Two of the best wins of this century for two of the best fighters. BERNARD HOPKINS v ANTONIO TARVER, 2006 and BERNARD HOPKINS v KELLY PAVLIK, 2008 But which do you think was the better win of the two? Please vote and explain your choice. :good
Another hard one as both pavlik and tarver were very overated from victories over a past it and weight drained jones or a guy that simply aint that great in taylor. I would go for hopkins over pavlik as alot of people thought hopkins was done after the fight with calzaghe so to come back with a big win like that was quite special.
I say Hopkins over Tarver. Tarver was coming off with a win over the very man that beat Hopkins years back. Hopkins was thought of to be done as he had dropped two fights in a row to Taylor. Controversy aside, Hopkins had two more losses on his record and was fighting the best fighter in the division at that time and dominated him. Pavlik had to jump up in weight to fight Hopkins.
great thread. very hard to pick. his win over Tarver showed his standing at 175lbs and what he was capable of doing. also knowing he dominated the larger man and Roy's conqueror had to of been pretty sweet for Bhops. i went ahead and chose his victory over Pavlik because his chances seemed slimmer due to his more advanced age and the wrecking machine that was Pavlik, who twice beat Taylor, should of handled B-hops, so it looked like a Pavlik victory on paper. i'm a huge B-hops fan and even i didn't think he could pull it off, but he did. i imagine it would take alot to make B-hops shed a tear out of joy and saying at the sametime "Now you guys believe in me?" it also made me proud to witness such a boxing mastery. gotta go with his win over highly touted pavlik. i'm still in awe and only someone like B-hops could do something like that
Both were great wins and close to equal in my book but if I had to pick one, it would be Pavlik. (I picked Bernard over both of them.) Tarver was coming down from 200 + lbs for his movie role (He never used that as an excuse, as he discounted Roy's use of that same excuse) Also, he was two and a half years older, and many felt he was past it for the Pavlik fight, given what happened to him against Calzaghe. Final point. Pavlik was unbeaten.
Pavlik was a 4/1 favorite and Tarver was a 3/1 favorite. So the odds were stacked against Hopkins. I would go SLIGHTLY with the Pavlik win because of his advanced age the the perception and expectations leading up to this fight by most media and fans alike. The question wasn't whether Pavlik would win, but rather if Pavlik would be the first to KO Hopkins. But Hopkins dominated from 1-12, every second of the way. Amazing. Plus, with Tarver, despite the fact that Hopkins moved up two weight classes and coming off of two losses, Tarver himself was no spring chicken.
We have to consider the weight, but Hopkins was a career middleweight, Pavlik is a big man, I don't really see any great merit in discrediting the win based on that. There is the same consideration for Tarver, I get the feeling Tarver wasn't in maximum condition after his dabbles in Hollywood, but then again Hopkins was coming up in weight at an old age. To be honest, I think most of this cancels out, so I'm tempted to just consider the fighters themselves. I think Pavlik was looking better than Tarver beforehand, and also Tarver has put in some terrible performances since which suggests he's all but done as a fighter at the top level. Pavlik was very fresh and hungry, and also Bernard was even older again, and to me put on an even better display in this fight with less inside mauling. Just a counterpunching lesson.
