Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
After reading numerous post from this website on how Oscar was drastically undersized for the Hopkins fight I found it quite strange because the same people will tell you that Trinidad was Hopkins greatest victory. This comment is not subject to a handfull of people but to the majority of the boxing world, how can one man get a get out of jail free card and the next man getting nothing but humiliation, I find this extremely bias and unfair. I figure both of them were overachievers who were looking for greater things in their careers, but to have one with a golden paruchute and the other with a brick is very silly
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bookkeeper
After reading numerous post from this website on how Oscar was drastically undersized for the Hopkins fight I found it quite strange because the same people will tell you that Trinidad was Hopkins greatest victory. This comment is not subject to a handfull of people but to the majority of the boxing world, how can one man get a get out of jail free card and the next man getting nothing but humiliation, I find this extremely bias and unfair. I figure both of them were overachievers who were looking for greater things in their careers, but to have one with a golden paruchute and the other with a brick is very silly
Hopkins dwarfed life 168lb`r Joe Calzaghe. Hopkins looks bigger than Pavlik.
Maybe thats why he reigned so long as he had every physical advantage over every opponent.
As for Tito that was a good win as Tito looked good against Joppy.
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Hopkins beat both Oscar and Tito because he was better than them, not because he was bigger.
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Not sure about that one, I'd go with DLH p4p over Hopkins.
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Not sure about that one, I'd go with DLH p4p over Hopkins.
Me too.
Apart from Hopkins looking much bigger than Oscar (did Tito too.. but not so marked) the difference is - Trinidad fought Hopkins after smashing Joppy to bits whereas Oscar fought Hopkins after losing to Sturm. Their middleweight debuts couldn't have been any more different. ;)
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Not sure about that one, I'd go with DLH p4p over Hopkins.
He didn't beat either of them simply by overwhelmingly them with size and power. He outskilled them. He had better defense, he was a more accurate puncher in those fights, he was flat-out better.
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Not sure about that one, I'd go with DLH p4p over Hopkins.
He didn't beat either of them simply by overwhelmingly them with size and power. He outskilled them. He had better defense, he was a more accurate puncher in those fights, he was flat-out better.
#
I would disagree with the DLH bout. At first B-Hop tried to box and Oscar was holding his own. Until B-Hop decided to use his physical advantage, and then the body shot.....
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
you can argue about who is better p4p between oscar and bhop personally i feel bhop is a better boxer, but thats my decision. But tito was just straight beatin up bhop made him look like an c class fighter and so did winky, and i like tito when he was a welter, and JMW.
im sure we will be hearing from Puglistic soon;D
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bookkeeper
After reading numerous post from this website on how Oscar was drastically undersized for the Hopkins fight I found it quite strange because the same people will tell you that Trinidad was Hopkins greatest victory. This comment is not subject to a handfull of people but to the majority of the boxing world, how can one man get a get out of jail free card and the next man getting nothing but humiliation, I find this extremely bias and unfair. I figure both of them were overachievers who were looking for greater things in their careers, but to have one with a golden paruchute and the other with a brick is very silly
Don't rack your brain over it mate...Those are the same people who find nothing wrong with DLH fighting Pacquiao
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SweetPea
Hopkins beat both Oscar and Tito because he was better than them, not because he was bigger.
Agree 100%. And you all know I'm a huge Tito fan.
As for the OP. There are several factors you have to take into consideration.
Trinidad was an undefeated champion who had just blown through a respected Middleweight champion.
De la Hoya was a three time defeated former Junior Feather weight who was just made to look real bad by an unknown european title holder.
I am not making this sound worst than it is, I am stating facts.
Fact is Hopkins was a great fighter long before he fought Trinidad, we just realized it afterwards.
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Not sure about that one, I'd go with DLH p4p over Hopkins.
He didn't beat either of them simply by overwhelmingly them with size and power. He outskilled them. He had better defense, he was a more accurate puncher in those fights, he was flat-out better.
What about the punch resistance he would have againsed the smaller men? You fail to address that.
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Not sure about that one, I'd go with DLH p4p over Hopkins.
He didn't beat either of them simply by overwhelmingly them with size and power. He outskilled them. He had better defense, he was a more accurate puncher in those fights, he was flat-out better.
Im not sure i agree with that ODLH at Super Featherweight/Lightweight was amazing, he had dynamite in both fists and great handspeed. And it was clear from the Felix Sturm fight he didn't belong at Middleweight, and just remember that was ODLH's 6th weightclass.
And Felix Trinidad although more limited that Bernard Hopkins, was still was a monster at Welterweight and the only fighters who went the distance with him, in his prime were great fighters like Pernell Whitaker, ODLH, Hector Camacho etc.
Felix Trinidad's problem against Bernard Hopkins was he couldn't hurt Bernard Hopkins. who was the much bigger man i don't think Felix Trinidad had any real problems landing.
If we are saying P4P Hopkins vs Trinidad then i would say Trinidad could for certain hurt Hopkins, and he would have Hopkins on the backfoot and it would be much more competitive. Because Hopkins wouldn't be able to stay inside as much as he did.
ODLH vs Hopkins P4P ? i can see ODLH outspeeding Hopkins and throwing the flashier punches to win a decision, i honestly think P4P both fights would be very competitive.
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Rookie Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SweetPea
Hopkins beat both Oscar and Tito because he was better than them, not because he was bigger.
Agree 100%. And you all know I'm a huge Tito fan.
As for the OP. There are several factors you have to take into consideration.
Trinidad was an undefeated champion who had just blown through a respected Middleweight champion.
De la Hoya was a three time defeated former Junior Feather weight who was just made to look real bad by an unknown european title holder.
I am not making this sound worst than it is, I am stating facts.
Fact is Hopkins was a great fighter long before he fought Trinidad, we just realized it afterwards.
Trinidad beating William Joppy should be a testament to him being an overachiever not a true Middleweight, and I was not trying to make this into a math class on what weights they started out, the whole point is that both individuals were undersized and only one get's an excuse for it.
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bookkeeper
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Rookie Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SweetPea
Hopkins beat both Oscar and Tito because he was better than them, not because he was bigger.
Agree 100%. And you all know I'm a huge Tito fan.
As for the OP. There are several factors you have to take into consideration.
Trinidad was an undefeated champion who had just blown through a respected Middleweight champion.
De la Hoya was a three time defeated former Junior Feather weight who was just made to look real bad by an unknown european title holder.
I am not making this sound worst than it is, I am stating facts.
Fact is Hopkins was a great fighter long before he fought Trinidad, we just realized it afterwards.
Trinidad beating William Joppy should be a testament to him being an overachiever not a true Middleweight, and I was not trying to make this into a math class on what weights they started out, the whole point is that both individuals were undersized and only one get's an excuse for it.
Yes they were both undersized, but DLH was more undersized than Tito. Does that make sense?
Tito was taller than DLH and also naturally heavier. He started at 147, DLH at 130. Tito in reality was probably one weightclass higher than he should have been whereas DLH was probably 2 if not 3 weight classes too high at that point.
I think these are great wins for Bhop, if u din give him credit for these then u cannot give Hagler credit for Hearns and Duran.
Re: Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bookkeeper
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Rookie Fan
Agree 100%. And you all know I'm a huge Tito fan.
As for the OP. There are several factors you have to take into consideration.
Trinidad was an undefeated champion who had just blown through a respected Middleweight champion.
De la Hoya was a three time defeated former Junior Feather weight who was just made to look real bad by an unknown european title holder.
I am not making this sound worst than it is, I am stating facts.
Fact is Hopkins was a great fighter long before he fought Trinidad, we just realized it afterwards.
Trinidad beating William Joppy should be a testament to him being an overachiever not a true Middleweight, and I was not trying to make this into a math class on what weights they started out, the whole point is that both individuals were undersized and only one get's an excuse for it.
Yes they were both undersized, but DLH was more undersized than Tito. Does that make sense?
Tito was taller than DLH and also naturally heavier. He started at 147, DLH at 130. Tito in reality was probably one weightclass higher than he should have been whereas DLH was probably 2 if not 3 weight classes too high at that point.
I think these are great wins for Bhop, if u din give him credit for these then u cannot give Hagler credit for Hearns and Duran.
Dlh Same size as Hagler...you think Hagler was too small to beat Hopkins?....Tito was bigger then Both Hagler and Leonard....Think neither could hang with Hopkins....The undersized crap does not fly with me...there have been bigger size differences and the smaller guy has dominated
