Hopkins - Not an Elite Middleweight?

Very reasonable listing.

 

I rate Hopkins below Juan Manuel Marquez, Nonito Donaire, Pac and michael Spinks.

Eder Jofre is overrated.He never beat a great fighter.

 

In terms of what?

 

Well, "longwinded" has the sense of taking a long time to get to the point, or labouring it. That article didn't really get to the point at all, as I said; most of it contained material only peripheral to the main claims. In other words, it wasn't that it took a long time to get there; it simply didn't get there (to my mind). Periphrasis. So I think my choice of expression was justified.

 

I think Mantequilla is having an "asero" moment.

 

ESB Classic arguing about the use of diction. Gotta love it.

 

Some better historians may correct me, but I believe only 4 fighters in history unified the middleweight titles. One of them was Bernard Hopkins. Add to that the facts that BHop succesfully defended more times than anyone in history, and reigned longer than anyone in history, and you simply have to acknowledge Hops as an all time great middleweight.

 

Then again no one had to unify the middleweight titles until the past 20 years.

 

this is a fair and balanced article so I must go along with it

Hopkins is a longevity type fighter, durable & crafty but he still couldnt whip Roy Jones

 

Actually this is not true. There was a time when as many as 5 different fighters called themselves middlweight champions. Jurisdictional chaos in boxing is not a modern problem.

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/boxchmiddle.shtml

Only four men in history have had the right to call themselves "The Undisputed Middleweight Champion of the World:" Carlos Monzon, Marvin Haglar, Bernard Hopkins, and Jermain Taylor.

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/boxchmiddle.shtml

I'm not sure if all this info is correct, but I think the main point is that in the long and legendary history of the middleweight division very few men have been the absolute boss, and for awhile BHop was one of those few.

 

I'm fairly certain it's not true that there were only 4 undisputed champions... Unless you mean in the post-alphabet title organizations era which is not really much of an achievement at all considering it's only lasted for around 30 years after the WBC had the audacity to not recognize Carlos Monzon as the champ.

Stanley Ketchel beat all the title claimants and established himself as the true middleweight king.

I doubt anyone questioned Harry Greb's title claim. The titles separated after Mickey Walker to NYSAC and NBA recognized title holders.

Tony Zale unified the NBA & NYSAC titles and there were no title claimants other than the linear champions until the alphabet soup mess started by the 1960's and 1970's with WBA and WBC and later IBF and WBO.

 

Thanks for the info. I have been trying to sort sll this out for awhile, but them's some murky damn waters. I think the true number of "undisputed" middleweight champions is closer to 11 than it is to 4. Only 4 men have layed claim to the WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO titles at the same time, but that does not mean there were not other true champs.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

You almost had me for a second.