Nard's win over Tito:Where's the love?

A lot of people seem to discredit this win for Nard. The most common excuse is that Trinidad was just a blown up WW; he was just too small. Well let's take a closer look at this.

Hopkins was 36 at the time of the fight, Trinidad was 28.

Hopkins is 6 '1, Trinidad is 5 '11

Hopkins weighed in at 157(Hopkins was famous for staying around the MW limit at all times, so it's safe to assume he wasn't much over 160 on fight night), Tito weighed in at 158 1/2

Tito had fought 3 years at 154 prior to this bout; picking up two belts. He also fought 1 fight at 160; winning a belt in that fight as well.

Also, Tito was the betting favorite in this fight

Let's compare this to another fight; Mayweather v. De La Hoya

Many people discredit Floyd for this win; stating De La Hoya was too old as a reason

Floyd was 30 at the time of the fight, DLH was 34

Floyd is 5 '8, Oscar is 5 '10 1/2

Floyd weighed in at 150, Oscar at 154(supposedly Floyd was 148 on fight night, while Oscar was probably around 160)

Floyd had fought at 147 for 1 year prior to this fight;picking up 1 title. Floyd had never fought at 154 prior to this fight.

Floyd was the betting favorite.

So to summarize; Nard had less advantages in height, and weight over Tito than Hoya had over Mayweather. Also, there was a bigger age difference in the Trinidad fight than in the Mayweather fight. Tito also had more experience fighting at MW and 1 division below then Mayweather had fighting at 154 and 1 division below. Both Tito and Floyd were the favorites. In one fight the smaller guy won, in the other fight the larger fighter won. The larger fighter was descredited for beating a smaller guy( Hoya had a bigger size advantage over Floyd), and the smaller fighter was descredited for beating an older fighter(there was a bigger age gap in the Hopkins /Tito fight).

Clearly there are some inconsistencies going on here people. Either give Hopkins his due, or continue to sleep on this victory and give Mayweather his due for beating Hoya. Or, don't be a hater and give both fighters their props.

 

Hoya was inactive, but definately not shot. He wouldn't have performed as well as he did against Floyd if he was. Furthermore, if being inactive is an excuse, how come people sleep on Nard's win over Winky? Was Nard not inactive for over a year before that fight?

 

Eat a dick. I'm sure there are plenty of Cotto threads around here to keep you busy.

 

It seems like you're saying that if a fighter is inactive, that disadvantage is negated if they fight someone who fights at a lower division. If that's the case, then why are people discrediting Floyd for his win over Hoya?

 

.

I used age for comparative purposes. People discredit Floyd for beating DLH based on his age, yet ignore the age difference in this fight. Most people will follow this up by saying "well DLH was shot, and inactive". That's fine, but then why do people discredit Hopkins for beating Winky when he was inactive for a year and clearly past his best?

I used the height and weight to show that the size difference was nowhere near as great as people make it out to be. You make a good point about the power. However, it didn't even matter as Hopkins was able to neutrilize that left hook anyway

I never said they were. Oddsmakers are not fortune tellers. Their goal is to get even money on both fighters and make money off the vig. The odds reflect the public's perception of who is going to win. The fact that Tito was the favorite indicates that most people thought Tito was going to win. Increasing the odds in his favor will result in more money being placed on Hopkins; bringing the bookies closer to even money betting. I mention the odds because it's funny how boxing fans thought Tito was going to win before the fight, but discredit Hopkins after he beats Tito.