REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD

[iamasadlittleboy]

So you're saying that Louis fighting Walcott twice is somehow a valid point for your side of this yet Hopkins taking on Allen x3 isn't worth a mention. You're not thinking laterally, you're not looking through history, you're just reading names from the record of a fight that you know much about and circumstances that you don't understand RE the circumstances surrounding his title win.

The title wasn't "robbed" from Max in the preceding fight, he lost it on decision and it was controversial, but are you saying that the fact he lost a close one meant he was actually seen as the hidden king of the division when it went Sharkey>Carnera>Baer>Braddock>Louis? No, that isn't the case. Louis was THE champion when he won the title, the return win over Schmeling was a personal triumph, and Louis said it made him FEEL like champion, but it was not a win over the man still considered champion. By your logic Max Baer and then Steve Hamas took the hidden crown from Schmeling, not Louis, in the return, so when Louis beat Baer he became #1, no?

Plus, if Schmeling was seen as some kind of linear champion then why go through the farce of the weigh in for the fight that never was?

In basic terms, ones even you can understand, when Louis was champion there wasn't a claim on his title, not even from Schmeling.

My only real point was that Louis wasn't "head and shoulders above the rest", likewise Hopkins defending his IBF title wasn't him proving to be "head and shoulders above the rest", both men were making awful defenses, yet for Louis they count, for Hopkins they don't?

I understand perfectly well that Schmelling was robber due to the fear of the title hiding in Germany under Hitler's rule, I also understand Braddocks' manager "selling" the title fight to Louis for a % of Louis' future purses (the greatest managerial move in boxing) though the chance that went to Louis was rightfully Schmellings.

Remember the timing of the events. Schmelling loses to Baer (1933), Baer loses Louis (1935), Louis loses to Schmelling (1936). I was never suggesting that Schemlling was the "linear" champion, just that he was arguably the best in the division and certainly proof that Louis wasn't "head and shoulders above the others".

[iamasadlittleboy]

...feel free to explain them then if I don't understand them...though it appears that Louis' loss would prove he wasn't head and shoulders. It wasn't like he was caught cold or had some freakish accident, like you said, he was beaten tactically, he had his weaknesses exploited and later became a better fighter, though at the start of his reign there was a strong case that he wasn't the best on the planet.

Schmelling was shafted out of the Braddock fight in 1936 due to money after proving himself the de facto #1 contender.

[loaded_gloves]

My only real point was that Louis wasn't "head and shoulders above the rest", likewise Hopkins defending his IBF title wasn't him proving to be "head and shoulders above the rest", both men were making awful defenses, yet for Louis they count, for Hopkins they don't?

Louis beat the man, Hopkins didn't.

Monzon and Hagler, ditto.

It took Hopkins six years to get around to unifying the belts.

Louis took one year to waste Max Schmeling. When did Hopkins pursue his rematch with Jones? About a decade later, and still wouldn't agree to terms. Louis defended against Farr, Schmeling, Pastor, Godoy twice, Simon, Brother Baer, Conn twice, Mauriello, Walcott.... His record stands up well against anyone, particularly Hopkin's '2 bums a year' routine.

[danconnollyeire]

Remember Hopkins was promoted by Don King. Not easy to do much with him around

[Boxing Prospect]

Jones moving up a division 18 months after the Hopkins may have been why it took Hopkins so long to get a rematch. I was always under the belief that he wanted it but the terms and weight issues always stood in the way there. Who would have been "the man" in the Middleweight division circa 1994?

[banjo]

Monzon was a machine, he was like the Terminator, just kept coming after you.

A scumbag of a human being by the sounds of it though.

[MightyWarrior]

Jones moving up a division 18 months after the Hopkins may have been why it took Hopkins so long to get a rematch. I was always under the belief that he wanted it but the terms and weight issues always stood in the way there. Who would have been "the man" in the Middleweight division circa 1994?

Hop didn't want the rematch - Jones outclassed him and sent him into his shell. He was more than glad when Jones moved up - but was happy to eventually take the "rematch" when Jones was shot to pieces.

[observer1]

Impossible to hold more than one belt in the 1990s?

Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Pernell Whitaker and Roy Jones were undisputed champions of their divisions, with numerous fighters unifying at least two belts.

Nobody except Hopkins has held all 4 belts.

And yes it's impossible to do what he did. He went to court and took on the sanctioning bodies during the late 90's early 2000.

He got his oppurtunity to unify in the MW Don King tournement set up in 2001 for Trinidad. Hopkins was just a step over. We all know what happened after that

[loaded_gloves]

Nobody except Hopkins has held all 4 belts.

And yes it's impossible to do what he did. He went to court and took on the sanctioning bodies during the late 90's early 2000.

He got his oppurtunity to unify in the MW Don King tournement set up in 2001 for Trinidad. Hopkins was just a step over. We all know what happened after that

More babble!

No one tried unify all '4' titles until Hopkins 'validated' the WBO in 2004 by also fighting for the WBO belt.

You can pinpoint 2004 as the year the WBO was 'elevated' to a major world title, because Oscar de la Hoya needed a middleweight belt in order to gift himself an umpteenth division title, but unfortunately for him all 3 major belts were in possession of Hopkins. Of course in Sturm there was another stay-at-home European with a WBO belt who was supposed to provide as easy mark for Oscar.

Why would anyone before that bother to include the WBO in a unification match? Do you think in 1999 when Holyfield and Lewis were battling anyone was demanding Herbie Hide face the winner, coming off his stirring WBO-sponsored defenses against Damon Reed and Willi Fischer?

Seriously, don't you know any of this? Or did you only start following boxing with Amir Khan? If that is the case you are not qualified to discuss Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, and Bernard Hopkin's situation in the mid-90s middleweight scene.

[loaded_gloves]

Remember Hopkins was promoted by Don King. Not easy to do much with him around

Weirdly, King also had Keith Holmes and William Joppy. The unification was right there for Hopkins to push. But instead he was battling Joe Lipsey and Syd Vanderpool.

[orbtastic]

Didn't he only get unification fights once he signed with DK?

[orbtastic]

I remember Collins laughing at the WBO calling them the Wicked Body Odour organisation then all of a sudden he's fighting for their titles once he hooks up with a certain promoter.

[orbtastic]

Kovacs is now the WBO's European head guy, isn't he?

He was Hamed's mandatory for a while.

[gobbles]

Gobbles, your research is way off here. Very poor. I take it you are not familiar with these eras?

For the record - not every defense was for all three (or for Monzon's day, all two) titles, but are you surely aware than Monzan became 'the man' when he KOd Benvenuti? Hagler was 'the man' when he shredded Minter - and their record title defenses came after their respective wins over the division king?

So, regardless of whether every single sanctioning body recognised every single fight, they were still defenses of the undisputed title because the champion held all those belts and was fighting.

Hopkins only became 'the man' when he beat Felix Trinidad.

Does that make sense? (I'll bet everyone else here comprehends this)

When Hagler made his last defence against Leonard, he only defended his WBC title. It was not for the undisputed title as his WBA and IBF titles were not on the line. Very simple.

Also Monzon won the WBA and WBC titles, but was stripped of the WBC title, which was then won by Rodrigo Valdez who defended it 5 times before finally having a unification against Monzon.

Sorry mate, these are actual facts and show how a boxer's reputation is largely made by what the sanctioning bodies demand and what fights can be made. A boxer can only win the fights that are made for him by promoters and TV companies and just because Hopkins was moved away from big fights, that doesn't mean he was not the No 1 middleweight or a worthy world champion.

[gobbles]

In fact, Gobbles has actually confused Marvin Hagler with Larry Holmes.

This is a major red face moment for you. Wow.

Hagler was only WBC champion throughout his reign and at one point was only defending the newly-invented IBF title.

The WBA stripped Hagler for not defending the title against Herol Graham, I thought you said that you knew these eras.

The only title he held from Minter until Leonard was the WBC title. That, I'm afraid, is a fact. And obviously a major red face moment for you.

[gobbles]

Gobbles, your research is way off here. Very poor. I take it you are not familiar with these eras?

For the record - not every defense was for all three (or for Monzon's day, all two) titles, but are you surely aware than Monzan became 'the man' when he KOd Benvenuti? Hagler was 'the man' when he shredded Minter - and their record title defenses came after their respective wins over the division king?

So, regardless of whether every single sanctioning body recognised every single fight, they were still defenses of the undisputed title because the champion held all those belts and was fighting.

Hopkins only became 'the man' when he beat Felix Trinidad.

Does that make sense? (I'll bet everyone else here comprehends this)

When Hagler made his last defence against Leonard, he only defended his WBC title. It was not for the undisputed title as his WBA and IBF titles were not on the line. Very simple.

Also Monzon won the WBA and WBC titles, but was stripped of the WBC title, which was then won by Rodrigo Valdez who defended it 5 times before finally having a unification against Monzon.

Sorry mate, these are actual facts and show how a boxer's reputation is largely made by what the sanctioning bodies demand and what fights can be made. A boxer can only win the fights that are made for him by promoters and TV companies and just because Hopkins was moved away from big fights, that doesn't mean he was not the No 1 middleweight or a worthy world champion.

That fight was at the end of his reign. Hagler did win and defend the other titles earlier on. That's what Loaded is getting at. Hopkins made it very easy for, some, people to put Tito at #1 right off the bat, which never happened to Hagler or Monzon.

But my point was not that he wasn't recognised as the best, but having to wait so long to prove it wasn't his fault. Holmes was the No 1 heavyweight, certainly from after he beat Ali until he lost to Spinks, but never held the WBA title, even though he beat Mike Weaver who was WBA title for part of his reign. Being undisputed champion isn't the be all and end all.
Trinidad never won a title at middleweight until 2001. Prior to facing Hopkins, his only middleweight fight was a win over William Joppy, while Hopkins had to wait for a unification fight but won 2 of them.

[loaded_gloves]

The WBA stripped Hagler for not defending the title against Herol Graham, I thought you said that you knew these eras.

The only title he held from Minter until Leonard was the WBC title. That, I'm afraid, is a fact. And obviously a major red face moment for you.

What, you mean the WBA stripped him right at the very end, in 1987, before he lost to Leonard?

That somehow invalidates him winning the undisputed title and defending all those years?

I'm starting to think you are mad. This is some major gross misrepresentation you are employing to muddle the facts.

[Flump]

In fact, Gobbles has actually confused Marvin Hagler with Larry Holmes.

This is a major red face moment for you. Wow.

Hagler was only WBC champion throughout his reign and at one point was only defending the newly-invented IBF title.

The WBA stripped Hagler for not defending the title against Herol Graham, I thought you said that you knew these eras.

The only title he held from Minter until Leonard was the WBC title. That, I'm afraid, is a fact. And obviously a major red face moment for you.

He held the WBA title through to Leonard mate, he held it for seven years. You could count the people who didn't recognise Monzon and Hagler as THE World Middleweight Champion from the beginning to the end of their reign on the fingers of a snake.

Hopkins was not regarded as THE champion until he beat Trinidad, irrespective of whether he was number 1 in the division.

[gobbles]

The WBA stripped Hagler for not defending the title against Herol Graham, I thought you said that you knew these eras.

The only title he held from Minter until Leonard was the WBC title. That, I'm afraid, is a fact. And obviously a major red face moment for you.

What, you mean the WBA stripped him right at the very end, in 1987, before he lost to Leonard?

That somehow invalidates him winning the undisputed title and defending all those years?

I'm starting to think you are mad. This is some major gross misrepresentation you are employing to muddle the facts.

It doesn't invalidate him, but you are downgrading Hopkins record in favour of Trinidad when Trinidad was not even a middleweight six months before he faced Hopkins, who had been a champion for six years by then.
The two fought in different eras. Hagler won a title that was already unified at a time when the governing bodies were not so motivated by stripping fighters for a quick sanctioning fee. The Valdez-Briscoe fight in 1977 after Monzon retired must be one of the last cases of a vacant undisputed title being fought for rather than fragmented titles. And there was no super-middleweight division nicking some of the best fighters.
Hopkins didn't get his chance to fight another champion earlier because he wasn't popular and when grading champions you shouldn't just have a popularity contest. If you look at Hopkins's middleweight career, was there anyone he didn't fight?
And if you want to be fully accurate, Hopkins was not undisputed champion until he won the WBO title from De La Hoya.

[loaded_gloves]

I don't really see why I'm engaging with you, since you began your participation in this thread by stating Marvin Hagler 'only held the WBC title for a number of years', and then 'only had the IBF belt.' You must be doing some fevered research right now.

In boxing you're the man when you have the major belts. Why Hopkins was unable to unify them for so many years, and was satisfied to defend an alpha belt against men who would lose to most of Hagler's pre-championship competition, we don't know for sure. What we do know for sure is that to be the undisputed champion you have to have all the belts and it would be very bad for boxing to retroactively recognise these long bum-of-the-month alphabet routines and muddle stats to benefit fighters who took that safety-first career option.

You can dismiss Tito as a middleweight, but he crushed Joppy in fashion Hopkins and no one else ever managed. He levelled Cherifi in a way Keith Holmes couldn't. To claim he wasn't one of the best middleweights at that time is demonstrably ridiculous. Beating Tito solidified Hopkin's status.

Your line "if you want to be fully accurate, Hopkins was not undisputed champion until he won the WBO title from De La Hoya" really displays exceptional ignorance. The WBO weren't considered a major title until Hopkins elected to fight for and validate it. Thanks a lot for that, Oscar & B-Hop. Just what boxing needed.

Should Mike Tyson not be considered undisputed champion because he didn't beat Francesco Damiani? Should Lennox Lewis beating Holyfield not be classed as unifying the title because Herbie Hide was defending a WBO belt in Norwich against Damon Reed and Willi Fischer? Lunacy!

[MightyWarrior]

...and if I could just add, that technically speaking, there has never been a true undisputed world champ since the year of 1979, when I launched the WBBBBU championship ( no one knows what the extra B's stand for, which of course adds to it's prestige ( though I may have fell asleep on the key board ) ) - this belt has been held by no one expect myself, across all weight divisions - and it's a well know fact that I have been ducked by Hagler, Holmes and many more.

[Trojans44]

These threads are always immense. In summary, they usually suggest that all current boxers are rubbish and would have been destroyed by their counterparts in the 1400s, completely ignoring the direction of travel in all other sports.

Someone will inevitably be on in a minute to suggest that Floyd Mayweather would've been nothing but a Peter McDonagh style journeyman in the 70s and '80s.

[banjo]

These threads are always immense. In summary, they usually suggest that all current boxers are rubbish and would have been destroyed by their counterparts in the 1400s, completely ignoring the direction of travel in all other sports.

Someone will inevitably be on in a minute to suggest that Floyd Mayweather would've been nothing but a Peter McDonagh style journeyman in the 70s and '80s.

I tend to agree, although there's no way Mayweather would be undefeated if he took on the best of that era, which of course is no disgrace as even the best of that era lost

[gobbles]

I don't really see why I'm engaging with you, since you began your participation in this thread by stating Marvin Hagler 'only held the WBC title for a number of years', and then 'only had the IBF belt.' You must be doing some fevered research right now.

In boxing you're the man when you have the major belts. Why Hopkins was unable to unify them for so many years, and was satisfied to defend an alpha belt against men who would lose to most of Hagler's pre-championship competition, we don't know for sure. What we do know for sure is that to be the undisputed champion you have to have all the belts and it would be very bad for boxing to retroactively recognise these long bum-of-the-month alphabet routines and muddle stats to benefit fighters who took that safety-first career option.

You can dismiss Tito as a middleweight, but he crushed Joppy in fashion Hopkins and no one else ever managed. He levelled Cherifi in a way Keith Holmes couldn't. To claim he wasn't one of the best middleweights at that time is demonstrably ridiculous. Beating Tito solidified Hopkin's status.

Your line "if you want to be fully accurate, Hopkins was not undisputed champion until he won the WBO title from De La Hoya" really displays exceptional ignorance. The WBO weren't considered a major title until Hopkins elected to fight for and validate it. Thanks a lot for that, Oscar & B-Hop. Just what boxing needed.

Should Mike Tyson not be considered undisputed champion because he didn't beat Francesco Damiani? Should Lennox Lewis beating Holyfield not be classed as unifying the title because Herbie Hide was defending a WBO belt in Norwich against Damon Reed and Willi Fischer? Lunacy!

If you use quote marks, you should actually be accurate in what you quote. I said neither of the things you quoted me as saying in your first paragraph. Don't quote what you think I believe, quote what I said.

My whole point was not to downgrade Monzon or Hagler, who were possibly the best middleweights of all time bar Greb and Robinson, but to point out the danger of writing off Hopkins just because he was or was not fighting for the undisputed title. Were there options out for Hopkins than defending the IBF title? Likewise if all the governing bodies were not recognising Hagler and Monzon did that reduce their achievements?

[dookus]

These threads are always immense. In summary, they usually suggest that all current boxers are rubbish and would have been destroyed by their counterparts in the 1400s, completely ignoring the direction of travel in all other sports.

Not really. Most other sports haven't seen their talent pool shrink like boxing has.