Why historical?

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 21 Feb 2005, 11:33

Seems all the boxing sites are labelling Bernard Hopkins' 20th defence "historical".
Somebody tell me why. I'm at a loss.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Feb 2005, 11:41

I'm not sure either. It was historic when he overtook Monzon, but this is merely a milestone, not a landmark.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 21 Feb 2005, 11:46

I suppose because no middle champ has made 20 defences before, even if they are of the watered down variety.

20 defences - but some of the names on there a pretty obscure, plus one R Allen THREE times - check out Monzon's record and it's different class - usualy in the other guys backyard too -

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=009036

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 21 Feb 2005, 11:50

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I'm not sure either. It was historic when he overtook Monzon, but this is merely a milestone, not a landmark.

That's the way I see it. Bernard's win over Carl Daniels was historical - his 15th defence. And he's still short of the 25 defences made by Joe Louis, or the 22 made by Abe Attell (Ricardo Lopez made 21 and Larry Holmes 20 - I don't include Dariusz Michalczewski's 22 defences because they were WBO).

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Feb 2005, 12:12

Let's not forget Eusebio Pedroza.

Freiheit · Post by **Freiheit** » 21 Feb 2005, 12:39

Or Sven Ottke.

ArtOfWar · Post by **ArtOfWar** » 21 Feb 2005, 12:49

bennie wrote:Seems all the boxing sites are labelling Bernard Hopkins' 20th defence "historical".
Somebody tell me why. I'm at a loss.

Hopkins pissed on about it so much, that's why. Alot of the great feats and accomplishments in boxing have extra credit given to them, because the person(s) concerned will go mention them alot.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 21 Feb 2005, 12:51

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Let's not forget Eusebio Pedroza.

Eusebio made 19.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 21 Feb 2005, 14:23

Freiheit wrote:Or Sven Ottke.

No. Let's forget Sven Ottke. Please.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 21 Feb 2005, 14:26

It's historical - just like DLH's historical feat of winning world titles in 6 weight classes. ;)

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 21 Feb 2005, 14:49

Riddick Blowe wrote:
Freiheit wrote:Or Sven Ottke.
No. Let's forget Sven Ottke. Please.

He made 21. I did forget him. But that's probably my natural fan instincts coming to the fore.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 21 Feb 2005, 14:50

People can say that not all of Hopkins defenses have been against the top fighters, but who's has. Louis took his far share of easy ones, Bum of the Month it was called, and Holmes took a few light ones as well, more to the fact of him fighting in a poor era of Heavyweights.

Overall Monzon did face better contenders, but maybe it was a better time for Middles back then, remember there was more to choose from as there was no Supermiddle weight division

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 21 Feb 2005, 16:47

'Historical' and making 'history' are just common American buzzwords nowadays. The words get rhymed off across the media from as diverse sources as George Bush speeches, to obscure baseball match commentary. At the risk of offending our US friends, let's not go into why they use it.

Hopkins' career will undergoe the usual filtering once it's over.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 21 Feb 2005, 17:05

He's right, if there's tickets to be sold and money to made all the jargon is rolled out before a fight...look at how many times we hear "World Title" and how many times the term truly applies to the fight it is used the promote

Freiheit · Post by **Freiheit** » 21 Feb 2005, 17:48

Im noy yoo hooked on that the NC vs Allen is counted.

dandantheweatherman · Post by **dandantheweatherman** » 21 Feb 2005, 20:08

To be fair to Hopkins he can only beat what's put in front of him. It's hardly his fault that the middleweight division is fairly weak. And I think it's pretty impressive being world champion for 10 years, and unifying the title.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 21 Feb 2005, 20:14

His stoppage of Glencoffe Johnson looks all the more impressive now as well.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Feb 2005, 20:39

I do wonder whether Glen had troubles making weight back then. He's so solidly packed at 175, I find it hard to believe he ever made MW.

I'd like to see those two fight again. Most people are predicting Glen to reverse the loss, but Maybe nard will have his number. I think Glen will have a significant edge in strength and power though, because he really rattled Woods, and woods has a good chin.

It's a fight worth seeing. Tarver is probably just too damned big for Nard, he'll be about 190 come fight time and has a massive reach too.

I say bring on Winky, Taylor, Tito, Johnson, then retire. If he wins all those, then he's going to be going down in history as one of the very best, despite having generally weak competition.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 21 Feb 2005, 21:43

Your right about Johnson, i have not seen the fight but that scenario has occured to me...i seem to remember Johnson was unbeaten when he faced Hopkins but he is such a thick set guy it is entirely conceivable he was struggling at the weight.

Why historical?

Why historical?

Re: Why historical?