Did Hopkins win the Tito fight with his strenghth or his boxing abilities?

[ALT-Assassin]

I repeat. Hopkins was able to outbox Tito so impressively because he was the bigger stronger man and Tito could not impose himself on Hopkins at all. Thus, Hopkins controlled the fight.

Whether I 'question' the victory is another matter entirely. All I have done so far is state the major factor that I think helped Hopkins to win so well. I haven't questioned it at all.

You are questioning the victory by claiming size was the major factor in that fightI guess Hopkins constant stiff jab or his swift foot movement played no part in the fight?The counters were only brought on by Hopkins superior strength.If this was such as mismatch as you put it why was Trinidad the betting favorite?I think a proper book keeper would realized that Titos size would of prevented him from winning.Leonord did lose his fight against Haglerwait no he didn't

[ALT-Assassin]

abadger is right lol

No he is not! just about every poster disagrees with him,you are in the minority!

[abadger]

You are questioning the victory by claiming size was the major factor in that fightI guess Hopkins constant stiff jab or his swift foot movement played no part in the fight?The counters were only brought on by Hopkins superior strength.If this was such as mismatch as you put it why was Trinidad the betting favorite.I think a proper book keeper would realize that Titos size would of prevented him from winning.Leonord did lose his fight against Haglerwait no he didn't

The effectiveness of Hopkins stiff jab was predicated on the fact that it was too stiff for Tito. The fact that it was too stiff for Tito meant that Tito could not impose himself on Hopkins and found himself constantly on the end of it. The fact that Tito was constantly on the end of his jab meant that Hopkins could move around at will since he was controlling his opponent.

The fact that Tito was the favourite is irrelevant. The oddsmakers were wrong.

The only thing I am questioning is the manner of the victory, not its value. Tito had looked decent at MW previously and it was his choice to get in the ring with Hopkins. Hopkins beat him fair and square, but the major reason for that was that Hopkins was bigger and stronger. This is not rare, in truth probably most (not all) boxing matches are won by the bigger, stronger man. There is nothing wrong with it, its a valid method of victory.

[abadger]

No he is not! just about every poster disagrees with him,you are in the minority!

I am right.

[ИATAS]

LOL, so Hopkins JAB was just too powerful now? come on man

[abadger]

LOL, so Hopkins JAB was just too powerful now? come on man

Pick it apart, focus on any single attribute of Hopkins game, focus on all of them if you like. The end result is that the reason that Hopkins was so effective in that particular fight is that he was too strong for Tito.

This is so obvious to me that I am having a hard time understanding why you all disagree so strongly.

[ИATAS]

This is so obvious to me that I am having a hard time understanding why you all disagree so strongly.

Now you know how about 10 different people feel about your opinion

Pick it apart, focus on any single attribute of Hopkins game, focus on all of them if you like. The end result is that the reason that Hopkins was so effective in that particular fight is that he was too strong for Tito.

Man, I went over this with you - hopkins did not overpower trinidad, he did not physically maul him, rough him up or unload power shots at will. He won by out-boxing trinidad, footwork, perfectly timed counterpunches, setting traps (in the corner and against the ropes for example). None of these abilities have anything to do with strength.

[abadger]

Now you know how about 10 different people feel about your opinion



Man, I went over this with you - hopkins did not overpower trinidad, he did not physically maul him, rough him up or unload power shots at will. He won by out-boxing trinidad, footwork, perfectly timed counterpunches, setting traps (in the corner and against the ropes for example). None of these abilities have anything to do with strength.

I never said he did. You like some others are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. Winning because you are the stronger man does not neccessarily have to mean some sort of physical mauling. It can mean, as it did in the Hopkins - Tito fight, that because your opponent cannot really hurt you, and cannot impose himself on you, that you are able to box entirely your own fight in a cool and controlled manner, and by and large control him, exactly as Hopkins did.

[Jim Jeffries]

You are questioning the victory by claiming size was the major factor in that fightI guess Hopkins constant stiff jab or his swift foot movement played no part in the fight?The counters were only brought on by Hopkins superior strength.If this was such as mismatch as you put it why was Trinidad the betting favorite?I think a proper book keeper would realized that Titos size would of prevented him from winning.Leonord did lose his fight against Haglerwait no he didn't

I think when you have a guy that starts his career at 175 against one that started his at 138, size definitely plays a factor. The fight between Hagler and Leonard was pretty damn close considering the 10 oz gloves and the 24 ft ring, things Marvin never should have agreed to. Even there you're talking about less of a size disparity than Hopkins/Tito, and I have no doubt that Hagler would've won in an 18ft ring with 8 oz gloves.

[ИATAS]

where do yo uget the idea that trinidad couldn't hopkins? hopkins never allowed tito to hit him flush. If he just walked through punches and it didn't even budge him you'd have a point, but that's not what happened. Hopkins made tito miss and when tito did land they were never flush