Trinidad/De La Hoya Vs Hopkins

[eagle]

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.

[DaxxKahn]

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

[Spicoli]

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.