Originally Posted by Nightcrawler
2)of an alphabet title
3)of an alphabet title
4)of an alphabet title
the problem with hopkins is that he has few great fighters on his middleweight resume. the best is tito, who was a natural welter but moved up well. the second best name is oscar, who had no business at 160. the rest of his run is filled with good but not great fighters, welters and guys who were near shot
getting outhustled by taylor twice does not help his case and he was dominated by the best boxer he ever shared a ring with in jones
The only reason anyone can complain about Hopkins' "alphabet title" is because the other middleweight champions avoided him for years. When he finally got them in the ring he dominated them.
Carlos Monzon only had ten defenses of a unified title. Monzon was stripped of his WBC title after the Napoles fight for avoiding his top challenger and would continue to do so for three years while defending his alphabet title.
If you want to argue between alphabet titles and unified titles Hagler has the record of defenses.
Some fans argue the merits of lineal vs. unified vs. alphabet and whether or not fighters getting stripped of their titles is legitimate. I think when a fighter refuses to defend against his universally recognized top contender for three years there is merit in stripping him.
I think there is merit in considering an alphabet holder "the champ" when he chases all of the other alphabet holders for years on end and finally dominates them when he catches them.
It would be ridiculous, to my way of thinking, that anyone could question that Hopkins was "the man" at middleweight from the time he won the IBF title until he lost to Jermain Taylor.
However, I dont think Hopkins is the greatest middleweight ever. He would be tough for anyone but I dont think he was the greatest fighter in history's greatest division. I also dont think he lost to Taylor eithe time and dont think he was dominated by Jones either. 116-112 is not being dominated.