Which win was better for Bhop's legacy: Tito or Tarver?

[pesticid]

I would think it's Tarver because Tarver was legit at 175 and is a natural light heavy who also happens to be bigger than Hopkins. What do you guys think?

[abadger]

Tarver, easily.

Tito's good years were at welterweight.

[AntonTheMeh]

tito.it was the fight that made him.hr looked great.

[WLAD OWNS]

Tarver was a better win...Trinidad was a blown up Welterweight.

[Silencers]

People will remember him more for the Trinidad win than the Tarver win but the Tarver win probably was better.

[pesticid]

It's funny though cause in both fight I remember him being a heavy underdog yet he dominated them both.

[Vladimir303]

The trinidad victory is bigger - that's when he officially became a legit undisputed middleweight champion. And the IBF title defenses he put in before that make him one of the greatest middleweights ever.

That's his legacy.

[pesticid]

Tito was good but Tito was small and Bhop lost twice to Taylor. I think he's alright if he retired after Taylor but he's a legend after dismantling Tarver. Same could be said for Joe.

[Motofan]

I say Tito, only because Tito was unstoppable at the time they fought, and I know ALOT of people who gave Hopkins no chance in that fight. Tarver was just bigger and over rated. I was never suprised that Hopkins beat Tarver(althought I was suprised at how easily he did it.)

[RichCCFC]

The trinidad victory is bigger - that's when he officially became a legit undisputed middleweight champion. And the IBF title defenses he put in before that make him one of the greatest middleweights ever.

That's his legacy.

If that makes someone one of the greatest middleweights ever then I must say..

What the **** is going on in this world?