To answer something you said above 2-0... Ranking fighters on an all time list has a lot to do with "if such and such fighter were to fight such and such, who would win" type of scenario's and talk or could one fighter hypothetically beat the other? Case in point, Hagler (one of my all time favorites) were to fight Bhop, I would favor Hagler if they were in their prime but bhop accomplished more. Haglers biggest fights were against guys moving up in weight (Mugabi, Hearns, Duran and Leonard). Historians also disregard bad decisions when grading a fighter. Most people agree that Oscar lost to Sturm but also fairly beat Mosley and Trinidad. In fact, he schooled Trinidad when he was in his prime. Obviously we know the whole running story behind the fight now for the last few rounds or whatever, but he deserved to win. So his biggest "win" wasn't against Vargas.
I actually discredit Oscar for following Tito a bit. I don't think he would've fought Vargas until he saw Tito destroy him or the same thing with Mayorga.
You also bring up How Oscar's win was fradulent against Sturm. If it weren't for that fraud of a win, BHOP wouldn't have unified all the titles. You need to be a good fighter and have a lot of luck to do that anymore. But that wouldn't have even been possible without HBO's MW tournament. We might see a fully unified Champion if the Super Six winner fights Bute but boxing politics prevents this more than ability.
I think Hagler would've had 20+ defenses if he would've gotten a title shot when he deserved one. As it was, he was close to that anyways.
Were you saying that no fighter had 20+ defenses or just middleweights? I was pretty sure that Ricardo lopez had 21 total defenses but I think he moved up in weight once so maybe that doesn't count? Who knows, either way, he's tremendously overlooked.