1. current/former alphabet titlists faced in defeat - Roy Jones (L12)
but Jones was not titleholder at that moment - it was fight for vacant IBF title and first titlefight for both of them
2. current/former alphabet titlists defeated - Glen Johnson (TKO11)
this bout was in July 20, 1997 and Glen won his 1st world title only in February 06, 2004 in a rematch with Clinton Woods, and he was not "current/former titleholder" in this fight with Hopkins
3. current/former lineal world champions faced in defeat - 1st SD loss to Taylor
the same story, Taylor had his 1st titlefight when met with Bernard for the 1st time and there is no way how one can call Tylor "current/former lineal champion" at that moment
Of course Hopkins is an ATG, but how much an ATG is up for debate I guess.
I feel the guy is one of the 3-5 best middleweights ever. Although they don't fight the same, he's like a newer Archie Moore, a guy who you keep waiting to just be too old to go on but he keeps winning and keeps surprising you. What he's done past his prime purely based on his ring smarts and technical skills, headbutt jokes aside, is unbelievable.
1. current/former alphabet titlists faced in defeat - Roy Jones (L12)
but Jones was not titleholder at that moment - it was fight for vacant IBF title and first titlefight for both of them
2. current/former alphabet titlists defeated - Glen Johnson (TKO11)
this bout was in July 20, 1997 and Glen won his 1st world title only in February 06, 2004 in a rematch with Clinton Woods, and he was not "current/former titleholder" in this fight with Hopkins
3. current/former lineal world champions faced in defeat - 1st SD loss to Taylor
the same story, Taylor had his 1st titlefight when met with Bernard for the 1st time and there is no way how one can call Tylor "current/former lineal champion" at that moment
This is a series about contemporary fighters. They are all current/former as of the writing of piece.
This is a series about contemporary fighters. They are all current/former as of the writing of piece.
I wrote it because I think that the time of a fight and boxers' status are more significant for the overall history than the time of the article.
For example, if this article appeared in 2003 year - there is no Glen Johnson in the list of Bernard's opponents but now he is there. The legacy of the boxer must be attached with his and only his accomplishments, but not with future achievements of fighters he has already faced.
I wrote it because I think that the time of a fight and boxers' status are more significant for the overall history than the time of the article.
For example, if this article appeared in 2003 year - there is no Glen Johnson in the list of Bernard's opponents but now he is there. The legacy of the boxer must be attached with his and only his accomplishments, but not with future achievements of fighters he has already faced.
Fair enough. I'm fine with my way. The body of the piece evaluates the lines.
Comment