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

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.

Hopkins beat both Oscar and Tito because he was better than them, not because he was bigger.

Not sure about that one, I'd go with DLH p4p over 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. ;)

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.

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.....

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

These two always bug me.Remember all of the hype and assertions favoring Tito going into that fight.Imo,He was much more of a legit Middleweight than DeLahoya based on previous performances,crushing respected Joppy but his best weight was indeed Welterweight.Hopkins point blank out thought and out fought him.This may be an unpopular opinion but as far as DLH goes... Imo,he was no full fledged middleweight,never should have been.That fight always struck me personally as more of a business arrangement than an actual "who wins" match up.P4P I take Hopkins 8 days out of a 7 day week.

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 was the fact he new that none of them could hurt him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puya

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 was the fact he new that none of them could hurt him.

---

That's what I said, people act like Tito was not landing, but he was landing big punches that had very little effect on Hopkins, those blows at WW or SW would have KO'd someone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookkeeper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

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 was the fact he new that none of them could hurt him.

---

That's what I said, people act like Tito was not landing, but he was landing big punches that had very little effect on Hopkins, those blows at WW or SW would have KO'd someone

---

Agreed all you have to do is look at the short list of fighters, that went the distance with Felix Trinidad in his prime Pernell Whitaker, ODLH, Hector Camacho, David Reid,

David Reid never recovered from that beating, ODLH had to use his feet all night to survive. Hector Camacho is tougher than a coffin nail, and so is Pernell Whitaker but even Pernell Whitaker suffered a broken jaw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

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.

---

Disagree. Felix Trinidad's problem was that he couldn't land anywhere near as many clean flush shots as Bernard Hopkins was landing. Hopkins outboxed him for 12 rounds. His technical superiority is what allowed him to KO Tito in the 12th.

And I should add that Felix Trinidad is one of my 4-5 favorite fighters ever. So when I'm backing up BHop in this thread, it's not because I'm a big BHop fan. Believe me, I wish Tito had been better than BHop.

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.

---

I know what you are saying I'm just trying to make you understand why people have that opinion.

Trinidad was at his all time peak when he fought Hopkins. He was being compared to Ray Robbinson for crying out loud. And I'm not making this up. Who do you think that Robbinson trophy was for? I'll give you a hint, it was not for Hopkins.

In the other hand, it was a forgone conclusion that DLH was going to lose, especially after that mess of a fight against Sturm. It's one of those fights that I just never understood what was the point other than to make money.

When i view Hopkins wins over Trinidad and Oscar, I view them as this.

Hopkins win against Trinidad was a very good win, Trinidad proved his worth at middleweight by destroying William Joppy, no one has stopped joppy like that, Hopkins and Taylor both went the distance with Joppy a few years after that especially Hopkins who hit Joppy with everything he had and still couldn't stop him. Hopkins broke Tito mentally and then physically using accurate Counterpunching, defense and footwork.

Hopkins win against Oscar was a decent win. In my opinion Oscar totally didn't belong at middleweight, Sturm proved that. Even though Oscar didn't belong there he was still a multiple world champion and is a skilled fighter.

P4P i favor Hopkins over both Trinidad and De La Hoya.

Hopkins would break tito down very similar to what he did.

Hopkins defense, footwork and counterpunching would always be too much for tito trinidad.

As for DLH, Oscar was only competitive early against hopkins which was because Hopkins wasn't really doing much, plus people don't seem to remember that Hopkins was not in his prime. The Hopkins that fought Tito would of dominated Oscar.

P4P He is simple a better boxer. Oscars fake landing flurries wouldn't win him the fight, Hopkins more accurate more effective punches would win him the fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

When i view Hopkins wins over Trinidad and Oscar, I view them as this.

Hopkins win against Trinidad was a very good win, Trinidad proved his worth at middleweight by destroying William Joppy, no one has stopped joppy like that, Hopkins and Taylor both went the distance with Joppy a few years after that especially Hopkins who hit Joppy with everything he had and still couldn't stop him. Hopkins broke Tito mentally and then physically using accurate Counterpunching, defense and footwork.

Hopkins win against Oscar was a decent win. In my opinion Oscar totally didn't belong at middleweight, Sturm proved that. Even though Oscar didn't belong there he was still a multiple world champion and is a skilled fighter.

P4P i favor Hopkins over both Trinidad and De La Hoya.

Hopkins would break tito down very similar to what he did.

Hopkins defense, footwork and counterpunching would always be too much for tito trinidad.

As for DLH, Oscar was only competitive early against hopkins which was because Hopkins wasn't really doing much, plus people don't seem to remember that Hopkins was not in his prime. The Hopkins that fought Tito would of dominated Oscar.

P4P He is simple a better boxer. Oscars fake landing flurries wouldn't win him the fight, Hopkins more accurate more effective punches would win him the fight.

---

i agree completly, especially with this

I am hard pressed to remember a fighter that was more deformed and misshapen as Joppy was after Hopkins got through with him.Gruesome.Was Quasimodo ever a boxer?

People that say Trinidad had no power at Middleweight forget that Joppy had never been stopped before and went on for another 7 years and 10 fights before being stopped again. Oh and Trinidad put him down in the very first round.

SweetPea's posts are consistently good, doesn't let bias get in the way.

I disagree with a lot of this. Puya IMO Hopkins fought like he respected Tito's power, he was pretty cautious until he saw that Tito was getting weak, like after the tenth round.

And ICB I'm not sure what you're saying when you say Tito didn't have much problems landing? He barely landed anything.

As for P4P if you go by how often they fought the best, accomplishments only then I guess you could say maybe ODLH over Hopkins. But just looking at them as fighters you can't convince me ODLH is as good as Hopkins.

He's just not. Not nearly as skilled. Too bad Hopkins has to some extent damaged his reputation (even though he hasn't performed badly) by going on too long, becoming too negative of a fighter, ect.

Maybe Hopkins could fight at cruiser and show how great he is? Even Joe stepped up a weight class to fight him(like Pavlik is also), never mind all these guys that fought at lightweight/light welter to begin with.

Let Hopkins fight the bigger guy for a change and see how he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kel

Maybe Hopkins could fight at cruiser and show how great he is? Even Joe stepped up a weight class to fight him(like Pavlik is also), never mind all these guys that fought at lightweight/light welter to begin with.

Let Hopkins fight the bigger guy for a change and see how he does.

---

he jumped up 2 divisions to fight tarver who at the time was #1 in the division, and kicked his ass

Look Oscar started his career at SFW lets not for get that guys. I hate pound for pound because it is not real thing it is just a guess. But if i took the Oscar from SFW or LW i pick him to beat Hopkins if they were the same weight i guess you could say. Trindad started 17 pounds over what Oscar started at and Hopkins was 30 pounds over were Oscar started at. To me pound for pound Oscar was better then both were. Like saying if Vitial beat Roy would that make him a better fighter then Roy i think not it just mean that he was bigger and had to much power for him to last with you get what i am saying i used kinda a weird example but all i got right but it does not matter the answer because anything you say could be right or wrong because in the end it is just a guess really and there is no way that we can prove it to be right or to be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan

People that say Trinidad had no power at Middleweight forget that Joppy had never been stopped before and went on for another 7 years and 10 fights before being stopped again. Oh and Trinidad put him down in the very first round.

---

Nobody said Tito had no power at Middleweight we just said he was undersized, and even though his punches still had good zip at 160 it in no way carried as much weight as it did at 147 or 154