Which was a better win at that time?BHop vs Tito or Calzaghe vs Lacy?

Hopkins all day.Tito was proven and hasn't been too badly damaged by the loss.
Lacy was overhyped and totally unproven,and has proven it was much ado about nothing.

 

no

 

calzaghes was much better.
trinidad was never a middleweight, beating william joppy was his only win.
alot of people think lacy is **** after the fact, but more people thought lacy would win back then than lose

 

Lool why is this a question ? Hopkins win was wayyyy bettef

 

Trinidad was a better win..

Was thought of as one of the P4P best, was getting ready for a mega fight against Roy Jones Jr that some were giving him a chance in.

 

I voted Lacy purely because Tito was a welterweight out of his depth fighting a natural light heavy whilst Lacy was seen as a big puncher at the weight with Calzaghe on his way out

No doubt P4P Tito is the better fighter though

 

At the time it was pretty even, in hindsight i would go with Bhop's win

 

Trinidad was a 3-1 favorite with Hopkins fighting in front of a very pro-Tito crowd, Calzaghe was a slim favorite fighting at home. If the question asked how each one looks now, then it might be a close call, but the question asks which one was better AT THAT TIME, in which case it's not even close. I feel like the only people who could possibly answer anything else just weren't around to remember the fight scene in 2001. Even looking backwards though, Trinidad was probably a better win. Both wins were hyped way more at the time than they probably deserved though.

 

I agree that Hopkins win over Trinidad is the better win, but Calzaghe wasn't the favourite against Lacy, even the British gambling outlets made Lacy the favourite! He had a lot of hype around him

 

yeah, i agree.

 

:blood hell no, it's not. seems you massively overrate tarver. he's good, but don't go over board.