B-Hops best win. Tito or Pavlik?

:roflatsch What a gullible nuthugger you are.

Trinidad was a blown-up Welterweight. He had no business going in against a big Middleweight such as Hopkins. Hopkins' career is smoke and mirrors. He lost twice to Glass Jaw Taylor.

 

You are literally too stupid to take seriously!

 

Trinidad. Undefeated against a much better calibre of opposition that Pavlik was, effective at WW, LMW and still a vicious puncher at MW by the way he almost decapitated Joppy.

Tito's flaw, as shown earlier against Oscar, is that he didn't really know how to adapt and was pretty one dimensional. But he could box, he knew how to create distance and, against a lesser fighter, would almost always catch them at some point. Hopkins just didn't allow that.

Pavlik, as we've all seen, has never been a good boxer. he has above average skills, but it's his relentlessness, consistency and the jab that make him. So, he was a pretty simple puzzle to solve for Hopkins just by moving laterally.

 

Trinidad by far and wide.

 

:goodWhat I want to know is......Why do people give only Hopkins hate for facing "smaller men" when Monzon & Hagler don't get criticized. One of Monzon's best wins was against Napoles and some of Hagler's best wins are against Duran & Hearns.

 

you never answered my post, you never took the trusted method of analysing borenards best victories. you are one of the gullable brain washed american idiots i was refering too :nut :rofl

hopkins only had 4 true tests at his own weight - jones, taylor twice, calzaghe.

guess what scar, borenards record in his true tests =

0 victories
0 draws
4 defeats

PMSL at borenard and scar

 

c'mon, one of you deluded nuthuggers on here take the hopkins test quoted above and lets properly assess his achievements in boxing. smoke and mirrors spring to mind, smoke and mirrors :deal

 

These only became 'true tests' after they beat him, right?

I mean there's be no reason to rank Taylor above lots of other Hopkins wins if BHop had beaten him. And would you be calling Calzaghe a 'true test' at LHW if he'd lost to Hopkins in his only fight there - of course not.

So you're argument is basically the people who beat Hopkins you default rate as tests and people who he beat (even the ones who were favoured to beat him beforehand) you don't. Which isn't very illuminating, except on the subject of your own biases...

 

those 4 were hopkins biggest tests imo considering quality of opponent in combination with the weight the fight was fought at. fighters like tarver and johnson are c level.

take the hopkins test cobbler and properly assess his career achievements :deal

 

Tito was a better win, but his greatest victory was Tarver.

 

Bollocks. Taylor's best win was a points win over Joppy. Tell me why that made him more of a test than Trinidad who knocked out a better version of the same Joppy three years earlier.

 

take the borenard test cobbler and all is revealed in it :deal

 

It's been done many times mate. I know you've only been here a few months, but there is a search engine if you're that interested in rereading old discussions.

 

Which is still 2 divisions higher than the division he was champ in and still heavier than hes been before or since, or where hes heading, and whos to say Pavlik will weigh bang on 168 when he boxes at SMW?

 

Tarver !