Why does Hopkins get very little credit for beating Tarver?

LOL, no chance. Tarver will outpoint him pretty easy. Woods looked terrible in his last bout against Gonzalez.

 

Tarver: "It was not my day, Bernard had a good game plan and stuck to it, I was flat and didn't have the pop, don't want to talk about weight loss prior to the bout, Bernard deserves everything he gat, this is a tough business so I don't know if I'll be back, Bernard is a Legend, All praise to him."

Winky: "Bernard didn't fight like a 43 year old man and threw some shots I didn't expect to be hit with."

Jermain Taylor: " Hopkins is just a very hard man to fight, very difficult to hit with clean punches, excellent fighter".

So what further evidence should one need but the ones provided by his last three opponents? You know what Calzaghe's last opponents said? Manfredo "Joe is old now and he has had bad hand problems. He's hard to get though, in my opinion, I don't think he has the power to hurt anyone with one punch", Lacy "He had a good night and it was not my night, he still held when people said I was holding", Kessler " He spoilled my boxing and hurt me to the body but I didn't feel that his punches were very hard".

Calzaghe on Hopkins win over Tarver in the Bika post-fight interview " Loved Bernard Hopkins performance against Antonio Tarver. 100% would love to fight Bernard Hopkins in his own garden. I'll get up for that fight with Hopkins, me and Hopkins would be the fight of the decade."

 

Just like in the case of Calzaghe-Lacy...

 

it was one of those tarver cant lose type deals so when hops won no one including the so called experts wanted to give him credit. they just said well tarver was over rated, out of shape, etc

 

It's just easier for some to say how bad Tarver is. :roll: