Boxing a unique sport...

One of the reasons boxing history is so important is that it provides perspective. Kelly Pavlik beat THE MAN at 160. He left the undisputed champion slumped in a heap on the canvass. Tommy Hearns won a vacant title at 160, and lost it on his second defense. However, as soon as you dig a bit deeper into boxing "history" it is immediately obvious that Hearns stands head and shoulders above Pavlik.

We've had many a debate over who was the greatest ever at 130; Floyd Mayweather jr, or Alexis Arguello. PBF retired undefeated. Arguello retired with 8 losses. So why would there even be a debate when one guy has zero losses and the other has eight? Because "Boxing History" reveals things like quality of opposition, length of time in a division, strength of the division during the relevant time period, et, et.

There is no such thing as a weak NFL or a weak NBA, but in boxing every division has it's ups and downs, weak eras, and strong eras. Take the current scene at 147. Lots of good competition, and fighters who line up well against each other. Welterweight has been pretty exciting over the last couple years. However, if you compare todays welterweight division against the era when SRL, Hearns, Benitez, and Duran, were trading titles and chasing fights with each other, todays welterweights come in way behind. Again, history provides perspective.