Putting BHOP in Perspective

[marbleheadmaui]

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.