Putting BHOP in Perspective

[marbleheadmaui]

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!

[greynotsoold]

I'd stand in quicksand to watch Hopkins and Tiger fight.

[Kev]

Great post marblehead. B Hop is definitely one of the greats of our, or indeed any era..

[Pavlik]

not only is 46 really old but the fighter he beat is legitimately the best in the division. wow!!

[marbleheadmaui]

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!

[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?

[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?

[marbleheadmaui]

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!