They were men moving up in weight. I don't see any difference. They were natural welter weights. Not genuine MW that is the point of this whole thing.If you yanks refuse to accept the facts then we know why; Americans are just quick to accuse or blast others of doing the same thing you idiots do the same SHYT for bricks.FACT! So stop the BS!!
Hopkins didn't do enough in the early rounds in either of those fights to win the decision, especially in the 2nd. He was saving every ounce of stamina he had for the late rounds which wasn't enough. That's what happens when you drain muscle mass.
You're too stupid to understand the difference. Both had belts at 160 dummy and Tito was favored to beat Hopkins at 160 dummy.:deal Brook has no belt at 154 or 160 he's never fought at 160 before and is a huge underdog to GGG. It would be the same if Brook beat Saunders at 160 took his belt and was favored to beat GGG then then you could compare but he didn't. If you can't see the difference then find a new sport to watch and get over your inferiority complex.
And Oscar is taller than Brook with longer reach and light years more accomplished, how embarrassing for GGG.:deal
Comparing ODLH's boxing accomplishments to Golovkin is like comparing an Indy racer to an Uber driver. :yep
Because they were really middleweights cutting to welterweight the way that he was a light heavyweight cutting to middleweight.
Americans? You keep talking about Americans, blaming Americans. STFU! Who are you talking to that is American who is ****ing you off you ex Pac ****rider turned GG fan?
Oscar is and was a very skinny guy naturally though. He was 5'10" and rail thin. Not a big guy at all. Tito also 5'11" and rail thin. Hopkins was also fairly skinny but tall at 6'1". Hopkins was much bigger than tito and DLH, especially DLH.