Why is Bhop still ranked #4 P4P?

Actually TommyV is on my ignore list.

He has a pretty good boxing brain. But when he gets too attached to a fighter then he makes posts where his analytical mind goes out the window and he starts posting less than stellar stuff.

Similarly I have just added you to my ignore list. Although my entire exposure to you is one where you have demonstrated not a shred of knowledge or ability to back up your beliefs, and to resort only to abuse - I am still so sure of your vast superiority that I actually feel guilty reading your posts.

I can only hope that the rest of the General Forum, who you have so adequately derided, will have the same sense of responsibility. We have not earned to right to be abused by you.

I will sure miss your amazing insights. Ah well, my loss. But I will bare it bravely.

*sniff*

 

I don't believe that the losses were actually wins.

But I can see how people think they were wins, and I don't think it's silly of them to think so either. I just think they were close losses instead.

Given that you do believe that they were all wins, then it is more than reasonable to for you to have BHop ranked right up there.

Hypothetically - if you did agree that his losses were actually losses, would you still have him at #4? If so, how long would he hold onto that spot if he never takes another tough challenge?

 

He was the champ. But he wasn't the man.

When looking at Tarvers's achievments there are a three things that make it difficult to gauge.
For one, he spent 3 years where he only fought two other boxers. Jones and Johnson. He didn't test himself against the rest of the division. By the end of that three years he had made himself basically irrelevant to the rest of the division. Assuming he was the champ was silly, and Bhop proved that in brutal fashion.
For the second, it is hard to know har far into his decline Roy was when Tarver beat him. This is the same Roy that went 1-1 with Johnson, so it is without doubt a very much declined version.
For the third, there was so much emotion that people had with Roy that it is hard to find anyone impartial. People eitehr assumed that Roy was god - and that Tarver must also be godly to defeat him. Or they hated Roy and praised Tarver until the end of days for beating him. Both of these lead to a huge inflation of Tarver's reputation which was far removed from reality.

Tarver was considered by some to be the man from the time he beat Roy until the time he got schooled by Bhop. But going 1-1 with Johnson and 2-1 with a faded Jones does not a legend make.

I look at these "champ" years for Tarver. Tarver was on par with Johnson. He was on par with Adamek. He was maybe as good as DM, but maybe not. He was a little bit better than Woods. Briggs, who was the mandatory he missed to take on Jones, would have had a damn good chance of beating him.
And Dawson was easily better than Tarver.

So yes, Tarver was the champ. But he was hardly the man. He was in the top 5. That is all.

Put this in context of Bhop's victory.
How good was Tarver at the time? He was a top 5 LHW, who had to drop a lot of muscle for the fight to happen. Not a great scalp.
The things that do contrinute to making it an impressive win were the fact that Bhop was moving up in weight and that he managed to make it so lopsided.

A good win. It just wasn't great.