Watching BHOP on ESPN, he said his best career win was Trinidad. Agree?

I don't believe so intentionally. I think Tito probably always had his hands wrapped the same way, which like Nazim said is legal in most places but not in NY. You are only allowed a certain amount of feet of tape to be used and this does differ from state to state in some cases. Even after the fight, after he re-wrapped his hands Hopkins had said he felt Tito's power and was bit hurt one or two of his punches so it's not as if Tito suddenly didn't have power because of the tape. agine did he try to cheat that night yes or no did he comply with the rules if he didnt then what does that make him . its not a hard question to answer DID HE TRY TO CHEAT YES OR NO WHY DONT YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF TRYING TO WRITE A BOOK FOR A REPLY

my point is he isn't some type of margarito, like dude was making him out to be. The amount of guys in boxing that use more tape than what is technically allowed is off the charts. Did he cheat that night answer YES OR NO

Name the champions that hopkins avoided... As for Tito: Nazim Richardson To me, Trinidad's situation was much, much different than Margarito's. What Trinidad did was actually legal in some places. It just wasn't legal in New York. I had the rulebook with me right there in my hand. The Ring: What did you see? I noticed that Papa was layering too much tape and gauze on Tito's hand, and that wasn't allowed. so your whole point is he cheated wow thanks we all know he is a cheat a cheat is a cheat no matter how small it was

Pascal is his best win. Trinidad was a smaller man and had not much else but power. I guess he was a decent boxer but nowhere near elite level when it comes to skills. His style was that of a puncher/brawler. And Hopkins did his lesson, he took him to school. Trinidad was also very pissed at Hopkins, so he threw all the trainer's notes out of the window and went in there to hurt him and knock him out. Pascal is much younger than Trinidad but not a smaller man naturally, despite giving up a couple inches in height. He is also fast footed and has more boxing skill than Tito imo.

No, it was Pavlik. In the Pavlik fight Hopkins was older and was facing a fighter who was naturally heavier (and taller) than he was. I even think the Pavlik performance was better than the Trinidad's, because Trinidad maybe won 1-2 round (the opening for sure, I had the Lederman scorecard), while Pavlik did not land anything. I mean, anything.

you KEEP saying why not Calzaghe like he's greater than Tito...if the judges had got it right and gave the decision to B.Hop it wouldn't change sh!t...Tito would STILL be his best win...Tito is far greater than Joe...live with it!!!! Hopkins lost too a white boy,people seriously arent over this yet? I think Tito is his best win too,not quite as great in hindsight but still very impressive

you KEEP saying why not Calzaghe like he's greater than Tito...if the judges had got it right and gave the decision to B.Hop it wouldn't change sh!t...Tito would STILL be his best win...Tito is far greater than Joe...live with it!!!! Every time I see your sig I can't help but wonder why that wasn't called a knockdown.

It maybe wasn't as dominant of a victory. But, you have to take into account that Hill was in his prime fighting in his natural weight-class. While Hearns was past prime fighting 4 weight-class above his best. Hill also has a better overall resume than Pavlik. He accomplished more. I say the Hill win is better than the Pavlik win. Pavlik win is good though, don't get me wrong just not as good as the Hill win IMO. B-Hop has the better skills than Hearns. I can agree with that. And, in a H2H match up I think Hopkins would beat Hearns. However, Hearns has the greater wins, resume, accomplishments. Hopkins might be the better fighter. But, I think Hearns is the greater fighter IMO. The Hill win is definitely better and to me Hearns is definitely greater. I don't really think it's that close.

Looking back at it now i was thinking Hill lost every big mega fight he was in Hearns, Jones, Michaelwdkafdsif lol idk how to spell his name. Hill beat Henry Maske who was at the time considered the best light heavyweight in the world and almost unbeatable with his 6'5 frame

Tarver is B-Hops best performance, Winky is B-Hop's best win.

It's what put B Hop on the map the first to knockout Tito.

Looking back at it now i was thinking Hill lost every big mega fight he was in Hearns, Jones, Michaelwdkafdsif lol idk how to spell his name. Pavlik has two loses to Hopkins (before the fight Pavlik had Most fan on the bandwagon thinking he was going to end Hopkins career) and Martinez. But if you consider Hill has way more title defenses, i guess the Hill win is Better then Pavlik. But Considering Hopkins is in his 40's taking on fighters that are close to 20 years young, i think Pavlik was like 15-16 years younger then him. Hopkins IMO ruined Pavliks career at the moment. and Hearns didn't dominate Hill like Hopkins did Pavlik. It maybe wasn't as dominant of a victory. But, you have to take into account that Hill was in his prime fighting in his natural weight-class. While Hearns was past prime fighting 4 weight-class above his best. Hill also has a better overall resume than Pavlik. He accomplished more. I say the Hill win is better than the Pavlik win. Pavlik win is good though, don't get me wrong just not as good as the Hill win IMO. B-Hop has the better skills than Hearns. I can agree with that. And, in a H2H match up I think Hopkins would beat Hearns. However, Hearns has the greater wins, resume, accomplishments. Hopkins might be the better fighter. But, I think Hearns is the greater fighter IMO.

What? You really believe that? Looking back at it now i was thinking Hill lost every big mega fight he was in Hearns, Jones, Michaelwdkafdsif lol idk how to spell his name. Pavlik has two loses to Hopkins (before the fight Pavlik had Most fan on the bandwagon thinking he was going to end Hopkins career) and Martinez. But if you consider Hill has way more title defenses, i guess the Hill win is Better then Pavlik. But Considering Hopkins is in his 40's taking on fighters that are close to 20 years young, i think Pavlik was like 15-16 years younger then him. Hopkins IMO ruined Pavliks career at the moment. and Hearns didn't dominate Hill like Hopkins did Pavlik.

Cotto being a "champ" at 54... Doesn't mean he is a true Jr. Middle nor that he is at his best weight etc. Tito blazed through 147 and went up seeking competition. It does not mean by any stretch, that Hopkins beat a true middleweight. It's revealing that his best win is Tito... Again: Why not Calzaghe? you KEEP saying why not Calzaghe like he's greater than Tito...if the judges had got it right and gave the decision to B.Hop it wouldn't change sh!t...Tito would STILL be his best win...Tito is far greater than Joe...live with it!!!!

Trinidad was huge and really began the decline of Felix's career. Mind you, there were a fair amount of headbutts thrown by Hopkins in that fight. I've always like the Oscar knockout myself. He was better than oscar in every way. by the 5th round it was target practice, and it was really rare or B-Hop to miss.

Trinidad was huge and really began the decline of Felix's career. Mind you, there were a fair amount of headbutts thrown by Hopkins in that fight. I've always like the Oscar knockout myself.

You honestly think Hearns legacy is greater then B-Hops? i think Hearns legacy is great but gets a little stump for getting Knocked out 3 times. and Pavliks win is better then Virgil Hill. Considering the HYPE Pavlik had at the time. Pavlik was already a semi top star looking to get on that world star scene til Hopkins beat the **** out of him easily. He isn't the same confident fighter he once was. and the Oscar is a HOFer on the Resume. Because most people look for HOFers. So he is a HOFer so the credit is something on the resume. Wasn't like De La Hoya was shot What? You really believe that?

No, Pavlik was his best win. Because it was someone who was actually his size. now let's act like he didnt beat pascal twice and Tarver.

hopkins best win was surviving this..... http://www.gifsoup.com/view/754845/calzaghe-slaps-hopkins-o.gif and there were a LOT of those short right hands or hooks inbetween calzaghes flurries where his knees would cave for a second, that never got any credit.

But this still isn't as good as Benitez, Duran and Cuevas alone, though. Let alone the rest, where other than Trinidad they compare quite evenly. Johnson wasn't in the Top 10 at that point I know that much. I don't care what Oscar had, he didn't win the fight against Sturm and he is useless at 160. Pavlik's a good win but it's not great, I would say Hearns' win over Virgil Hill is certinaly better. You honestly think Hearns legacy is greater then B-Hops? i think Hearns legacy is great but gets a little stump for getting Knocked out 3 times. and Pavliks win is better then Virgil Hill. Considering the HYPE Pavlik had at the time. Pavlik was already a semi top star looking to get on that world star scene til Hopkins beat the **** out of him easily. He isn't the same confident fighter he once was. and the Oscar is a HOFer on the Resume. Because most people look for HOFers. So he is a HOFer so the credit is something on the resume. Wasn't like De La Hoya was shot