It's not the point, the point is, that Hopkin's win over this version of Tarver is extremely overrated.
Just like Carlos Baldomir was at WW. We don't seem to be putting Vernon Forrest in P4P lists for his last win.
Vernon Forrest beat Baldomir after he was dethroned, and at a higher weight than Baldomir was accustomed to fighting. Opposite situation with Hopkins/Tarver. But then, you probably knew that already.
The point remains, being a lineal champ does not necessarily mean much at all. Nobody would suggest for a moment Baldomir or Tarver were the best at their respective weights. Hopkins beat an upper-end journeyman in Tarver, nothing more. Likewise Hopkins is not the best LHW out there right now and is far from being one of the 5 best P4P fighters in the world today.
Winning the linear title automatically disqualifies Tarver from "upper-end journeyman". I suspect you're just trying to create controversy here--Tarver was better than Baldomir, and Baldomir was legitimately a top fighter at welterweight because he beat the previous linear champion, i.e. the best fighter in the world at welterweight.
Sven Ottke was more of a lineal champ than Calzaghe at SMW. Again it means nothing. Hopkins is the lineal champ at LHW, it means nothing, he isn't the best at that weight. Hopkins will lose as soon as he faces a very good LHW.
You are a delusional yank judging by your total denial of the facts mate. But I am here to help you though. Reggie. Who wins in 2008, Joe Calzaghe or Bernard Hopkins -questionmark-
But we aren't dealing with a prime Hopkins reggie. Think about things from a styles perspective and erase the 'name' involved.
Calzaghe did not rely on robberies to retain his belt. Nor did Tarver or Baldomir. Opinion. He beat the man who beat the man, and is thus the best at his weight until someone proves otherwise or he refuses to face anyone legitimate. You grade him based upon your hypothetical assessment of his future resume rather than his actual accomplishments? If that is the case, then Holyfield is already a 5-time heavyweight champion.
Yes it is. Hopkins is an all time great, but an old all time great. We know for a fact (more or less) the following - Hopkins would not be able to stop Joe Calzaghe (we can all appreciate how unlikely that is to happen) Hopkins is getting older, and is all but incapable of fighting at a fast pace Joe Calzaghe is easily capable of setting such a pace Joe Calzaghe may well be unbeatable At this point in time Hopkins is slower, so the counter right, that would have helped against Calzaghe in his prime is far less of a factor So superior is Joe Calzaghe's stamina, he can simply out work Hopkins, without the need for any real degree of skill Even if Hopkins did manage to land the right with some regularity, it isn't going to matter as he would still be outlanded by a 2 to 1 ratio, purely from Calzaghe's work ethic. Hopkins cannot win on points and he cannot win by stoppage.