BoxRec

Monzon made 14 successful defenses of the undisputed middleweight title.

Hagler made 12 successful defenses of same.

Hopkins made six successful defenses of the undisputed middleweight title, before losing back to back to Jermain Taylor. Not 20. He did not 'break the record' of Escopeta nor The Marvelous One.

I know cyber 'journalism' is of a very low standard, and people are desperate to heap as many accolades on the old man as possible, but it really is lazy, ridiculous and bad for boxing generally to validate a string of easy alphabet defenses as somehow being equal to the greats of the past who were not afforded such luxuries.

Exactly. He beat Kessler and officially became 'the man', but that doesn't retroactively validate a series of easy defenses in Wales, especially given that there were other men out there with their own belts and claims to be the best.

aye

I've always wondered why Hopkins' bum of the month club at middleweight attracted so little vitriol compared to Calzaghe's defences.

Morrade Hakkar? Carl 'The Squirrel'? Andrew Council?

Definitely no better than joe's worst fights. And his best wins at middleweight (Echols, Keith Holmes, not counting the bloated Trinidad) are certainly no better than Calzaghe's at supermiddle (Kessler, Reid)

Too true. In the time of the real middleweight greats, Hopkins would have been just another contender.

Makes you wonder how many forgotten victims of Monzon, Hagler, Foster, and Spinks would be dominant forces and hailed as all-time-greats in this strange, depleted alpha era.

Do you think Hopkins is better as a light heavy than at middle? better in his 40's than his 30's?

It's hard to judge him at middle because the best, most capable guys he fought are probably Roy Jones and Jermain Taylor. At light-heavy he's befuddled men who are hardly Archie Moore in the boxing IQ stakes - lazy Tarver, face-first power-mad types like Pavlik, Pascal and now Cloud. He's obviously very good, but in previous eras... Spinks would make him look silly and Foster's crippling power would lay him out or put him in his shell.

I don't believe Monzon nor Hagler made that many undisputed title defences. Hagler was only WBC champion throughout his reign and at one point was only defending the newly-invented IBF title, Monzon was only WBA champion for a fair time.

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)

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

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

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

Dead Mouse wrote:

gobbles wrote:I don't believe Monzon nor Hagler made that many undisputed title defences. Hagler was only WBC champion throughout his reign and at one point was only defending the newly-invented IBF title, Monzon was only WBA champion for a fair time.

I'm sure Hagler won the WBA from Minter and defended it through to Mugabi. Getty has a few photos of him with the titles.

He won both belts from Minter. (IBF didn't exist yet)

Minter won them from Antuofermo.

Hagler was deprived of a win over Antuofermo, who had won both belts from Corro.

And on and on.

Seriously, don't entertain this Gobbles bloke, he doesn't have a clue. It's amazing.

Exactly. Hagler beat the man and had all the belts from the beginning. Monzon exactly the same.

Hopkins didn't become the man nor have all the belts until he fought Trinidad.

Ironically, Hagler's pre-championship days, fighting Kevin Finnegan, Sugar Ray Seales, Bobby Watts, Willie Monroe, Bennie Briscoe, Marcos Geraldo et al, saw him beating men way more more dangerous than the men Hopkins accumulated a string of alphabet defenses against.

...so...are we saying things like...

"Hopkins' isn't the oldest champion because he only has 1 title now?"

I think it's open for interpretation both ways.

Being the man doesn't mean you're making quality defenses, look at Joe Louis' "Bum of the Month" for proof of that. At the moment Igarashi is supposedly the man at 112 thanks to a win over Jaro (who beat Wonjongkam) yet for all intents and purposes Brian Viloria is proving himself to be by far and away the better fighter there (Miranda, Segura and Marquez in 3 of his last 4).

I think bizarrely one his mid-reign fights ended up with him winning the inaugural IBF title.

Riddick Blowe wrote:I've always wondered why Hopkins' bum of the month club at middleweight attracted so little vitriol compared to Calzaghe's defences.

Morrade Hakkar? Carl 'The Squirrel'? Andrew Council?

Definitely no better than joe's worst fights. And his best wins at middleweight (Echols, Keith Holmes, not counting the bloated Trinidad) are certainly no better than Calzaghe's at supermiddle (Kessler, Reid)

Difference is as I recall it Hopkins ended up fighting the guys you mention because he cleaned out the division and there was nobody left to fight, who else would you have liked to see him fight at MW? Until he fought Lacy Calzaghe, for what ever reason, was making shitty WBO defences when there was much better opposition out there.

In terms of his best wins at middleweight I'm not sure, but with hindsight stopping a then unbeaten Glen Johnson is impressive.

Middles I would have liked to have seen Hopkins in with circa 93 to 96/97 (where appropriate) would have been Jorge Castro, Reggie Johnson, Julian Jackson, Gerald McClellan, Lamar Parks, Quincy Taylor... maybe even a peak & not Tito-damaged William Joppy, Keith Holmes a bit earlier... there were quite a few attractive matches that Hopkins didn't really seem to campaign for - I remember throughout the 90s wondering when he would fight somebody.

That he is still around probably owes something to the fact he didn't fight any of them and instead had a long easy life until Jermain Taylor produced a lively and well-thought out challenge.

how good was Monzon,iv read a bit about him not seen any, ill need to watch him on youtube if i can bear to tear myself away from this forum and you funny,funny people

Dead Mouse wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:...so...are we saying things like...

"Hopkins' isn't the oldest champion because he only has 1 title now?"

I think it's open for interpretation both ways.

Being the man doesn't mean you're making quality defenses, look at Joe Louis' "Bum of the Month" for proof of that. At the moment Igarashi is supposedly the man at 112 thanks to a win over Jaro (who beat Wonjongkam) yet for all intents and purposes Brian Viloria is proving himself to be by far and away the better fighter there (Miranda, Segura and Marquez in 3 of his last 4).

No, we're saying that you have to think laterally when assessing this type of thing and also know your history, which rules out the opinions of an awful lot of people. As for Louis, you can trace his title way back, he also cleaned up house during that run and, when looked at with the naked eye, was head and shoulders above anyone else.

As for Louis...he himself didn't feel like a champion until a year into his reign, yet we don't question the Farr, Mann and Thomas defenses. Sure you can trace back his title, though it was a title you could argue was robbed from the man who had actually beaten Louis. So he wasn't head and shoulders above Schmelling when they fought the first time and could make a strong case that his reign should be counted from there if you're not counting Calzaghe's reign until he beat Kessler.

Likewise his first victory over Jersey Joe Walcott (and to a lesser extent Godoy) could be questioned, again Louis proved himself in the rematch but that could have just as easily have been 2 more title defenses off his record. In fact interestingly (if we bring history in to it) Godoy had last 2 of his previous 4 before the first Louis match, including a decision to the inexperienced Valentin Campolo.

That is if we're thinking laterally and looking through history.

Sure his record speaks for it's self, but Hopkins beating Hakkar and Calzaghe beating Woodhall are surely no worse than Louis beating Jack Roper or Red Burman

The claim that Hopkins holds the record for the most defenses of the middleweight title is questionable, as 'the' suggests that one legitimate middleweight title existed, and that he defended it more than anyone else has. However, the claim that Hopkins holds the record for the most defenses of a middleweight title is legitimate, as he successfully defended major middleweight titles more than anyone else has.

In my opinion, excessive weight is given to certain labels (e.g. undisputed champion), as removing those labels can leave few substantive differences between someone who has, for example, defended a collection of 3 or 4 titles, and someone who haven't collected titles as such but has beat comparable opposition; although the label can reflect what a boxer does in the ring, it tends to be weighted beyond what they do in the ring, and this is a mistake. I also find it ironic that some people criticize titles, but use as a standard of legitimacy a collection of those titles under the label of an 'undisputed title.'

While it's true that Hopkins made some soft defenses of his IBF title, his opposition as an undisputed champion wasn't stellar (e.g. Daniels and Allen) and it included arguably the worst opponent of his title reign--Hakkar. Conversely, some of his wins over top middleweights at the time, such as Trinidad and Holmes, don't qualify as defenses of an undisputed title. No good reason exists to adjust the credit anyone gets from an accumulation of title defenses based on how many titles they held, independent of the quality of their opposition; no good reason exists either to censure some of Hopkin's title defenses in isolation when several undisputed champions of the past get excused for defending their titles against opponents of a similarly limited caliber.

Regarding notions about today’s boxers having an easier time achieving things than boxers of the past did, that is true in only some respects. Due to the proliferation of titles, it is easier for today's boxers to become titlists than it was for boxers of the past, but this proliferation and the increasingly strict anti-unification stances from certain sanctioning bodies now make it more difficult for anyone to be an undisputed champion or even a unified champion.

Hopkins is a remarkable athlete no doubt about it, but lest we forget he has campaigned in an era of a fractured Middlweight title, and during an era where the division was very weak.

Also for me, when comparing him to Moore, Archie was still beating the living daylights out of men at an advanced age, whereas Hopkins is winkling his way through fights.

He's got to go down as an ATG for his incredibly longevity, no doubt, but his achievements have to be tempered with reality.

What a ridiculous thread.

Many of you are missing the point.

How many belts did Hagler need to get? 2, the WBA and WBC (till later when the IBF became of some note)

How many did Monzon get? WBA and and WBC,


Hopkins was fighting at the early stages of the notorious ABC title "Mandatory" nonsense. It was next to impossible to hold more than one belt. It STILL is really hard.

No sanctioning body wants to share their champion. Yet Hopkins is the only champion in history to get all recognized titles in addition to the ring title. You can't blame him for not being undisputed sooner.

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.

iamasadlittleboy wrote: As for Louis...he himself didn't feel like a champion until a year into his reign, yet we don't question the Farr, Mann and Thomas defenses. Sure you can trace back his title, though it was a title you could argue was robbed from the man who had actually beaten Louis. So he wasn't head and shoulders above Schmelling when they fought the first time and could make a strong case that his reign should be counted from there if you're not counting Calzaghe's reign until he beat Kessler.

Likewise his first victory over Jersey Joe Walcott (and to a lesser extent Godoy) could be questioned, again Louis proved himself in the rematch but that could have just as easily have been 2 more title defenses off his record. In fact interestingly (if we bring history in to it) Godoy had last 2 of his previous 4 before the first Louis match, including a decision to the inexperienced Valentin Campolo.

That is if we're thinking laterally and looking through history.

Sure his record speaks for it's self, but Hopkins beating Hakkar and Calzaghe beating Woodhall are surely no worse than Louis beating Jack Roper or Red Burman

Sorry, but this is ridiculous and doesn't make sense. Joe Louis was 'the man' because he beat the man who beat the man who beat... etc etc. Okay, he'd lost to Max Schmeling, so what? Louis also demolished Max Baer, who had knocked Schemling out. And Baer had lost the title to Braddock - whom Louis knocked out.

Are we expected to believe Joey Maxim had a claim on the undisputed heavyweight championship when Floyd Patterson won it? And Patterson never rematched Maxim, so applying your perverted logic we would have to question Patterson and whoever followed him - so Liston, then Ali, then Frazier..... Madness.

loaded_gloves wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote: As for Louis...he himself didn't feel like a champion until a year into his reign, yet we don't question the Farr, Mann and Thomas defenses. Sure you can trace back his title, though it was a title you could argue was robbed from the man who had actually beaten Louis. So he wasn't head and shoulders above Schmelling when they fought the first time and could make a strong case that his reign should be counted from there if you're not counting Calzaghe's reign until he beat Kessler.

Likewise his first victory over Jersey Joe Walcott (and to a lesser extent Godoy) could be questioned, again Louis proved himself in the rematch but that could have just as easily have been 2 more title defenses off his record. In fact interestingly (if we bring history in to it) Godoy had last 2 of his previous 4 before the first Louis match, including a decision to the inexperienced Valentin Campolo.

That is if we're thinking laterally and looking through history.

Sure his record speaks for it's self, but Hopkins beating Hakkar and Calzaghe beating Woodhall are surely no worse than Louis beating Jack Roper or Red Burman

Sorry, but this is ridiculous and doesn't make sense. Joe Louis was 'the man' because he beat the man who beat the man who beat... etc etc. Okay, he'd lost to Max Schmeling, so what? Louis also demolished Max Baer, who had knocked Schemling out. And Baer had lost the title to Braddock - whom Louis knocked out.

Are we expected to believe Joey Maxim had a claim on the undisputed heavyweight championship when Floyd Patterson won it? And Patterson never rematched Maxim, so applying your perverted logic we would have to question Patterson and whoever followed him - so Liston, then Ali, then Frazier..... Madness.

The Schemlling point was in reply to the idea that, at the time, Louis had proven himself "head and shoulders above anyone else", a claim that he didn't seem to believe himself. He may have been the man, though he didn't feel like the man. The point to claim "he is head and shoulders above everyone" would go against the facts that he got beat by Schmelling PRIOR to being given a title shot (that, lets not forget that shot actually belonged to Schmelling).

Louis's demolition of Baer could easily be put down to a case of triangle logic.

Extending it to Maxim/Patterson, no one claimed that Patterson was "head and shoulders above everyone else", his reign(s) showed he wasn't. In fact it'd be fairer to suggest that the man who was "head and shoulders" above the rest circa 1959 was Liston and not Patterson (of course this was later proven when Liston took out Patterson in a round).

Don't confuse the Maxim v Patterson loss over 8 rounds and 18 fights before Patterson claimed the title as being as close to the Schmelling/Louis situation which saw Louis claiming the title just 8 fights later. Inversely Maxim had lost 8 of his following 10 bouts (including going 2-2 before Patterson had claimed the title) whilst Schmelling had remained unbeaten, and was surely the #1 contender.