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

[PrettyBoyFloyd7]

hopkins Fought A Perfect Fight That Night. His Defensive, And Offensive Abilities Won Him Every Round. Tito Was Never The Same.

[ALT-Assassin]

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.

The art of boxing is to not allow your opponent to hurt you or impose himself on you.If Tito was naturally bigger than Hopkins he still would of lost with the flawless performance that Hop put on.

[abadger]

The art of boxing is to not allow your opponent to hurt you or impose himself on you.If Tito was naturally bigger than Hopkins he still would of lost with the flawless performance that Hop put on.

If Tito had been naturally bigger/stronger than Hopkins it would have been much harder for Hopkins to put in that flawless performance. The fight would have been completely different. Hopkins would have had much more to worry about.

[ALT-Assassin]

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.

True,but my point is Hopkins would of clearly outclassed Tito even if they were naturally the same size.

[warp1432]

The jab arguement would be somewhat effective, if Oscar's jab hadn't worked against Tito already.


Tito was always a ***** for the jab. Oscar, Bernard, Winky, and even Roy were all effective with the jab.

[ALT-Assassin]

The jab arguement would be somewhat effective, if Oscar's jab hadn't worked against Tito already.


Tito was always a ***** for the jab. Oscar, Bernard, Winky, and even Roy were all effective with the jab.

There it is! Thread closed

[abadger]

There it is! Thread closed

Peronally I think it should have been over the first time I posted that the major factor in Hopkins Trinidad was Hopkin's size/strength.

But thats just me.

[ALT-Assassin]

Peronally I think it should have been over the first time I posted that the major factor in Hopkins Trinidad was Hopkin's size/strength.

But thats just me.

It is "just you" that is the problem

[abadger]

It is "just you" that is the problem

All good with me.

[Grappler_Baki60]

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.

He won based on his skill. Hopkins did everything right in that fight. If size muscle and strength was the factor then why did Tito keep coming at him??