The Wright vs Tito fight kinda put's Bernards win into perspective?

**legend** · 05-15-2005, 03:59 PM

This is why I think Taylor will beat him. Hopkins has never faced a fighter like Taylor. Taylor is a boxer-puncher with power whereas Tito is nothing more than a continuous head-hunter.

However, you have to remember that Tito was in his prime when he fought Hopkins while Winky beat a Tito that came out of retirement and beat a human punching bag (Mayorga) that moved up in weight.

**Sir_Jose** · 05-15-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by martinwbc

Well we all saw how easily Tito was out-boxed by Wright last night... It was MORE one-sided than when Hopkins fought Trinidad.

The only difference being Trinidad came up in weight to fight Bernard where as Wright came up in weight to fight Trinidad.

Bernards career is still running solely on the fact that he beat Trinidad back in 2001'. He's fought Carl Daniels - Morrad Hakker - Robert Allen - Willaim Sloppy - Howard Eastman - And poor De La Hoya trying to fight 3 weight classes above himself. Bernard has hardly fought WORLD beater's since his one big fight against the "limited" Trinidad.

So I ask... Did Winky Wright show us last night exactly how much of a fraud Hopkins really is?

No Tito is not a "fraud", but he is highly beatable.

Dont forget before Tito was dominated by Hopkins he was dominated by DLH years earlier. He just cant deal with a good jab plain and simple.

**Guest** · 05-15-2005, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by jose

No Tito is not a "fraud", but he is highly beatable.

Dont forget before Tito was dominated by Hopkins he was dominated by DLH years earlier. He just cant deal with a good jab plain and simple.

He never said Tito was a fraud, he asked if HOPKINS was.

Martin, Hopkins is probably at the top of my p4p "bore the **** out of me" list. How a giggling granddad who spends 12 rounds running around on his zimmer can be considered a great beats me. People were bigging up his 20th defence but there's a world of difference between "hit and not get hit" and "just run away for 80% of the fight". He's an ass.

**IwatchBoxing** · 05-15-2005, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by jose

No Tito is not a "fraud", but he is highly beatable.

Dont forget before Tito was dominated by Hopkins he was dominated by DLH years earlier. He just cant deal with a good jab plain and simple.

Trinidads only been dominated twice now, the DLH fight was very close, it could of very well been a draw. Hopkins win is supported with his win over DLH.

**Sir_Jose** · 05-15-2005, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by IwatchBoxing

Trinidads only been dominated twice now, the DLH fight was very close, it could of very well been a draw. Hopkins win is supported with his win over DLH.

He lost the DLH fight 8-4 clean. Only extreme fans like you think it was close.

and he didn't even win those 4 rounds they were given to him.

**drez24** · 05-15-2005, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by martinwbc

Well we all saw how easily Tito was out-boxed by Wright last night... It was MORE one-sided than when Hopkins fought Trinidad.

The only difference being Trinidad came up in weight to fight Bernard where as Wright came up in weight to fight Trinidad.

Bernards career is still running solely on the fact that he beat Trinidad back in 2001'. He's fought Carl Daniels - Morrad Hakker - Robert Allen - Willaim Sloppy - Howard Eastman - And poor De La Hoya trying to fight 3 weight classes above himself. Bernard has hardly fought WORLD beater's since his one big fight against the "limited" Trinidad.

So I ask... Did Winky Wright show us last night exactly how much of a fraud Hopkins really is?

Why are you such a Hopkins hater? "Poor" De la Hoya did ok for himself at 154, so he was hardly out of his league at 160 (boxrec says that both he and hop weighed in at 155-157, anyway)

William "Sloppy" is ok to have on a resume for guys like Taylor and Trinidad, but is not credible on Hopkins' resume?

A lot of people on here picked Eastman to beat Hopkins, he couldnt have been that bad of a fighter, right?

Yea, the robert allen trilogy was abysmal, I'll give you that.

Last night didnt change my opinion about hopkins at all, not to mention he beat trinidad when he was considered at the top of his game, and he sent him into retirement for over 2 years.

Again, I ask you, why are you such a Hopkins hater? (you were trashing him in the lacy-cal***gie thread as well)

**Martin (Top Knowledge)** · 05-15-2005, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by IwatchBoxing

Trinidads only been dominated twice now, the DLH fight was very close, it could of very well been a draw. Hopkins win is supported with his win over DLH.

Yeah but De La Hoya should never have been fighting at middleweight... The Sturm Fight proved that before hand.

If Kostya Tszyu KO'd Erik Morlaes - would you seriously give praise to Kostya Tszyu for doing it?

It would be what we call in the game, "miss-match" as was Hopkins vs De La Hoya.

**IwatchBoxing** · 05-15-2005, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by jose

He lost the DLH fight 8-4 clean. Only extreme fans like you think it was close.

and he didn't even win those 4 rounds they were given to him.

What are you talking about, that fight was very close, your just a DLH nuthuger, back off, given or not, those are Trinidads rounds, boxing is scored on R.O.U.N.D.S.

**Martin (Top Knowledge)** · 05-15-2005, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by drez24

Why are you such a Hopkins hater? "Poor" De la Hoya did ok for himself at 154, so he was hardly out of his league at 160 (boxrec says that both he and hop weighed in at 155-157, anyway)

William "Sloppy" is ok to have on a resume for guys like Taylor and Trinidad, but is not credible on Hopkins' resume?

A lot of people on here picked Eastman to beat Hopkins, he couldnt have been that bad of a fighter, right?

Yea, the robert allen trilogy was abysmal, I'll give you that.

Last night didnt change my opinion about hopkins at all, not to mention he beat trinidad when he was considered at the top of his game, and he sent him into retirement for over 2 years.

Again, I ask you, why are you such a Hopkins hater? (you were trashing him in the lacy-cal***gie thread as well)

I don't hate Hopkins... But I don't like him, I'm sick and tired of hearing about how "great" he is, when he's done FAR less than other fighters to back it up.

And I'm tired of all the excuses made for him... It's unacceptable for Calzaghe to face a mandatory challenger, but if Hopkins does it he get's loads of praise!

It's all bollox really...

The Wright vs Tito fight kinda put's Bernards win into perspective?