Question for the boxing purist!!!

ya gotta pick floyd. bhop was bigger and much more skilled than tito. i understand bhop was the underdog and all, but alot of people thought bhop was gonna win. too much skill and too much ring iq, not to mention tito was the smaller man

totally agree with the two points in bold actually forgot that tito didn't have a great resume at 160 so kudos for mentioning that. green k How can you say that when after Tito destroyed Joppy they thought Tito was going to be the next Hagler!!

At first, no way. I mean it was crazy how he dominated him and basically shut him out, but not really at all. After seeing an even older Marquez just arguably beat Pacquiao, the supposed #1 WW at the same weight, Floyd does deserve some credit for that win. Marquez proved he could fight well at the weight against the #1 fighter at that weight, supposedly. So yes, one must give Floyd a little credit for that, but it's by no means his best win. It's a very solid win though now. Floyd didn't even make contractual weight for the fight!! But PAC did.

Do you give Floyd credit for the Marquez win? At first, no way. I mean it was crazy how he dominated him and basically shut him out, but not really at all. After seeing an even older Marquez just arguably beat Pacquiao, the supposed #1 WW at the same weight, Floyd does deserve some credit for that win. Marquez proved he could fight well at the weight against the #1 fighter at that weight, supposedly. So yes, one must give Floyd a little credit for that, but it's by no means his best win. It's a very solid win though now.

They both were epic but Floyd dropping Chico 5 fuckin times was mind blowing to watch. Floyd looked like he belonged on another planet that night. It was impressive if you just look at the record and assume Chico came to fight. He didn't, Floyd still would have won even if he did come to fight. You have to consider the historical context. Corrales was scheduled to begin a 14 month prison sentence shortly after the fight. He had a lot on his mind, and it really showed in the fight. He barely threw punches, he just plodded all night. Still a great win for Floyd, but he was fighting a man whose heart wasn't in the fight.

As good as the Corrales performance was, I also have to go with Tito/Hop. It might be hard to remember for a lot here, being over an entire decade ago, but Tito was considered a beast. Rightly so too, as he had just come off two destruction of prime, all but undefeated world champions. The only loss between Vargas and Joppy was one loss to champ Julio Cesar Green, which he avenged twice. These were top guys, and Joppy especially got destroyed so badly it was incredible. Anyone saying that Tito was too small and just a welterweight needs to go back and remember his career. Small welterweights that don't belong at 160 don't lay waste to Vargas and the middleweight champ without much trouble. If he didn't belong at 160 and was too small, he would have lost to Joppy. Instead he just about killed him and no one else has been able to get close to doing that. It was a great win.

You'd have to go with Mayweather, Corrales was a beast at 135, was undefeated, had huge height, weight advantage. Mayweather completely dominated him, I mean shut him out! B-Hop's win was also huge, and I know Hopkins was the underdog (Not as big a one as people seem to think) but Tito was far removed from his best weight, he never really looked too good at middleweight, his only previous fight at the weight was against William Joppy! The two times he faced quality opposition at 160 he lost (Hopkins & Winky) I'm not trying to take anything away from Hopkins, but I can't see how anybody could view it as a bigger victory than Floyd's! totally agree with the two points in bold actually forgot that tito didn't have a great resume at 160 so kudos for mentioning that. green k

I would choose Hopkins vs. Trinidad also. I think Hopkins was perceived as Trinidad's next KO victim even though Hopkins was the bigger fighter. Bernard also showed an incredible ability to make adjustments and neutralize Trinidad, who was considered the deadliest puncher in the sport back then and is, probably, one of the hardest punchers of all time. the line I've put in bold should ell you why alot fo people think floyds performance vs corrales was better. alot of people in the know realized that tito was a powerful slugger with limited skills, he would logically be less effective against a bigger fighter. i picked hopkins to win that fight and he did. with floyd though I was genuinely unsure. i thought corrales height and reach may cause problems but floys was simply masterful that night.

I would have to say B Hop over Trinidad was a thing of beauty and this coming from a Tito fan.

Do you give Floyd credit for the Marquez win? Much more credit than I do for pacs recent win over him.

What I notice is when it comes to Floyd beating Hatton, he beat him at 147 and not 140 (his best weight), it takes away from the win for some reason. When it comes to Floyd beating Cotto, he beat him at 154 and not 147, his best weight, it takes away from the win for some reason. But when it comes to Hopkins beating Trinidad at 160 and not 147, his best weight, he still beat Trinidad who was a beast. Hopkins beating Trinidad was great and he'd proven himself at 160, but lets not act like 160 was his best weight either, which was clearly 147. Though Trinidad is greater than Corrales, Corrales was still a Top fighter around 130-135 for his time and was undefeated/Top 10 P4P at the time, the man at the weight. I'd give Floyd-Corrales the edge. Do you give Floyd credit for the Marquez win?

I'm pretty sure I remember Floyd calling out Hatton right after both had won in June 2005, but Hatton and his team responded with him not being ready for that fight. Could be. I recall Hatton saying he wanted it in UK yada yada. He said/he said crap. Comes off as typical build the biggest possible, which they did. They fought when they were both prime, both in shape, for the most $ possible. That's how they draw em up. :)

Oh, I see where you're going. Yeah. I think Hatton was on point for Floyd. Just in with a better guy. I don't think it was 'his fault' the fight didn't happen at 40. Floyd went to 47 right after Gatti. He had a path he was on and Judah was it. The Oscar win is one of Hopkins least in terms of quality. Weight is a big issue there. Tito had proven a beast at 54 and walked through Joppy. He was a Middleweight by then and could have beaten just about any at the time not named 'Nard. I'm pretty sure I remember Floyd calling out Hatton right after both had won in June 2005, but Hatton and his team responded with him not being ready for that fight.

Hatton fighting at 147 was him just cutting less weight, in my eyes. Plus, it was his fault it didn't happen at 140 after Floyd whupped Gatti and Hatton beat Tszyu. Plus, they were both prime. Neither Floyd or Cotto were prime, Floyd not since 07' and Cotto not since 08', but both still good and top fighters. I was saying some say "Well those weren't Hatton or Cotto's best weights", but then may not say the same about Hopkins beating Trinidad and De La Hoya. Oh, I see where you're going. Yeah. I think Hatton was on point for Floyd. Just in with a better guy. I don't think it was 'his fault' the fight didn't happen at 40. Floyd went to 47 right after Gatti. He had a path he was on and Judah was it. The Oscar win is one of Hopkins least in terms of quality. Weight is a big issue there. Tito had proven a beast at 54 and walked through Joppy. He was a Middleweight by then and could have beaten just about any at the time not named 'Nard.

I disagree on Hatton. I know he looked meh against Collazo, but I don't think he was as motivated or sharp there either. Floyd started lower on the scale and had only been above 140 a few times by then. I don't see any reason to take away from what Floyd did there. Cotto either. Neither man's best weight, or prime, was at hand in May. Still a hell of a fight; just a slower version of what we likely always would have seen. Hatton fighting at 147 was him just cutting less weight, in my eyes. Plus, it was his fault it didn't happen at 140 after Floyd whupped Gatti and Hatton beat Tszyu. Plus, they were both prime. Neither Floyd or Cotto were prime, Floyd not since 07' and Cotto not since 08', but both still good and top fighters. I was saying some say "Well those weren't Hatton or Cotto's best weights", but then may not say the same about Hopkins beating Trinidad and De La Hoya.

What I notice is when it comes to Floyd beating Hatton, he beat him at 147 and not 140 (his best weight), it takes away from the win for some reason. When it comes to Floyd beating Cotto, he beat him at 154 and not 147, his best weight, it takes away from the win for some reason. But when it comes to Hopkins beating Trinidad at 160 and not 147, his best weight, he still beat Trinidad who was a beast. Hopkins beating Trinidad was great and he'd proven himself at 160, but lets not act like 160 was his best weight either, which was clearly 147. Though Trinidad is greater than Corrales, Corrales was still a Top fighter around 130-135 for his time and was undefeated/Top 10 P4P at the time, the man at the weight. I'd give Floyd-Corrales the edge. I disagree on Hatton. I know he looked meh against Collazo, but I don't think he was as motivated or sharp there either. Floyd started lower on the scale and had only been above 140 a few times by then. I don't see any reason to take away from what Floyd did there. Cotto either. Neither man's best weight, or prime, was at hand in May. Still a hell of a fight; just a slower version of what we likely always would have seen.

What I notice is when it comes to Floyd beating Hatton, he beat him at 147 and not 140 (his best weight), it takes away from the win for some reason. When it comes to Floyd beating Cotto, he beat him at 154 and not 147, his best weight, it takes away from the win for some reason. But when it comes to Hopkins beating Trinidad at 160 and not 147, his best weight, he still beat Trinidad who was a beast. Hopkins beating Trinidad was great and he'd proven himself at 160, but lets not act like 160 was his best weight either, which was clearly 147. Though Trinidad is greater than Corrales, Corrales was still a Top fighter around 130-135 for his time and was undefeated/Top 10 P4P at the time, the man at the weight. I'd give Floyd-Corrales the edge.

floyd. obviously both great performances, but floyd was on some god **** that night.

Mayweather-Corrales. Hopkins beating Trinidad was huge, a great win. But Trinidad was best at WW, by far. Corrales was the man at 130, and many thought Floyd would lose too. And Floyd gave one of the most dominant beatdowns between two Top 10 P4P fighters in recent memory.

I'd say Hopkins because Tito was a better fighter than Chico and Tito let loose the whole kitchen sink in 6 and 10 and couldn't do anything. Mayweather was dazzling but given court issues and weight issues going in, there was at least a slim question of whether he could have done a little better. I think Tito fought as well as he could and still couldn't do anything because Hopkins was having the night of his life. Can you say killer feints!!! B-Hop did what he wanted to do all night long and there was nothing Tito could do about it!!!