better win for Hopkins? TITO OR PAVLIK

i agree :good

 

To the casual fan, the Tito win was more publicied and to me was a bigger watched fight than with KP, therefore, for B-Hop, the win against Tito was more important to him.

The KP win it's an important one as well because of the age difference but in 2001 Tito had a far better resume and perception than KP in 2008.

 

Tito is still the most impotant win in Hopkins carrer because that was the win that make him a star.

 

I wonder, how would everything played out if Tito would have won that fight against B-Hop... What do you think? :huh

 

Tito was a lot better h2h at 160 than people think. He was nothing short of magnificent against Joppy, I think if he had been fighting any other middleweight in the world instead of Hopkins that night he would've won convincingly. The Hopkins loss changed Tito, he was never as good after that, but he could've been a good middleweight, he was just too brave/naive in wanting to fight the best, as Hopkins and Wright were too clever for him.

 

Also, because Trinidad is the greatest fighter in a pound-for-pound sense that Hopkins ever fought. Tito was p4p#2 at the time, and will rank higher on all-time pound-for-pound lists than anyone else Hopkins ever fought, including Calzaghe IMO.

 

ok, why would you say "naive" isn't the sport of boxing suppose to be "The best fight the best" Tito always wanted to prove himself against the best, so, why would you call that being naive??

 

I said brave/naive, depending on your own viewpoint. My own viewpoint is that he was too brave, but there would be many who would say he was naive. There are plenty of fighters out there who shrewdly select their opponents, weighing risk v reward, and Tito never done that because he was a warrior.

 

ok, I see your point... he was naive from a business stand point because he never weighted the risk v reward factor... ok, I can see that some people may have that point of view...

I'll tell you what... I rather see figthers today be more "naive" and really fight the best oposition out there than trying to protect an 0 or something of that nature. But that's just my opinion.

 

tito cuz pavlik was sick..lol...I just cant help myself...seriously TITO..he was more proven and he beat him up and stopped him

 

I have the same opinion. For instance, Miguel Cotto did not have to take on someone as dangerous as Antonio Margarito but he did because he wanted to prove himself the best by fighting the best. Whereas, Joe Calzaghe took a fight with Roy Jones Jr because he saw Jones as the big money-low risk fight because Jones is shot, when he could have fought someone better like Dawson who would've given him (and the fans) a real fight. I respect and admire Cotto more in this instance, even though he lost the zero.

 

He knocked the Hype the **** out...ahahahah

And derailed the Tito Express forever!!!!!

 

u cant win in boxing with fans...if u are brave and fight everyone than u lose....u are not that great...if u fight mandatories and SMART money fights and get rich fighting good fighters than u are ducking everybody...so either way u lose with alot of fans

 

I disagree. Men who fight the best and lose sometimes never lose their fans. All the greatest fighters in history lost fights.