Same Rich. Zarate took the plunge and failed. Many do many don't. Zarate's bantamweight reputation didn't suffer and he still went down in history extremely well. He didn't want to die wondering and he didn't. I'm also not sure if his excuse carried any validity just like Gomez himself vs Sanchez. Maybe, maybe not. Roberto Duran absolutely positively enhanced his reputation immensely moving up in weight. You'll see most of the forum excuse him for the rematch loss anyway and if anything place the blame squarely on SRL LOL. His win over SRL is considered by some to be the best ever even. Running Hagler close enhanced his reputation and beating Barkley years later put him into the stratosphere. The beauty was it was win win for Duran as his wins were credited and his losses mostly excused due to context. He could have stayed low longer and carved out an even deeper resume at 135 but he never would have had these mind blowing wins and may have lost to a far lesser fighter due to age and/or boredom. Moving up is the major reason we see him making most peoples top 10's vs 20-30. Yes Monzon was talking about facing Conteh near the end and also struggling to make weight here and there. Conteh would have been a good swansong. Legacy's aren't overly tarnished because context dictates as such. There's usually a lot more to gain than to lose in reality. The smaller man is already up against the odds hence moving up and winning big fights is so revered, SRL vs Hagler and Duran vs SRL being two great examples. Spinks vs Holmes too. We also have to remember that the people taking a chance and diving into the great unknown are often the ones enhancing the legacy of those above them. Hearns absoluting put Hagler's career thru the roof, it was the cherry on top. Monzon himself enhanced his legacy by fighting the smaller men like Griffith and Napoles. Hagler had big fights against Duran and Hearns, Hopkins beat the likes of Trinidad and Brown etc. Gomez staved off Zarate, Sanchez staved off Gomez etc etc. Some of the greatest moments in history were when smaller greats took on bigger greats.
Not for me, his opposition was not deep .I'm biased because he turned me off as a fighter,I found him to be cynically bordering on gamesmanship.I do admire his longevity however.
If a fighter enters and leaves the ring as champion, it counts as a successful title defense regardless of outcome.
Top 10 greatest...........possibly based on accomplishment, "best" (a different question), honestly and with all due respect as a Hopkins fan I don't think he is. MW is probably the deepest division in history; very very hard to crack the top 10 there. I can live with him being top 20 though (like 18-20). I legit can name 10+ guys I think would beat any version of him at MW (especially during the 70s-80s, let alone some of the older guys), and I mean guys that never even won world titles. That's just how rough the MW division was. All that being said he's most assuredly an ATG at MW.
Wikipedia said in combat sports a no contest doesn't count as a title defense. Either way, we're splitting hairs. They both hold the title defense record.
The wiki entry refers to MMA; I think boxing commissions have their own form of recordkeeping. I know that Hopkins was announced as making the 14th defense of his title when facing Trinidad, and that would include the NC to Robert Allen. But both he and Golovkin did indeed hold the defense record.
I think a case can be made. His middle weight record isn’t loaded with hall of famers but there’s a lot of title fight wins and it’s very consistent
I'm a big Liston fan, and not so much a BHop fan. But I see how both are so hard to place and a bit alike in some regards. Both are right there just in or just out of the top 10 , imo. Both dominating forever. longevity but not the best resumes. Some here focus on resumes and some more H2H .. thats where Liston and Bhop are so much alike imo .. because H2H they are both a tough out for any boxer in history
I guess an argument can be made. But he does not make the Top10 in my book. The quality of his MW resume is not that great and his 2 losses to T Taylor hurt him.
In the beginning was a big fan, then he ran his mouth too much, turned crybaby, had too many lousy fights, and between his mouth and his stinker fights I lost all interest. His fight against Hakkar was an embarrassment, (I credit Larry Merchant for confronting him on that one), and considering that Jermain Taylor turned out to have no chin nor stamina, those fights are an embarrassment as well. I don't know where to rank him anymore.
