Quote Originally Posted by body head banger
hmm u mite be right about the whittaker thing i thinks its an impression i got from a backstage vid and some dosgy commentary of whittaker before a tito fight once which was about two fights b4 he fought pernell. but i still believe tito would do him at his prime, i guess im pretty big on tito.

but i dont agree tito was at his best before de la hoya?? i mean i dont believe he deserved to beat dlh but it seems alot of the time judges fail to score well when you use the stick and move strategy, but what about david reid,vargas,joppy etc and to be honest i think he could have still been at his peak when he lost to the executioner but tito always came forward and bhop was more of a superior tacticican if he had of not fought hopkins and took some other great fights i think he could have been up there for a few years.. but then i guess we wouldnt have seen trinidad-mayorga...which frankly..rocked!
Tito was at his peak from 99 until his first retirement. I am big on Tito also (second favorite fighter of all time) but I am also big on Pernell (First favorite fighter of all time) and I don't think Tito would have been able to hit Pernell in his prime. As far as the Bernard fight is concerned people give Oscar the benefit of the doubt for losing to Bernard with size being the excuse but they do not give the same excuse to Tito (Why). 20/20 hindsight but Tito could have ruled 154 for years, to bad his ego got in the way.