B-Hops best win. Tito or Pavlik?

That's because you're an idiot you would say that. In those fights, look into them better stupid lying idiot, wasn't he expected to lose almost all and in brutal fashion?. Weren't people laughing their asses off at him even thinking he will win and should retire instead?, you honestly want to come and tell us with a straight face you saw it all coming?. And you expect anyone not as ******ed and idiotic as you are to believe it?. At the age of 44 the likes of you would be preparing to get a loan to buy a coffin to land in it very soon, yet this guy seems to be scaring young men in arguably the most dangerous and brutal sport in the world, respect that at least, worthless scumbag.

 

And that's aside from the fact that Tito had already proven himself at middle, aside from the fact that Pavlik has now accepted he is too big for mw and is going to fight at smw, and aside from the fact that Hopkins jumped 2 divisions to shut out Tarver in Tarver's natural weight class.

 

Oscar was fat and obviously under prepared against Sturm, he came at his fighting weight against Hopkins. It's a good win, as I said.

Meanwhile, we can analyse the Pavlik win in hindsight. Yes, Hopkins was underdog but that was due to (a) people wrongly interpreted the Calzaghe loss as being due to Hopkins being over the hill and (b) people wrongly saw Pavlik as a beast. In hindsight, Pavlik to date has only beaten one opponent in his career that was even close to world class and has to be seen as to lucky to have been in the right place at the right time to win the lineal middleweight championship from an opponent who was a fairly weak champion and over whom he had a considerable stylistic advantage.

 

He had Taylor on his resume twice and that mattered the most.

 

Completely unjustifiable position. Can't be bothered repeating what I've already said, as you have refuted none of it with this response. Re-read my last post, and re-think.

 

Exactly.

 

Your position was that we should go by who was the favourites coming in, mine is that we should evaluate the quality of the wins with all the evidence available now. It's not a case of 'refuting' one or the other. All your points are accurate and all of mine are accurate, it's just a case of what you like best.

Pavlik was always be seen as a good win for Hopkins because of the context prefight and, like I said, I have it as one of his best four career wins, but it's already depreciating. If he doesn't pull up any trees at SMW (and I don't expect him to) it will start to look very much like the Jeff Lacy win does for Joe Calzaghe - less good as time goes on.

 

Man, tough question. They are both of equal importence? He broke and schooled both of them.

 

People have to stop this talk about Pavlik never fighting as heavy as he did against Hopkins and using the weight issue to discredit Bernard's win. Pavlik had two fights previously at 169, same as he weighed against Hopkins, and another handul of fights at 164 and above. And after the loss to Martinez, he and his camp have said he has been having trouble making 160 for "a long time". He wasn't bloated against Hopkins, and weight had very little to do with the result, IMO.

 

Hopkins did show a good performance against DLH though it wasn't great. That victory still falls below the victory Hopkins had with Trinidad.

 

I'm going with his win over Trinidad. Hell that may have been his best performance of his entire career.

 

Hopkins takes fighter's souls. He ruined Pavlik, that's why he's looked bad since.

 

Trinidad was knocking out everyone on his trek to middleweight. Hopkins dismantled him and took him out.

 

Tito but both are great wins