Can a case be made for Hopkins as the best MW ever?

Yes and no. Khan is a good example. He is the number one in that division right now. But as long as Bradley and Alexander are around there will be discussions if he really is. And IMO rightfully. To establish yourself as the top dog you have to eliminate the other top dogs or beat the man who did it before.

 

Look at foreman. He established himself top dog by beating moorer, but then got usurped without losing by tyson. By the time big george lost to briggs the man to beat was undoubtedly holyfield.

I think to sum up what i'm trying to say, without going round in circles, is that boxing now more than ever is a subjective sport and the days of hard and fast rules for what makes a top dog are gone.

 

So, one example didn´t work, now just another one?

Of course it is subjective, nevertheless there are certain rules to become the man. And it´s not by accepting other fighters in your division next to you.

 

Another example is jones at lhw usurping dm. By the time dm lost noone was calling gonzalez the top dog.

These rules are not and never have been set in stone. Robinson became champ beating bell, it could have been any active boxer and it would have been sanctioned. Hart and root where handpicked by jeffries.

Today who do we have as true champs? Wlad, martinez, marquez, pong and segura. Marquez and segura are moving up. Pretty much leaves wlad, martinez and pong.

Wlad created his own lineage by systematically clearing out his division. Martinez is virtue of hopkins winning a tournament. Pong traces his back to a boxoff between the top two I believe.

Ward/froch will be a true champ after the s6.

So two of the lineages have been decided by tournaments, 1 has been accrued over a 5 year period. The other gets traced back further.

But look at cruiser, welter and now lightweigh the man to beat is uss, pac and now rios. Things are much murkier now without a tournament of a period of unification.

Today a prolonged period as highest ranked means just as much as a prolonged period of being part of a traditional lineage imo.

 

The only reason Jones could be seen as the champ after Gonzalez beat DM is because he beat Gonzalez shortly before.

There are always exceptions to the rule.

HW - Wlad
CW - Cunningham - beat the number two in Huck
LHW - Hopkins - now this is more complicated, Erdei retired after moving up in weight thus the linear title became vacant - meanwhile he came back but that doesn´t matter. When Dawson and Pascal fougth you could argue they established a new lineage, even when not after drawing with Pascal you could say Hopkins moved to number two meaning their second fight established a new lineage.
SMW - I don´t think the winner of Ward-Froch will be champ. But has something to say about this. Especially if he get´s Kessler after that one took care of Stieglitz. Kessler is my fav of those but of the 4 best smws he is the most faded. Sadly. Very likable dude.
MW - Martinez
LMW - none
WW - none, Pac-Mayweather would be for the belt
LWW - none, Khan-Bradley would be for the belt
LW - Marquez
SFW - none
FW - none, Gamboa-John would be for the belt
LFW - none
BW - Donaire, moved up as the number 1 at Jr. BW and beat a highranked champ and then the number one at Bantam
FlyW - Wongjongkam
JR. FlyW - Segura
SW - none

So out of 16 divisions half of them have champs. Let´s just ignore the ******* divisions and just take the original 8. Out of those 6 have a champ. And those who haven´t have two matches that are talked about who would crown a new champ. Suddenly it isn´t as murky anymore the way it was for most of the time in history, is it?

Thing is, you can´t become champ if you ignore your biggest challenges if you didn´t beat the champ. Yes, if a champ is not fighting the best out there but another fighter does than at some point he overtakes but it should take a while ´cause the champ is champ for a reason.

I don´t think I can agree with that. The way a champ should be crowned could be loosened a bit though, like at cw - when Cunningham beat Huck they weren´t one and two but close enough, or Donaire-Montiel at Bantamweight.

 

Bodhi, you said it better than I myself could have done. You essentialy back up all my points here.

What you have done is just call the consensus number 1 the champ, that is essentially what is was saying. The difference is notional.

The only confusion arises when it's within the same division i.e. Tyson, foreman; casamayor, diaz/campbell etc.

Today none of the traceable lineages are really disputed apart from a minority claiming vitali is still better than wlad.

I think we were coming at this from two directions heading to the same spot.

(Altho i'd disagree with putting donaire above agbeko)

 

I thought Bradley-Alexander was for the Ring Belt? I do think Khan beats Bradley though

 

No, after his gift against kotelnik alexander dropped in the rankings. Khan and brad then became the top two and held all the belts between them.