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

[warp1432]

Hopkins is by far the better boxer, but it would have been a much more competitive fight and I don't think Tito would've been stopped if they were the same size. Oscar would've beaten Hopkins if they were the same size, IMO.

Why? Hopkins was using his speed advantage on Tito. He didn't use size at all.

Oscar wouldn't have beaten Hopkins if they were the same size either.

[Jim Jeffries]

Why? Hopkins was using his speed advantage on Tito. He didn't use size at all.

Oscar wouldn't have beaten Hopkins if they were the same size either.

Who did Hopkins not have a significant size advantage over that he fought at MW until he faced Taylor? I'm not denying Hopkins defensive wizardry and I thought my implication that he would have beaten Tito even if they were the same size was obvious, but I don't think there's much doubt that DLH, who had no business ever fighting above 147, would have been the fight of Hopkins' life if they were the same size (minus maybe the RJJ fight.)

[warp1432]

Who did Hopkins not have a significant size advantage over that he fought at MW until he faced Taylor? I'm not denying Hopkins defensive wizardry and I thought my implication that he would have beaten Tito even if they were the same size was obvious, but I don't think there's much doubt that DLH, who had no business ever fighting above 147, would have been the fight of Hopkins' life if they were the same size (minus maybe the RJJ fight.)

Glen Johnson. Antwon Echols. Joe Lipsey. Robert Allen. Keith Holmes. Syd Vanderpool. Segundo Mercado. William Joppy. Howard Eastman.

DLH has business fighting at 154. I agree he was undersized at 160 and probably should have never been there, but Hopkins baited DLH and broke him down slowly. Would it be closer, yeah I guess, but Hopkins plan worked pretty well against De La Hoya. He could step up the work rate up if he wanted to also (assuming they are prime for prime too).

[bsrizpac]

I will respect them if they are good ones.

Seriously, you are so wrong about this it's hard to know where to begin. Several other posters have pointed out facts about how the size was not a factor since the majority of this fight was fought on the inside.

Instead you turn to size = punching power. Okay. Whatever. Tito would have lost that fight even if he was 15 pounds north of Hopkins. He had no answer for what hopkins was doing. There was not much wrestling in the fight.

[IMDAZED]

The effectiveness of Hopkins stiff jab was predicated on the fact that it was too stiff for Tito.

[IMDAZED]

Glen Johnson. Antwon Echols. Joe Lipsey. Robert Allen. Keith Holmes. Syd Vanderpool. Segundo Mercado. William Joppy. Howard Eastman.

DLH has business fighting at 154. I agree he was undersized at 160 and probably should have never been there, but Hopkins baited DLH and broke him down slowly. Would it be closer, yeah I guess, but Hopkins plan worked pretty well against De La Hoya. He could step up the work rate up if he wanted to also (assuming they are prime for prime too).

Why are you even debating this? Don't bother.

Simply point out that Bernard Hopkins, as well-conditioned and as muscular as it gets, weighed 156 POUNDS FOR DE LA HOYA. That's four pounds under 160 and only two over 154.

Gimme a break - they tried to kill Hopkins and he made weight anyway. And slowed boxed and broke DLH down...although some would argue that he used his "strength" there .

[poeticlsykuac]

I will respect them if they are good ones.

I am going to say it like this, Tito was to ****** to change his game plan and had no boxing ability, therefore he lost. Or you could say Hopkins fought a great fight, he moved around the ring, threw lots of short punches, jumped in and out, jabbed, feints, defense, countering, etc. and all while he ran from the smaller Tito.

Dude I've taught the "mentally handicapped" faster then it is taking for you to learn, you say it was his specifically his size. Why didn't Tito move out of the way of the jab? Why didn't Tito counter? Why didn't he hit Hopkins? It wasn't because he wasn't throwing punches due to his size. Tito's inability to box, or change his plan(as he was constantly stalking the BIGGER fighter) led to his loss. Tito took a serious beating because of an amazing performance. If you can't hit the guy you are ineffective period, he was stalking him and couldn't hit him.

[abadger]

I am going to say it like this, Tito was to ****** to change his game plan and had no boxing ability, therefore he lost. Or you could say Hopkins fought a great fight, he moved around the ring, threw lots of short punches, jumped in and out, jabbed, feints, defense, countering, etc. and all while he ran from the smaller Tito.

Dude I've taught the "mentally handicapped" faster then it is taking for you to learn, you say it was his specifically his size. Why didn't Tito move out of the way of the jab? Why didn't Tito counter? Why didn't he hit Hopkins? It wasn't because he wasn't throwing punches due to his size. Tito's inability to box, or change his plan(as he was constantly stalking the BIGGER fighter) led to his loss. Tito took a serious beating because of an amazing performance. If you can't hit the guy you are ineffective period, he was stalking him and couldn't hit him.

You people are ludicrous. You're so far up Hopkins ass that you desperately want the Tito performance (probably Hopkins best) to be this incredible boxing master class so you can all justify the "Hopkins is a legend" talk.

I have news for you: Hopkins won that fight easily because he was much bigger than Tito. If none of you can see that it is much easier to box an effective fight when you have massive advantages, then thats your lookout, but I'm afraid that really is the way it was. Hopkins performed well, yes, but the reason for that was because his size made Tito's threat irrelevant.

I am neither pro nor anti Hopkins, I'm just giving my opinion on a boxing match I once saw. Stop crying because I don't share your opinion that it was some awesome, awe inspiring win.

[Mr. Philadel]

Skills payed the bills that night for B-Hop. Tito never saw feints like that before..not even from DLH!

[bsrizpac]

You people are ludicrous. You're so far up Hopkins ass that you desperately want the Tito performance (probably Hopkins best) to be this incredible boxing master class so you can all justify the "Hopkins is a legend" talk.

I have news for you: Hopkins won that fight easily because he was much bigger than Tito. If none of you can see that it is much easier to box an effective fight when you have massive advantages, then thats your lookout, but I'm afraid that really is the way it was. Hopkins performed well, yes, but the reason for that was because his size made Tito's threat irrelevant.

I am neither pro nor anti Hopkins, I'm just giving my opinion on a boxing match I once saw. Stop crying because I don't share your opinion that it was some awesome, awe inspiring win.

LMAO. You of all people should not be accusing anyone of being "up a fighters ass". Fair enough?

Secondly stop bull****ting about disliking Hopkins. It's okay if you don't.

You obviously don't know anything about boxing. The fight was fought on the OUTSIDE. Do you understand that? If Hopkins was getting tagged all night and walking through Tito, or manhandling him by wrestling him in the clinch and shoving him back or physically imposing himself, then yeah you'd have a point.

Too bad Hopkins beat him with a jab, counterpunching and outside movement coupled with speed. All things that have nothing to do with size. Did you seriously try to say Hopkins jab was too stiff cause he was bigger than Tito? So, everyone who is bigger than another fighter automatically hits harder than them? I mean I guess you could assume that if you knew nothing about boxing.