@175 Oversized Oscar, Tubby Tito, Waddling Winky

But they didn't fight @ 175. Pointless point mate.

 

1- Two of them were favored against Bernard.

2- You say that Bernard was a genuine LHW...so that means he emancipated himself for almost 2 decades...inside and outside of the ring (because of his fitness regimine, his walk around weight when NOT in training for a fight was at or around 160)...do you have any idea what kind of toll that would take on the body? How would he be able to fight, at a high level, for so long if he abused his body that way??? The answer...he couldnt...and your thought process...is bunk.

3- He came in at 154 against Oscar....not weighed in....CAME INTO THE RING!!! He wouldnt have made it 5 rounds if he was supposed to be at 175. Doesnt make much sense.

4- You say Hopkins showed he belonged at 175 by beating Tarver previous to the Winky fight...yet ignore that Tito looked UNBEATABLE in his destruction of William Joppy just prior to the Hopkins fight....which coincidently was at 160. Yet he was blown up????

5- People give fighters soooo much credit for moving up in weight, yet if that fighter is so deserving of such credit, then why do we slam the fighters who fight and beat them??? Contradictory if you ask me...

6- Winky Wright was above his natural weight...yes. But people ignore the fact that so was Bernard. This is something people convieniently leave out when assessing this fight. Also, another thing they forget to mention...Winky's entire style is predicated on technique, not speed or movement. At 154 he was immoble...at 154 he was slow...but he dominated because of his phenominal jab (slow as hell, but perfectly thrown and timed), and his shell defense (all on technique...not on speed or reflex...hense why it is called a "SHELL"). Yet he was slow and immobile to most people at 170.....WTF???? HE WAS SLOW AND IMMOBILE AT 154 and 160 too????

Sorry, but I just had to point those tidbits out to ya.

:good

 

Another fantastic post.

 

Good post mate. Couldn't have said it better.

 

:thumbsup

 

Maybe a lot of that has to do with Bernards discipline and training

 

So isnt that a credit to Hopkins amazing work ethic???

And did you see Corrales at WW??? He looked RIPPED and he got UTTERLY DESTROYED (to the point I was actually worried about his health when it was done) by JOSHUA FREAKIN CLOTTEY!!!! Build and the appearance of fitness can be decieving....

Again tho...you say that Hopkins looked ripped at 175 and had proven he belonged there by fighting there ONCE!!! Yet Tito looked great and performed great at 160 BY FIGHTING THERE ONCE!!! Doesnt by your own criteria mean Tito was naturally a MW and not blown up like some like to claim when fighting Bernard????

These are your rules, Im just going by them...

 

Pretty good post, but there's nothing contradicting about giving more credit to the guy moving up in weight. The reason for that is the perceived disadvantage the "smaller" fighter is faced with.

Hopkins deserves credit for beating all the above mentioned guys but there's no denying he had the size advantage!

 

I understand 100% about giving credit where credit is due on fighters moving up. But to knock a fighter beating that fighter....that is contradictory.

 

No he said before the first Taylor fight that he could no longer make 160 comfortable anymore (he was OVER 40 years old...I wont be able to make CW at 40...LOL)...only staying there because he, like most others felt he won. But that doesnt make him naturally a LHW....like I mentioned previously, was Corrales a natural WW because he could no longer make LW?

 

I never said he doesnt hold LHW well. He most definately does (would I think he even had a chance vs Joe if he didnt??). But that doesnt make him a natural LHW...not in the slightest. Was Tommy Hearns a LHW or a WW? Was Roberto Duran a LW or a MW? To say he held the weight well is fine...to say he is naturally that weight is not.