Watching BHOP on ESPN, he said his best career win was Trinidad. Agree?

[ИATAS]

Who has Tito beat at middleweight? The same two guys that Eastman has beat and should have got the decison over him.

Tito DESTROYED Joppy. Knocked him out. Battered him. Eastman went the distance in a close fight which he did not get the decision in. Even if you think Eastman won, it doesn't compare to Tito's win over joppy.

That's all the proof you need to know Tito was a legit MW. If it wasn't for Hopkins, tito would have had all those belts without question.

Would you call Haglers win over Hearns legit? Because if you do you're a hypocrite. Unlike Trinidad, Hearns NEVER fought at 160 and moved directly up from 154 to 160 to fight Hagler. He wasn't a middleweight title holder like Trinidad was. But of course, everyone gives Hagler all the credit in the world for knocking out Hearns. His career defining win.

Or we could go back to my Pacquiao example. After Pacquiao beat Cotto and became a WW champ, he had only one legit WW fight. If Joshua Clottey beat him, you wouldn't give Clottey credit??

Be real.

[dde91]

why is it that its always some greater excuse when hopkins legitly loses. Two green cats fighting, but Hopkins is Greener (with a capital g no less) because he lost...lmao

i said he lost. NEVER SAID He didn't. Jones won fair and square. but at the end of the day Hopkins will have a greater legacy then Jones who was a p4p fraud for a decade after. he was top 10 p4p but no way in hell he should have been p4p #1 all them years.

[dde91]

i forget you were jocking him at ringside

yup when he was beating your favorite fighter.

[IronDanHamza]

Hopkins is greater IMO. Hearns is a Great fighter but the man had weak legs. His chin wasn't his problem it was his legs. as soon as his legs ran out you could knock him out. Close fight til the 6 round then Hearns starts tiring and Hopkins breaks him down in the 11th with a TKO. Just my prediction.

I think Hopkins beats Hearns at MW also.

But he's still not greater than Hearns.

[dde91]

I think Hopkins beats Hearns at MW also.

But he's still not greater than Hearns.

Hearns is great but almost everytime the odds were against him or the odds were even he didn't come up big. His biggest win to me is Duran which is a significant win because he knocked him out COLD. but other then that he gets knocked out, TKO'd by Leonard, Hagler, then Barkley. The Leonard and Barkley fights he was winning but got caught slipping. Hagler just used his brute strength to tax that ass. So to me Hopkins is better. Hopkins lost to Jones, Taylor twice and Calzaghe. but his Taylor and Calzaghe fights are disputed/CLOSE fights. And i think he beat Taylor 1 out of 2 times. The Calzaghe fight i dont even want to talk about. So i see Hopkins ahead of Hearns but behind other fighters like leonard, Duran, Hagler from that Fab 4. But he should definately get mentioned with them.

[dde91]

It doesnt matter what style you beat someone. If you beat someone by KO or decison its a win. Saying Tito would have all the belts is speculation based on one fight.

I do give credit to Hopkins for the win. But dont even compare Tito to Hearns. Hearns is a much better all round fighter who beat top fighters at middleweight and above. Tito was an average middleweight, nothing spectacular. That is why guys like Eastman would stand a good chance at beating him. Winky completely shutout Tito, which shows he wasnt all that at middleweight.

You act like Winky sucks or something. Winky in his prime and give anybody at 154-160 in history trouble.

[ИATAS]

It doesnt matter what style you beat someone. If you beat someone by KO or decison its a win. Saying Tito would have all the belts is speculation based on one fight.

I do give credit to Hopkins for the win. But dont even compare Tito to Hearns. Hearns is a much better all round fighter who beat top fighters at middleweight and above. Tito was an average middleweight, nothing spectacular. That is why guys like Eastman would stand a good chance at beating him. Winky completely shutout Tito, which shows he wasnt all that at middleweight.

Tito after Hopkins wasn't the same and retired for a couple years. He took one fight after Hopkins 6 months later then retired until late 2004 when he fought Mayorga. Winky is a nightmare stylistically for Trinidad as well, but at the same time that was 4-5 years after Tito got KO'd by Hopkins. Tito wasn't a full time boxer at that time in his career, he rarely fought. (Winky was also an amazing fighter lets not forget)

And I'm not comparing Hearns' legacy to Tito's, I'm simply using it as an example. Hopefully you can follow the logic. Hearns was certainly a legit MW, even though he was moving up from 154. Hagler gets all the credit in the world. That was a different era, the golden years. Tito is similar in that he is a hall of famer, an ATG, the difference was he actually was a MW title holder at the time Hopkins fought him Hearns never fought at the weight.

[IronDanHamza]

Hearns is great but almost everytime the odds were against him or the odds were even he didn't come up big. His biggest win to me is Duran which is a significant win because he knocked him out COLD. but other then that he gets knocked out, TKO'd by Leonard, Hagler, then Barkley. The Leonard and Barkley fights he was winning but got caught slipping. Hagler just used his brute strength to tax that ass. So to me Hopkins is better. Hopkins lost to Jones, Taylor twice and Calzaghe. but his Taylor and Calzaghe fights are disputed/CLOSE fights. And i think he beat Taylor 1 out of 2 times. The Calzaghe fight i dont even want to talk about. So i see Hopkins ahead of Hearns but behind other fighters like leonard, Duran, Hagler from that Fab 4. But he should definately get mentioned with them.

Hmmmm, well, you conveniently leave out Hearns wins over Wilfred Benitez, who is an ATG. And Pipino Cuevas, who is a HOF'er.

AND Roberto Duran ontop of that.

Those fights alone, makes him greater than Bernard Hopkins.

loss's don't mean much really, and losing to Jermain Taylor certainly doesn't.

Add other solid wins like;

Virgil Hill
James Schuler
Mark Medal
Fred Hutchings
Randy Shields
etc

Are atleast as good if not better than some of Hopkins better wins' such as Atwon Echols, Keith Holmes, Robert Allen and Howard Eastman

So yeah, I don't see it.

[ИATAS]

Hearns was form the golden era of boxing so his legacy is higher on the ATG list no doubt. There were just so much more names back then, so many great fighters. Even the "mediocre" fighters were better than a lot of guys today.

It would have been interesting if Hopkins fought in that era. He could have beat duran, hearns, possibly even hagler (imo) and likely lost to sugar ray leonard.

[Pugilistic™]

I would say Tito was Hopkins best win.

I mean Tito was undefeated, a middleweight title holder ( destroyed a legit middleweight in 5 rounds (Joppy) to claim it) and was a heavy favorite going into fight and was expected to knock Hopkins out.

Hopkins instead put on an excellent performance and stopped him in the 12th unifying the titles at middleweight. Tito retired after this loss and was never the same fighter when he returned.

Some fans say Tito was a natural welterweight but by then he was far more natural at 154/160lbs and that's evident when you watch his fights there.