Anybody else notice that a long title reign makes the media gas a fighter up?

It doesn't really seem to matter who you beat after a certain point. If you rack up enough title defenses and spread them out over a long period of time everybody just folds to the groupthink. They all seem to eventually succumb to the groupthink that hell if he keeps defending the belt and has held the belt for 5, 6, 7 years he must be HOF or ATG.

Bernard Hopkins is the classic and definitive example. When you analyze his reign he never actually beat anybody. He lost to Roy Jones even when RJJ went into the fight with a broken hand. He reign consisted of guys like John David Jackson, Robert Allen 3 times, Sergundo Mercado and two blown up Welterweights. Even one guy who won a title at 130 pounds. He then lost his title to Jermain Taylor, but at 39 it was inevitable that some young guy with superior conditioning would eventually outwork him. So who did the guy actually really beat?

The same thing sort of happened with GGG. He racked up lots and lots and lots of defenses over mediocre competition. Some were decent fighters like Stevens, Lemiuex, Murray, Macklin, Geale, etc. They're not bums, at least they are top 10 guys, but nobody actually with a big threat. He destroyed WW Kell Brook. Squeaked out a decision against Jacobs. Got robbed against Canelo in a draw who he would have put 6 feet under in his prime. But now GGG has had so many defenses in a row he's now p4p #1 according to the ring. He's had impressive longevity, but who did he really beat? Well I'd say his win over Jacobs is the best win on either Hopkins or GGG's resume, but still. Danny Jacobs isn't really the 2nd coming of James Toney.

The same thing happened with Wlad. He was knocked out twice in his prime. Then went on a long title reign. But never actually beat anybody. His best win was Povetkin, but besides that who did he really beat and let's not act like Povetkin was ever any elite fighter.

And now the worst offender when it comes to this is Wilder. A man who makes GGG and Hopkins' resume look like DLH and Roberto Duran's. He's beaten just 1 top 10 fighter in his career. And that's in a weak division. But he's racking up KO's and defenses against complete cans. And guess what is now happening. ESPN has placed him at #10 p4p. For what? For knocking over cans? Why? Who cares?

Don't be fooled by longevity. As far as I'm concerned the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is who did you really beat.

 

We'll have to disagree there. I just cannot rate KO victories over a former SFW champion and KO victory over Trinidad either. Who was much smaller than Hopkins.

Many times over against Robert Allen sure. He did beat Robert Allen 3 times. I'll give him that. For whatever a Robert Allen scalp is worth.

 

It's the hypocrisy that's annoying. People hate on young and upcoming fighters and trash them for a loss or trash them for not fighting the best.

Then you look at a guy like Hopkins who is widely regarded as not just an ATG 160 pounder, but flat out ATG. And you see that he beat absolutely nobody at 160 pounds.

It's the hypocrisy like I said. If anything GGG has a better 160 pound reign than Hopkins. And I'm a GGG fan, but just keeping it real by acknowledging that his resume wasn't a world beater.