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

[Sir_Jose]

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.

Yes Boxing is scored on R.O.U.N.D.S. and you cant win 4 R.O.U.N.D.S. and win a 12 R.O.U.N.D. fight

[The Pretender]

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.

You can say same thing about RJJ who did the same hit/run tactics. That's why no one realized what a suspect chin he really had because his defense was so good. Until Tarver and Johnson got him.

But Roy at least was a good showman and made the hit run style fun to watch. Jabbing is most boring style ever, so what if its technically boxing.

[paul750]

some people call it the sweet science, and some people call it boring, it's just that a lot of guys want to see world war 3 at every fight

[AintGottaClue]

my question is during hopkins rein after the RJJ fight who was there to fight??? hopkins beat everyone in front of him he didnt handpick these guys who else was there to fight at that time huh? u cant call hopkins a fraud for beating people who he had to fight. so DLH and tito came from lower weight divsions? is that hopkisn fault he beat them so easly? its not like he had hearns,hagler,leanard,duran,toney's to fight lol

[Guest]

some people call it the sweet science, and some people call it boring, it's just that a lot of guys want to see world war 3 at every fight

You know, I disagree with that. I'm sure no one would deny that Ali was a fine exponent of the sweet science. Was Ali boring?

Mind you, I heard him say the other day that he would have gladly traded the Frazier trilogy off his resume for the Allen trilogy. "It was the greatest trilogy of all tahms" he was heard to have said, still enthralled by such a spectacle.

[mic573]

I don't why people are saying Winky's win was more one-sided than Hopkins' win. All Winky did for the most part was keep Tito away with the jab which was good for him. Hopkins not only used the jab to keep Tito away but also made Tito miss and counter with righthands and hooks. On top of that he made it a point to actually put his win on the line by exchanging more down the stretch and go for the knockout which Winky didn't even consider doing.

[Super_Lightweight]

hmm

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?

1) Wright did not dominate Tito the way Hopkins did. Hopkins outmuscled and outbrawled and outboxed Tito, and finished him off in the end. Winky won every round with a good jab but fought his fight...Hopkins fought his and Tito's fight and won on both accounts.

2) Bernard's career is NOT running solely on the fact that he beat Tito in 2001. If you were a true boxing historian or truly knowledgeable you would understand the significance of other wins in his career; the WAY he beat guys like Segundo Mercado, Echols, Joppy, Allen, Holmes, his good performance vs Jones, etc. Bernard beats every top 10 fighter they put in front of them, and he controls them mentally and physically. I picked Hopkins to lose to Eastman even. Eastman is a legit top 5 middleweight (after all the crying of Hopkins not facing a "true" middlweight) and Hopkins dismantled him. Eastman was not smart enough for even old Hopkins and I was wrong in picking Eastman to win.

3) You don't like Bernard. I don't like Bernard. I root vs him everytime he fights. Only difference is you let your dislike of his style cloud your judgement of him. He has fought the best in his weight and he handled them all. Justbecause you don't like the way he fights at his old age, that doesn't mean he isn't great. History will remember him as great regardless of what you think, and rightfully so.

[USA4LIFE]

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.

What are you talking about, i'v seen that fight over and over again, it wasnt close by a long shot. If you saw one of the judges score cards it says tito won 2 out of the 1st 3 rounds, DLH dominated tito forn the first 4 rounds clean. Even hardcore tito fans have told me that DLH was robbed, if anybodys a nuthuger it's you.

And to answer your quest martin, no Hopkins is not a fruad, Tito can't fight true boxers period, it showed with DLH, Hopkins, and Winky. He fought Hopkins and Winky, ppl with awsome jabs and defense, he needs a target to hit, if he doesnt have one he's pretty much done.

[TyrantT316]

Why is Hopkins a fraud?

Hopkins beat Tito with skill when Tito was undefeated witout a layoff and on a roll in his career...

only a BHop hater would even consider calling Hopkins that

[TRUEVisionDC]

1) Wright did not dominate Tito the way Hopkins did. Hopkins outmuscled and outbrawled and outboxed Tito, and finished him off in the end. Winky won every round with a good jab but fought his fight...Hopkins fought his and Tito's fight and won on both accounts.

2) Bernard's career is NOT running solely on the fact that he beat Tito in 2001. If you were a true boxing historian or truly knowledgeable you would understand the significance of other wins in his career; the WAY he beat guys like Segundo Mercado, Echols, Joppy, Allen, Holmes, his good performance vs Jones, etc. Bernard beats every top 10 fighter they put in front of them, and he controls them mentally and physically. I picked Hopkins to lose to Eastman even. Eastman is a legit top 5 middleweight (after all the crying of Hopkins not facing a "true" middlweight) and Hopkins dismantled him. Eastman was not smart enough for even old Hopkins and I was wrong in picking Eastman to win.

3) You don't like Bernard. I don't like Bernard. I root vs him everytime he fights. Only difference is you let your dislike of his style cloud your judgement of him. He has fought the best in his weight and he handled them all. Justbecause you don't like the way he fights at his old age, that doesn't mean he isn't great. History will remember him as great regardless of what you think, and rightfully so.

Well said....