. Although he succesfully moved to middleweight before the Hopkins fight, beating Joppy, no-one believes this was his best division, right?
Pascal has never been P4P rated or an A-lister. He established himself as no.1 at lightheavy and is clearly a world-class fighter. But he'll never be considered "great."
So - is a legitimate claim to being the MAN more important than actual individual victories?
Yes. It is the core of the sport. Now don't get me wrong individual victories can be incredibly important, but they aren't a way of organizing the sport. The desire to be THE MAN and the fights that desire engenders is.
Does that make sense?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I think it should be pointed out that "lineal/legitimate" doesn't necessarily mean BEST.
For instance - Roy Jones doesn't get a mention amongst the legit holders yet he comfortably beat Hopkins at middleweight before moving up in weight. Hopkins became the MAN at middleweight, but during his time there was clearly a fighter that had proved himself better than him.
Hopkins was arguably already the lineal lightheavy champ when he beat Tarver. Which of course stems from a line through Roy Jones. And, of course, Jones had beaten Tarver.
Hopkin's legitimate title wins came against Tito (160) and Pascal (175). They are two excellent wins, but are they the best fighters he's faced? Tito was definitely an A-lister. But his pomp was at welterweight. Although he succesfully moved to middleweight before the Hopkins fight, beating Joppy, no-one believes this was his best division, right?
Pascal has never been P4P rated or an A-lister. He established himself as no.1 at lightheavy and is clearly a world-class fighter. But he'll never be considered "great."
So - is a legitimate claim to being the MAN more important than actual individual victories?
Yes. It is the core of the sport. Now don't get me wrong individual victories can be incredibly important, but they aren't a way of organizing the sport. The desire to be THE MAN and the fights that desire engenders is.
Does that make sense?
It makes sense for boxing fans because it makes things easier to follow/understand.
However, is a legitimate title win against an inferior opponent more important than a non-title win over an apparently superior fighter?
At the end of the day - the title should always come second to the actually quality of the match. No?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I think it should be pointed out that "lineal/legitimate" doesn't necessarily mean BEST.
For instance - Roy Jones doesn't get a mention amongst the legit holders yet he comfortably beat Hopkins at middleweight before moving up in weight. Hopkins became the MAN at middleweight, but during his time there was clearly a fighter that had proved himself better than him.
Hopkins was arguably already the lineal lightheavy champ when he beat Tarver. Which of course stems from a line through Roy Jones. And, of course, Jones had beaten Tarver.
Hopkin's legitimate title wins came against Tito (160) and Pascal (175). They are two excellent wins, but are they the best fighters he's faced? Tito was definitely an A-lister. But his pomp was at welterweight. Although he succesfully moved to middleweight before the Hopkins fight, beating Joppy, no-one believes this was his best division, right?
Pascal has never been P4P rated or an A-lister. He established himself as no.1 at lightheavy and is clearly a world-class fighter. But he'll never be considered "great."
So - is a legitimate claim to being the MAN more important than actual individual victories?
Yes. It is the core of the sport. Now don't get me wrong individual victories can be incredibly important, but they aren't a way of organizing the sport. The desire to be THE MAN and the fights that desire engenders is.
Does that make sense?
It makes sense for boxing fans because it makes things easier to follow/understand.
However, is a legitimate title win against an inferior opponent more important than a non-title win over an apparently superior fighter?
At the end of the day - the title should always come second to the actually quality of the match. No?
No.
It is the "apparently" where I think your case falls down (at least a little). No one has ever been able to define for me the terms "better" or "best" in a boxing sense in a way that helps me think about the sport. BHOP beats Pavlik who beats Taylor who beats BHOP, so who is "the best" of those four? Who was a "better" fighter, Tommy Hearns or Iran Barkely who beat him twice? By what criteria in those cases does one determine who is better or best?
The only organizing principle I can come up with that makes debates like those solvable is by asking who is the most accomplished? THAT approach allows for at least some level of objectivity. The history of the sport is the history of true championships changing hands.
In my view, for the sport to make any sense, the "best" guy at a given weight, at a given moment, is BY DEFINITION the champion (if there is one). Now does that mean the champ is always a favorite? Nope. But until he is actually beaten (and assuming he is resonably active), he gets full credit for being the man.
Let me try a specific example. Many claim Floyd's win over Baldomir isn't that meaningful. They are dead wrong. Why? First because Baldomir had beaten the champion to become champion. THAT is what the sport really revolves around, Second Floyd pursued the champion, what we should want all fighters doing, climbing, or trying, to the top of the mountain.
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Ok, I haven't fully gone through the expansive list at the top, but I've got a few disagreements with the first bit of your lists that offer it.
You've included Emile Griffith & Alexis Arguello as 3 weight lineal champions. Both are two of my personal favourites, but I don't see how you can argue that either was definitively THE MAN at 3 weights. Arguello was undeniably lineal champ at 130 & 135, but I don't see how his win over Olivares makes him lineal champ. I don't think there was a lineal champ after maybe Jofre until maybe the Lopez-Kotei matchup & I don't think that you could argue that there was another fight up that was for the lineal title. They were still alphabets then, even if there were only two of them.
As for Griffith, I know he was champ at WW & MW, but where else? I'm assuming it was for maybe a light-middle title, but who did he beat to make him the man?
I think there's also an argument for Oscar De La Hoya being a 3 division lineal champ at 140, 147 & 154, while on the being a two division champ in at least 2 of the original 8 divisions, you've left out Mayweather & Ross.
Good list though, nice work!
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Ok, I haven't fully gone through the expansive list at the top, but I've got a few disagreements with the first bit of your lists that offer it.
You've included Emile Griffith & Alexis Arguello as 3 weight lineal champions. Both are two of my personal favourites, but I don't see how you can argue that either was definitively THE MAN at 3 weights. Arguello was undeniably lineal champ at 130 & 135, but I don't see how his win over Olivares makes him lineal champ. I don't think there was a lineal champ after maybe Jofre until maybe the Lopez-Kotei matchup & I don't think that you could argue that there was another fight up that was for the lineal title. They were still alphabets then, even if there were only two of them.
As for Griffith, I know he was champ at WW & MW, but where else? I'm assuming it was for maybe a light-middle title, but who did he beat to make him the man?
I think there's also an argument for Oscar De La Hoya being a 3 division lineal champ at 140, 147 & 154, while on the being a two division champ in at least 2 of the original 8 divisions, you've left out Mayweather & Ross.
Good list though, nice work!
Good thouights all around. At 126 there was no clearcut guy after Jofre, but when Arguello fought Olivares it was pretty clearly 1 vs.2. Ring Magazine, Cyberboxingzone and me all recognize it ;) Plus it was Alexis! (No, I'm not biased there...really...I mean it)
Emile was the inaugural champ at 154 for about seven seconds.
I agree I screwed up on Ross and Mayweather on two divisions! Thanks for the correction!
Oscar at 140? Geeze was Chavez STILL the guy then? Works for me! Thanks again for the corrections!
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Ok, I haven't fully gone through the expansive list at the top, but I've got a few disagreements with the first bit of your lists that offer it.
You've included Emile Griffith & Alexis Arguello as 3 weight lineal champions. Both are two of my personal favourites, but I don't see how you can argue that either was definitively THE MAN at 3 weights. Arguello was undeniably lineal champ at 130 & 135, but I don't see how his win over Olivares makes him lineal champ. I don't think there was a lineal champ after maybe Jofre until maybe the Lopez-Kotei matchup & I don't think that you could argue that there was another fight up that was for the lineal title. They were still alphabets then, even if there were only two of them.
As for Griffith, I know he was champ at WW & MW, but where else? I'm assuming it was for maybe a light-middle title, but who did he beat to make him the man?
I think there's also an argument for Oscar De La Hoya being a 3 division lineal champ at 140, 147 & 154, while on the being a two division champ in at least 2 of the original 8 divisions, you've left out Mayweather & Ross.
Good list though, nice work!
Good thouights all around. At 126 there was no clearcut guy after Jofre, but when Arguello fought Olivares it was pretty clearly 1 vs.2. Ring Magazine, Cyberboxingzone and me all recognize it ;) Plus it was Alexis! (No, I'm not biased there...really...I mean it)
Emile was the inaugural champ at 154 for about seven seconds.
I agree I screwed up on Ross and Mayweather on two divisions! Thanks for the correction!
Oscar at 140? Geeze was Chavez STILL the guy then? Works for me! Thanks again for the corrections!
Well if Cyberboxingzone recognizes it that's good enough for me ;)
I have a lot more faith in them than Ring. I still think Olivares was too patchy then to be #1 or #2 (look at me saying that like I was even alive). But it's Arguello so I'm good with it ;D
I still can't go with the Griffith one. I know CBZ agrees with that, but having looked into it the fact it was a vacant title and only recognized by the Austrian Board of Control (:confused:) has me having doubts.
Yeah, apparently JCC was still the guy somehow.
I like your list though, it's given me greater encouragement on my post in the other thread re: Mayweather. When someone calls me out on it, I'm citing this as my defending evidence :cool:
Also made me look up Terry McGovern who I'm ashamed to say I hadn't heard of.
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
Not really.
The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.
You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
Not really.
The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.
You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
The value of the title is the ONLY thing that, over time, drives the best fighting the best. Otherwise guys will just take money fights (see Boxing since about 1995). I mean the reason Bowe-Holyfield III matterred at all was because of their prior title fights.
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
Not really.
The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.
You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
The value of the title is the ONLY thing that, over time, drives the best fighting the best.
Otherwise guys will just take money fights (see Boxing since about 1995). I mean the reason Bowe-Holyfield III matterred at all was because of their prior title fights.
Foreman-Savarese wasn't the best fighting the best. Take the linage away and you would never even mention it, because you know it's a veteran vs a borderline journeyman fight. Holyfield-Bowe, among many others, were far, far superior heavyweights at this time.
When has Pro boxing NOT been about money? Has there ever been guys that didn't pursue their most lucrative money option?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
Not really.
The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.
You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
The value of the title is the ONLY thing that, over time, drives the best fighting the best.
Otherwise guys will just take money fights (see Boxing since about 1995). I mean the reason Bowe-Holyfield III matterred at all was because of their prior title fights.
Foreman-Savarese wasn't the best fighting the best. Take the linage away and you would never even mention it, because you know it's a veteran vs a borderline journeyman fight. Holyfield-Bowe, among many others, were far, far superior heavyweights at this time.
When has Pro boxing NOT been about money? Has there ever been guys that didn't pursue their most lucrative money option?
In answer to your first, the phrase "over time" is critical. Single fights don't tell you much.
In regards your second? Sure. MANY fighters fought for other things than simply maximizing money at the expense of everything else. Read Ray Robinson's autobio and the way he thought about himself. Floyd hasn't pursued his most lucrative option ;) Joe Gans didn't. Aaron Pryor didn't (of course he may have been nuts by then), Arguello clearly fought for other things as well. He told his manager "Bring me the best and I will knock them out." (Sorry, I loved Alexis)
Money mattered to everyone. But to many greats it wasn't remotely everything. Being the very best had enormous value as well.
I'm out for a while. I'll check back later, thanks for your thoughts!
