Hopkins vs. Trinidad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

Tito and Oscar were both undersized MW when they stepped in the ring vs Hopkins. But you only here excuses for Oscar when it comes to the disadvantage. I just want to make sure we have an unbias opinion here. You either give him credit for beating two HOF fighters or you don't give him credit due to the size advantage he had over both fighters. You however are one of many people on this forum that give Tito no benefit of the doubt at all for losing that fight due to the streak he ran off from Septemeber of 99 to November of 01. He did knock out Joppy which should say more for his achievement than his lack of it. Second off Trinidad was the betting favorite because Bernard Hopkins had never displayed the talent he displayed post Trinidad to present. If we would have seen that B-Hop at the time he would have been the heavy favorite, there is a bunch of if's you can add. Every logical boxing fan can tell you that Tito was an overblown WW with the exception of you. It's not fair that some boxers get a get out of jail free card and others don't. The Joppy demolition should be very impressive to you because not only did he beat a champion he beat him while being undersized and hit like a mule. Instead you use it against him which is BS, you think because he beat Joppy that 160 should have been a natural weight for him LOL. After he sat for 2 years and his body got heavier he came back to 160 and beat Mayorga who should have not been at 160 either, you need to sharpen up.

---

I'll quote you

"Tito and Oscar were both undersized MW when they stepped in the ring vs Hopkins. But you only here excuses for Oscar when it comes to the disadvantage. I just want to make sure we have an unbias opinion here. You either give him credit for beating two HOF fighters or you don't give him credit due to the size advantage he had over both fighters."

And I do.  I give Hopkins full credit for beating them BOTH by knockout.

"You however are one of many people on this forum that give Tito no benefit of the doubt at all for losing that fight due to the streak he ran off from Septemeber of 99 to November of 01"

How did I do that?  No benefit of the doubt?  What is that supposed to mean in comparison to what I said?  Sure Tito Trinidad was one of my favorite fighters and I really hated Bernard Hopkins for winning that fight until I started to become a fan to him in the rematch with Allen.

"He did knock out Joppy which should say more for his achievement than his lack of it."

Again, that doesn't make any sense.  I don't take any credit away from Tito for knocking out Joppy.

"Second off Trinidad was the betting favorite because Bernard Hopkins had never displayed the talent he displayed post Trinidad to present. If we would have seen that B-Hop at the time he would have been the heavy favorite, there is a bunch of if's you can add."

Yes, somewhere in those 15 title defenses he never showed boxing skill, a chin, great defense or the ability to outbox someone.  I think it's you who is the one discrediting someone here with the "ifs". 

So basically you're saying "We should have seen Hopkins at his best BEFORE the fight so we could have bet on him"  run that kind of statement back in your mind alright?

That's like saying we should have seen Buster Douglas at his best before we picked Mike Tyson to beat him.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

And Trinidad has a lot to do with how Hopkins looked given his style and how Hopkisn completely shut him down.  And Bernard Hopkins performed similarly when he beat Glen Johnson in a worse way.  So stop saying Hopkins never looked that impressive before. He had, just not on the mainstream HBO against someone put at such a stature as Trinidad was.  And that is what watching tapes are for in training.  Isn't Trinidad and his father supposed to watch tapes on fighters and their best moments and develop a strategy for beating them?  If Trinidad came in there with the idea he was going to blow Hopkins away with  his power then whose fault is it?


And as you accuse me for not giving Tito benefit of the doubt from 99 to 01 which didnt make sense because its saying that I didn't believe in him to win that fight.

Neither you, nor a lot of people gave Hopkins the benefit of the doubt ffom 93 to 01. Thats when his win streak started in 93 and had lasted till 01.  So you're trying to tell me that he goes 8 years undefeated and Trinidad nor the fans had no idea how good he was?  And 13 title defenses from 96 to 01 you mean to tell me NOBODY knew how good or great Hopkins was or how his style worked?

Your logic of "if we saw Hopkins at his best before the fight he would have been the betting favorite"

You know, if we saw Baldomir at his best he would have been the favorite to beat Judah too.

If we saw Buster Douglas at his best we would have picked him to beat Tyson.

Do you see where this is going?


"Every logical boxing fan can tell you that Tito was an overblown WW with the exception of you."

Yeah AFTER the fight.  Such a blown up WW to be a betting favorite against Hopkins.

"It's not fair that some boxers get a get out of jail free card and others don't."

And it's unfair to discredit Hopkins by giving Trinidad an excuse.

"The Joppy demolition should be very impressive to you because not only did he beat a champion he beat him while being undersized and hit like a mule."

It was impressive for him to knockout Joppy.  But not because he was "considered a blown up WW"  I didn't even consider him a blown up WW especially after he beat Vargas at 54.  He looked just fine to me.

"Instead you use it against him which is BS, you think because he beat Joppy that 160 should have been a natural weight for him LOL."

Did I say that?  I said Trinidad was enough of a middleweight to knock out Joppy.  And how am I using that against him?  And why would you take it that way unless you feel like I was attacking Trinidad for knocking out Joppy.  So why did you go on the defensive?  Was it because you saw a point?

"you need to sharpen up."

I really think you should take your own advice.

I think perhaps it had something to do with weight - but it was just the styles on the night for me.

Bernard was the heavy underdog and Tito relied to much on his power to get the win and was worn down over the distance.

Tito, a great fighter, didn't get enough tactics in his showing that night - lacked the angles needed against a man like B-hop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majesty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preme

never would hopkins been able to touch RJJ in his prime, ever. Jones was to fast, to strong and a much better boxer than hopkins. Don't forget tito was out of his depth at MW.

---

Thank goodness someone stepped in and said something, CC Preme, Many fighters will look invincible when their opponent is much smaller then them in the ring, I still don't understand why people give so much credit for Hopkins beating an undersized Trinidad compared to other boxers. Plain crazy.

---

I'm sure Joppy said the same thing.

Trinidad was enough of a Middleweight to knockout Joppy and Mayorga wasn't he? Alright then don't take credit from Hopkins for beating Trinidad. Hindsight is 20-20. But if Trinidad was the betting favorite(which he was) there's no place to call Tito an undersized Middleweight NOW after the fact.

---

All that should tell everyone is how great Tito was. How many times was he the bigger guy in there (not too many) and he still did what he did. He deserves all the love he gets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

A welter puncher with not the best chin in the world moving up to middle against agood counter puncher with solid foundations and a good sense of distance who can whack a bit . With hindsight who would you fancy.

---

Very true.

Puh-leeze. How about middleweights that move up to heavyweight?

Many people back then didn't give Hopkins a shot in hell...as they often have, do, & will in the future.

---

That was because of his own performance not because of Tito's. It's alway's easy to judge in hindsight like you say but it's really easy when the fighter reaches another level that he was by far never on before. If he would have been given performances like that in years prior to Tito than it would of been Felix who was not given a shot in hell.

---

No offense...but that's a bunch of crap.

Hopkins had performed fanstastically up to the Trinidad match...it was just the fact that he was underratted & over looked by many.

Hopkins had stopped 28 men prior to stopping Tito. Several of those were stoppages prior to the 5th round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

A welter puncher with not the best chin in the world moving up to middle against agood counter puncher with solid foundations and a good sense of distance who can whack a bit . With hindsight who would you fancy.

---

Very true.

Puh-leeze. How about middleweights that move up to heavyweight?

Many people back then didn't give Hopkins a shot in hell...as they often have, do, & will in the future.

---

That was because of his own performance not because of Tito's. It's alway's easy to judge in hindsight like you say but it's really easy when the fighter reaches another level that he was by far never on before. If he would have been given performances like that in years prior to Tito than it would of been Felix who was not given a shot in hell.

---

No offense...but that's a bunch of crap.

Hopkins had performed fanstastically up to the Trinidad match...it was just the fact that he was underratted & over looked by many.

Hopkins had stopped 28 men prior to stopping Tito. Several of those were stoppages prior to the 5th round.

---

No need to worry, I already presented that to him here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majesty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

Tito and Oscar were both undersized MW when they stepped in the ring vs Hopkins. But you only here excuses for Oscar when it comes to the disadvantage. I just want to make sure we have an unbias opinion here. You either give him credit for beating two HOF fighters or you don't give him credit due to the size advantage he had over both fighters. You however are one of many people on this forum that give Tito no benefit of the doubt at all for losing that fight due to the streak he ran off from Septemeber of 99 to November of 01. He did knock out Joppy which should say more for his achievement than his lack of it. Second off Trinidad was the betting favorite because Bernard Hopkins had never displayed the talent he displayed post Trinidad to present. If we would have seen that B-Hop at the time he would have been the heavy favorite, there is a bunch of if's you can add. Every logical boxing fan can tell you that Tito was an overblown WW with the exception of you. It's not fair that some boxers get a get out of jail free card and others don't. The Joppy demolition should be very impressive to you because not only did he beat a champion he beat him while being undersized and hit like a mule. Instead you use it against him which is BS, you think because he beat Joppy that 160 should have been a natural weight for him LOL. After he sat for 2 years and his body got heavier he came back to 160 and beat Mayorga who should have not been at 160 either, you need to sharpen up.

---

I'll quote you

"Tito and Oscar were both undersized MW when they stepped in the ring vs Hopkins. But you only here excuses for Oscar when it comes to the disadvantage. I just want to make sure we have an unbias opinion here. You either give him credit for beating two HOF fighters or you don't give him credit due to the size advantage he had over both fighters."

And I do. I give Hopkins full credit for beating them BOTH by knockout.

"You however are one of many people on this forum that give Tito no benefit of the doubt at all for losing that fight due to the streak he ran off from Septemeber of 99 to November of 01"

How did I do that? No benefit of the doubt? What is that supposed to mean in comparison to what I said? Sure Tito Trinidad was one of my favorite fighters and I really hated Bernard Hopkins for winning that fight until I started to become a fan to him in the rematch with Allen.

"He did knock out Joppy which should say more for his achievement than his lack of it."

Again, that doesn't make any sense. I don't take any credit away from Tito for knocking out Joppy.

"Second off Trinidad was the betting favorite because Bernard Hopkins had never displayed the talent he displayed post Trinidad to present. If we would have seen that B-Hop at the time he would have been the heavy favorite, there is a bunch of if's you can add."

Yes, somewhere in those 15 title defenses he never showed boxing skill, a chin, great defense or the ability to outbox someone. I think it's you who is the one discrediting someone here with the "ifs".

So basically you're saying "We should have seen Hopkins at his best BEFORE the fight so we could have bet on him" run that kind of statement back in your mind alright?

That's like saying we should have seen Buster Douglas at his best before we picked Mike Tyson to beat him.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

And Trinidad has a lot to do with how Hopkins looked given his style and how Hopkisn completely shut him down. And Bernard Hopkins performed similarly when he beat Glen Johnson in a worse way. So stop saying Hopkins never looked that impressive before. He had, just not on the mainstream HBO against someone put at such a stature as Trinidad was. And that is what watching tapes are for in training. Isn't Trinidad and his father supposed to watch tapes on fighters and their best moments and develop a strategy for beating them? If Trinidad came in there with the idea he was going to blow Hopkins away with his power then whose fault is it?


And as you accuse me for not giving Tito benefit of the doubt from 99 to 01 which didnt make sense because its saying that I didn't believe in him to win that fight.

Neither you, nor a lot of people gave Hopkins the benefit of the doubt ffom 93 to 01. Thats when his win streak started in 93 and had lasted till 01. So you're trying to tell me that he goes 8 years undefeated and Trinidad nor the fans had no idea how good he was? And 13 title defenses from 96 to 01 you mean to tell me NOBODY knew how good or great Hopkins was or how his style worked?

Your logic of "if we saw Hopkins at his best before the fight he would have been the betting favorite"

You know, if we saw Baldomir at his best he would have been the favorite to beat Judah too.

If we saw Buster Douglas at his best we would have picked him to beat Tyson.

Do you see where this is going?


"Every logical boxing fan can tell you that Tito was an overblown WW with the exception of you."

Yeah AFTER the fight. Such a blown up WW to be a betting favorite against Hopkins.

"It's not fair that some boxers get a get out of jail free card and others don't."

And it's unfair to discredit Hopkins by giving Trinidad an excuse.

"The Joppy demolition should be very impressive to you because not only did he beat a champion he beat him while being undersized and hit like a mule."

It was impressive for him to knockout Joppy. But not because he was "considered a blown up WW" I didn't even consider him a blown up WW especially after he beat Vargas at 54. He looked just fine to me.

"Instead you use it against him which is BS, you think because he beat Joppy that 160 should have been a natural weight for him LOL."

Did I say that? I said Trinidad was enough of a middleweight to knock out Joppy. And how am I using that against him? And why would you take it that way unless you feel like I was attacking Trinidad for knocking out Joppy. So why did you go on the defensive? Was it because you saw a point?

"you need to sharpen up."

I really think you should take your own advice.

---

And I'm waiting to see what his return statement is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

A welter puncher with not the best chin in the world moving up to middle against agood counter puncher with solid foundations and a good sense of distance who can whack a bit . With hindsight who would you fancy.

---

Very true.

Puh-leeze. How about middleweights that move up to heavyweight?

Many people back then didn't give Hopkins a shot in hell...as they often have, do, & will in the future.

---

That was because of his own performance not because of Tito's. It's alway's easy to judge in hindsight like you say but it's really easy when the fighter reaches another level that he was by far never on before. If he would have been given performances like that in years prior to Tito than it would of been Felix who was not given a shot in hell.

---

No offense...but that's a bunch of crap.

Hopkins had performed fanstastically up to the Trinidad match...it was just the fact that he was underratted & over looked by many.

Hopkins had stopped 28 men prior to stopping Tito. Several of those were stoppages prior to the 5th round.

---

Of course it's no offense taken, this is a forum where we learn from are debates, and I love a good debate.

Bernard was/is a great boxer, but he would never beat RJJ in his prime barring a lucky shot landed perfectly ala Tarver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majesty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

Tito and Oscar were both undersized MW when they stepped in the ring vs Hopkins. But you only here excuses for Oscar when it comes to the disadvantage. I just want to make sure we have an unbias opinion here. You either give him credit for beating two HOF fighters or you don't give him credit due to the size advantage he had over both fighters. You however are one of many people on this forum that give Tito no benefit of the doubt at all for losing that fight due to the streak he ran off from Septemeber of 99 to November of 01. He did knock out Joppy which should say more for his achievement than his lack of it. Second off Trinidad was the betting favorite because Bernard Hopkins had never displayed the talent he displayed post Trinidad to present. If we would have seen that B-Hop at the time he would have been the heavy favorite, there is a bunch of if's you can add. Every logical boxing fan can tell you that Tito was an overblown WW with the exception of you. It's not fair that some boxers get a get out of jail free card and others don't. The Joppy demolition should be very impressive to you because not only did he beat a champion he beat him while being undersized and hit like a mule. Instead you use it against him which is BS, you think because he beat Joppy that 160 should have been a natural weight for him LOL. After he sat for 2 years and his body got heavier he came back to 160 and beat Mayorga who should have not been at 160 either, you need to sharpen up.

---

I'll quote you

"Tito and Oscar were both undersized MW when they stepped in the ring vs Hopkins. But you only here excuses for Oscar when it comes to the disadvantage. I just want to make sure we have an unbias opinion here. You either give him credit for beating two HOF fighters or you don't give him credit due to the size advantage he had over both fighters."

And I do. I give Hopkins full credit for beating them BOTH by knockout.

"You however are one of many people on this forum that give Tito no benefit of the doubt at all for losing that fight due to the streak he ran off from Septemeber of 99 to November of 01"

And I do. I give Hopkins full credit for beating them BOTH by knockout.

"He did knock out Joppy which should say more for his achievement than his lack of it."

Again, that doesn't make any sense. I don't take any credit away from Tito for knocking out Joppy.

"Second off Trinidad was the betting favorite because Bernard Hopkins had never displayed the talent he displayed post Trinidad to present. If we would have seen that B-Hop at the time he would have been the heavy favorite, there is a bunch of if's you can add."

Yes, somewhere in those 15 title defenses he never showed boxing skill, a chin, great defense or the ability to outbox someone. I think it's you who is the one discrediting someone here with the "ifs".

So basically you're saying "We should have seen Hopkins at his best BEFORE the fight so we could have bet on him" run that kind of statement back in your mind alright?

. That's like saying we should have seen Buster Douglas at his best before we picked Mike Tyson to beat him

Do you see where I'm coming from?

And Trinidad has a lot to do with how Hopkins looked given his style and how Hopkisn completely shut him down. And Bernard Hopkins performed similarly when he beat Glen Johnson in a worse way. So stop saying Hopkins never looked that impressive before. He had, just not on the mainstream HBO against someone put at such a stature as Trinidad was. And that is what watching tapes are for in training. Isn't Trinidad and his father supposed to watch tapes on fighters and their best moments and develop a strategy for beating them? If Trinidad came in there with the idea he was going to blow Hopkins away with his power then whose fault is it?


And as you accuse me for not giving Tito benefit of the doubt from 99 to 01 which didnt make sense because its saying that I didn't believe in him to win that fight.

Neither you, nor a lot of people gave Hopkins the benefit of the doubt ffom 93 to 01. Thats when his win streak started in 93 and had lasted till 01. So you're trying to tell me that he goes 8 years undefeated and Trinidad nor the fans had no idea how good he was? And 13 title defenses from 96 to 01 you mean to tell me NOBODY knew how good or great Hopkins was or how his style worked?

Your logic of "if we saw Hopkins at his best before the fight he would have been the betting favorite"

You know, if we saw Baldomir at his best he would have been the favorite to beat Judah too.

If we saw Buster Douglas at his best we would have picked him to beat Tyson.

Do you see where this is going?


"Every logical boxing fan can tell you that Tito was an overblown WW with the exception of you."

Yeah AFTER the fight. Such a blown up WW to be a betting favorite against Hopkins.

"It's not fair that some boxers get a get out of jail free card and others don't."

And it's unfair to discredit Hopkins by giving Trinidad an excuse.

"The Joppy demolition should be very impressive to you because not only did he beat a champion he beat him while being undersized and hit like a mule."

It was impressive for him to knockout Joppy. But not because he was "considered a blown up WW" I didn't even consider him a blown up WW especially after he beat Vargas at 54. He looked just fine to me.

"Instead you use it against him which is BS, you think because he beat Joppy that 160 should have been a natural weight for him LOL."

Did I say that? I said Trinidad was enough of a middleweight to knock out Joppy. And how am I using that against him? And why would you take it that way unless you feel like I was attacking Trinidad for knocking out Joppy. So why did you go on the defensive? Was it because you saw a point?

"you need to sharpen up."

I really think you should take your own advice.

---

Thanks for the info. I love it, some substance behind a comment is alway's good. I love to debate, lets stop the kissing and hugging and throw some blows. Allow me to extend the same courtesy to you that you have to me.
Let's qoute you shall we.

And I do. I give Hopkins full credit for beating them BOTH by knockout.

If you actually read my comment instead of jumping the gun as you have you would understand what I am saying. Many people defend the other fighter's loss against Hopkins on this forum due to size advantage, that's not my opinion that's a fact, check the threads, the majority of the members say he had no business at 160, even the fighter himself will still say "I took the KO vs Hopkins but I have an excuse for that, I had no business at 160." That was his exact words. I thought Preme made a good point and I wanted to bring that too light until you decided to jump in with a quick response. The comment did not state that Majesty felt that way, I don't know if you do or not. I just no that's the concensus on the forum. Read the threads and you will see. All I am saying is that if that is indeed the case then you have to make it for both fighters not just one, but people don't give Trinidad the same benifit of the doubt for a size disadvantage which I think is unfair, don't you or are you just a Trinidad hater.

Again, that doesn't make any sense. I don't take any credit away from Tito for knocking out Joppy.

You cant take any credit away from him, at least not directly, you did it indirectly, let's look at your thread
Trinidad was enough of a Middleweight to knockout Joppy and Mayorga wasn't he?

Hmm let me see, instead of saying that wow how can a small MW due that to the champ in such a way despite the size advantage you say this. Well I think it's pretty clear in your comment that due to what he did to Mayorga and Joppy you believed that he should have done the same things to Hopkins (Garbage). I think it's a big difference between Mayorga and Hopkins hindsight or not. Putting Mayorga's name in there lacked substance, knowledge, and proper analysis. A fighter that fought 1 fight at 160 and then never returned as your example was plain dumb. Beating Joppy showed that Tito was an overachiever it did not prove that he was a natural MW, I thought it was awesome to see somebody so skinny with so much punching power, before the fight Joppy said that he did not believe that that Tito could punch with the MW, after the fight he said he had never been punched so hard. So once again don't use his victory of Joppy against him when it comes to fighting Hopkins.

Yes, somewhere in those 15 title defenses he never showed boxing skill, a chin, great defense or the ability to outbox someone. I think it's you who is the one discrediting someone here with the "ifs".

In those 15 title differences he was victorious which was very impressive in any weight class. But none of those names were as big as Felix Trinidad and none of them were as impressive, so let me get this right a 37 year old fighter dismantles boxing's P4P champ and you want me to believe that you saw it coming because of his previous 15 defenses, bullshit. The way he boxed against Trinidad was something he had never done, he had won fights and he had KO'd people but he was never as impressive in anyone of those matches as he was on the night against Trinidad or any fight he had after Trinidad. To Hopkins credit he took his skills to a new level on that night, no one saw it coming, why is that? Because he never boxed in that manner before, and if he has can you please give me the fight or fights because in all my years of watching boxing I never saw him box that way. He was flawless against one of the best fighters in the business. You mean to tell me that he boxed in that same manner against his previous 15 opponents haha continue to make your own reality. If he would off it would be no way that Trinidad would have went into that fight the favorite. I guess that out of all the anaylis, fans, credicts, no one saw the Hopkins fights. Yea right.

That's like saying we should have seen Buster Douglas at his best before we picked Mike Tyson to beat him

And your comments get worse. It's hard for me to even comment on this but I have too. Buster Douglas did not elevate his career after the Tyson fight, he did not go on a rampage, he got KTFO in his next fight and then rode off into the sunset with 30 million. Hopkins kept on the same level that he fought at with Felix Trinidad, he methodically dismantled his opponents and was super impressive, once again if the world would have seen that Hopkins on that level it's no way Tito would have been the favorite, I doubt that Tito would have even took the fight. This analogy should be thrown in the dumpster. Glenn Johnson your poster boy hah, oh great, what a HOF he is. Not in the mainstream HBO, yea the world needs HBO to consider a fighter great before the fans due.

Neither you, nor a lot of people gave Hopkins the benefit of the doubt ffom 93 to 01. Thats when his win streak started in 93 and had lasted till 01. So you're trying to tell me that he goes 8 years undefeated and Trinidad nor the fans had no idea how good he was? And 13 title defenses from 96 to 01 you mean to tell me NOBODY knew how good or great Hopkins was or how his style worked?

Give him the benefit of the doubt for what, he won all his fights. Due you know what the benefit of the doubt means. Use it in the proper context please. Trinidad was the favorite for a reason, it's because they felt Tito was more impressive at the time, even in the opening round of the MW tournament his victory of Kieth Holmes was nothing like his victory over Trinidad, your just delusional. This is not my opinion this is fact, look at the sportline on the fight, it was 3-1 odds for Tito, if the world new how good Hopkins was from his past why was he a heavy underdog, would he be an underdog vs anyone today moving up to fight him, if Oscar is greater than Tito than why was he favorite vs Oscar and a underdog vs Tito, I guess that's all coincidence. Man look at the history brother. It's not my opinion it's fact, he was the underdog for a reason, alot of people thought that Joppy was the best MW in the world and not Hopkins which is a fact, I guess they all missed the previous Hopkins fights. EVERYBODY.

It was impressive for him to knockout Joppy. But not because he was "considered a blown up WW" I didn't even consider him a blown up WW especially after he beat Vargas at 54. He looked just fine to me

Wow, he only fought three fights at 154, he had no problem making that weight, he was very comfortable, but after him cleaning out the division in 3 fights he felt he had no reason to be there, so if he felt natural at 154 what would make you think he was not a blown up 160, I guess he is a natural at everyweight in your opinion. The reason he moved up to 160 was because he was not impressed with the champions there (he missed the Hopkins tapes also) and he figured that was a stepping stone to his mega fight with Roy Jones at a catchweight. That was his dream, him fighting Roy was a win win situation, there was no shame in Losing to Roy, but to move up through all the weights to get him was impressive.

You said you were waiting for a response, we can do it the Hatton way and do this round by round, I don't need a breather.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacko3205

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

A welter puncher with not the best chin in the world moving up to middle against agood counter puncher with solid foundations and a good sense of distance who can whack a bit . With hindsight who would you fancy.

---

Very true.

Puh-leeze. How about middleweights that move up to heavyweight?

Many people back then didn't give Hopkins a shot in hell...as they often have, do, & will in the future.

---

That was because of his own performance not because of Tito's. It's alway's easy to judge in hindsight like you say but it's really easy when the fighter reaches another level that he was by far never on before. If he would have been given performances like that in years prior to Tito than it would of been Felix who was not given a shot in hell.

---

No offense...but that's a bunch of crap.

Hopkins had performed fanstastically up to the Trinidad match...it was just the fact that he was underratted & over looked by many.
Hopkins had stopped 28 men prior to stopping Tito. Several of those were stoppages prior to the 5th round.

---

Once again Hopkins was impressive, but to say that's a bunch of crap is living in denial. Underrated by many, maybe but if you do not want to admit to me that Hopkins did not elevate his skills during the Trinidad and post Trindad fight is plain wrong, I think he bettered himself so much, He is like wine better with age. Was Winky Wright a bum or Lennox Lewis. No they weren't but they bettered themselves over the years and got better specially Winky Wright, he is heads and shoulders above where he was before. Hopkins reinvented himself for that fight and he has been on another level ever since. He was even impressive in His two losses vs Taylor. He stopped 28 men prior to stopping Tito? True but none of those bastards were close to the status of Tito! Many boxers feast on Btier opponents. He was an underdog for a reason.

How can Brazillianbomber say that the guys RJJ fought weren't at the same level as Trinidad in terms of skill or just as an opponent? I think prime Griffin, Hill, and Toney are all more difficult for a skilled boxer than Trinidad who was small for a middleweight, and doesn't have all that much power which was his bread and butter at the lower weight classes. RJJ fought a whole list of capable opponents during his prime, and they were by far superior to the guys Hopkins fought. I am not saying Hopkins isn't great, but he can't deal with Roy's speed, angles, and reflexes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

How can Brazillianbomber say that the guys RJJ fought weren't at the same level as Trinidad in terms of skill or just as an opponent? I think prime Griffin, Hill, and Toney are all more difficult for a skilled boxer than Trinidad who was small for a middleweight, and doesn't have all that much power which was his bread and butter at the lower weight classes. RJJ fought a whole list of capable opponents during his prime, and they were by far superior to the guys Hopkins fought. I am not saying Hopkins isn't great, but he can't deal with Roy's speed, angles, and reflexes.

---

What are you talking about, I never said that, I never said anything about RJJ at all, I have been talking about Hopkins, what is this.

b-hop would have won a rematch with jones, b-hop to win by ko in late rounds

I'll address the whole thing later but brazilianbomber in other words are you sayign Trinidad had the right to underestimate Hopkins and that Hopkins only won because Trinidad took him for granted and because in your mind Hopkins didnt look as good before that fight that Trinidad had a right to? ::**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majesty

I'll address the whole thing later but brazilianbomber in other words are you sayign Trinidad had the right to underestimate Hopkins and that Hopkins only won because Trinidad took him for granted and because in your mind Hopkins didnt look as good before that fight that Trinidad had a right to? ::**

---

Now your just getting plain ridicoulous. The point I was trying to make was that Tito was a blown up WW, now you are going far beyond the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preme

Jones was to fast, to strong and a much better boxer than hopkins.

---

Jones may have been too fast and too strong, but time has born out who was the better boxer.

As age has slowed them, it's Hopkins who has been able to draw upon his superbly developed fundamental boxing skills; while Jones has gotten caught, as he no longer has the speed to pull off his unorthodox "rooster style" of fighting.