Bernard Hopkins vs Felix Trinidad...the Sep 11th fact?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 13 Sep 2007, 16:13

Did Tito lost that fight because of helping people of the Sept 11 aftermath or Hopkins was better?

Was Tito at his very best? I have not seen the fight.

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 13 Sep 2007, 17:27

I have no excuses. Tito lost to the better fighter. Hopkins just simply school him through twelve rounds. Although it is a fact that Tito was serving meals to firefighters in the city trying to help and not fully training, while Hopkins was training hard for the fight. Is it possible that Trinidad lost focus for the fight? Yes it is, but that is not an excuse. Another fact is that Hopkins refuse to give him a rematch. Not that the same outcome was going to be different. And of course, I'm bias.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 13 Sep 2007, 18:02

Tito looked the same he always did.

Besides, he didn't lose the fight b/c he tired (which would point to under-training)

He lost the fight b/c Hopkins completely outboxed him.

theone · Post by **theone** » 13 Sep 2007, 19:34

Hopkins is the better middleweight and possible just a better fighter in general.
I don't see any possibility of a different outcome.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 13 Sep 2007, 21:55

elmersalsa wrote:Did Tito lost that fight because of helping people of the Sept 11 aftermath

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 20 Sep 2007, 18:28

I say that Hopkins won because of the rule/theory of the "bigger great fightrer" beats the "smaller great fighter".

Also I got to say that Hopkins was probably hungrier than Tito and at the time was looking for the money and the recognition that Tito was making.

How about a rematch now if Tito beats Roy Jones Jr?

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Sep 2007, 20:44

If Hopkins had been a Welterweight the result would have been the same but there would have been no knock out. Hopkins is better than Trinidad in every facet of the game but punching, and Hopkins' power was certainly adequate for Tito. Hopkins would have raped Tito in a rematch in 02 and he would still kick the shit out of him today, regardless of if Trinidad did somehow manage to beat this shot version of Jones... which won't happen.

Hopkins and Wright are better fighters than Trinidad, the fact that they are bigger than him only adds to the beat down, but they would beat him regardless of size. Anyone who thinks otherwise is on Tito's sack.

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 21 Sep 2007, 15:48

elmersalsa wrote:I say that Hopkins won because of the rule/theory of the "bigger great fightrer" beats the "smaller great fighter".

Also I got to say that Hopkins was probably hungrier than Tito and at the time was looking for the money and the recognition that Tito was making.

How about a rematch now if Tito beats Roy Jones Jr?

Hopkins would still kick Tito's ass, B-Hop is still a great fighter even at his advanced age, and he still managed to beat the very difficult Wright. If Tito does somehow beat Jones Hopkins will likely still kick his ass, that fight was extremely one-sided, it's like wondering if Gatti and De La Hoya should have a rematch.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 21 Sep 2007, 17:01

I Feel Fine wrote:If Hopkins had been a Welterweight the result would have been the same but there would have been no knock out. Hopkins is better than Trinidad in every facet of the game but punching, and Hopkins' power was certainly adequate for Tito. Hopkins would have raped Tito in a rematch in 02 and he would still kick the shit out of him today, regardless of if Trinidad did somehow manage to beat this shot version of Jones... which won't happen.

Hopkins and Wright are better fighters than Trinidad, the fact that they are bigger than him only adds to the beat down, but they would beat him regardless of size. Anyone who thinks otherwise is on Tito's sack.

You said even if Hopkins was a NATURAL welterweight, he would have beaten Tito???

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 21 Sep 2007, 19:06

elmersalsa wrote:You said even if Hopkins was a NATURAL welterweight, he would have beaten Tito???

Are you stupid?

...Well yeah, you are. But even an idiot would see that. Watch the fight again.

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 21 Sep 2007, 23:41

The fight was one sided..Tito just lost to the much better fighter Dlh outboxed him,Reid was winning until he started fighting stupid god that idiot never listened to Mitchell he was doing good till he started fvcking around Tito had to hit Vargas on the balls TWICE and that's were the tide changed in the fight was I suprised he was dominated? Short answer. NO

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 22 Sep 2007, 00:28

Maybe Tito lost because Hopkins' team put a stop to his special handwrapping technique?

Oh yeah.. and because Bernard outclassed him.

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 22 Sep 2007, 10:39

MAD - MIKE - wrote:First thing my man is Tito is a welterweight in his prime. Hopkins is a middleweight. Big difference. Most great welters lose to great middles. So if a welter version of b-hop fought tito I still believes b-hop pulls it out on points not a KO! MAD - MIKE -

I think Tito peaked at 154 he lookved very strong and his best wins come in that division..That was 00 he fought B-hop in 01 he must of had a short prime

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 22 Sep 2007, 21:28

I Feel Fine wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:You said even if Hopkins was a NATURAL welterweight, he would have beaten Tito???
Are you stupid?

...Well yeah, you are. But even an idiot would see that. Watch the fight again.

I just asked a question, YOU SON OF A BITCH!!!

Bernard Hopkins vs Felix Trinidad...the Sep 11th fact?

Bernard Hopkins vs Felix Trinidad...the Sep 11th fact?

Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Felix Trinidad...the Sep 11th fact?

Re: Bernard hopkins vs Felix Trinidad Sept 11, fact?