Definitely Barrera over Hamed because I'd say Hamed was the favorite going into the fight. Trinidad had only one middleweight fight and was going up against a long-time champion noted for his boxing skills who had only been defeated in the last decade or so to a blazing fast Roy Jones. Trinidad had shown vulnerability to a good boxer in a much smaller de la Hoya, so it wasn't all that surprising that Hopkins outboxed Trinidad. However, Hamed was undefeated, had big power, fast hands, good reflexes. Barrerra had twice lost to Junior Jones, and had also lost close to Morales. He didn't look particularly effective against a southpaw in his narrow win over Valbuena, so he was not likely going to beat Hamed. Therefore, Barrera's victory gets the nod as being the better win.
Actually, it was reversed. Barrera was given an excellent chance to beat Hamed after his stirling show against Morales. Hopkins was a 2 to 1 underdog against Tito, possibly a bit more, if I remember correctly. Everybody picked Tito to win. He didn't. Hopkins win is better. he showed more in it, and the opponent was more fearsome, and holds up better on the ATG lists, than does Prince.
Hopkins v Trinidad was the better win because.... 1. Tito was ranked higher than Naz at the time. 2. Hopkins won just about every round. 3. Hopkins knocked out Tito. 4. Both Tito & Naz were favourites going in but I remember more people picking Barrera to score the upset than Hopkins to do likewise. Both were great wins tho & of the 2 fights, my preference to watch is more often than not the Barrera-Hamed fight.
I think Hopkins/Tito. The Barrera/Junior Jones matchup showed some weakness for Barrera with speed. Tito was expected to wipe the floor with Hopkins and Hopkins outclassed him.
all is said. Hopkins-Tito is the better fight, more fans are into heavier weights than at the lower ones, but hamed-barrera is the more badass fight of the two. In terms of quality, they're equal.
