Why does Hopkins get very little credit for beating Tarver?

I dont think he does. Its his best win IMO, and Hopkins is the man at LHW, whatever people say. He beat the man who beat the legend, and at 41 coming up in weight and off 2 losses.

 

And it wasn't like he won a close decision. He totally decimated Tarver, torturing him for 12 rds.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that BHOP shut that ***** up. I just think he doesnt get the credit b/c all he did was expose that Tarver was garbage all along. Its bull**** but just a theory!

 

Let's take what he did after the 2nd Jones fight, he fought Johnson, he fought Johnson again, then he fought Jones a 3rd time. In the meantime, he held the division hostage on that senior's circuit and dropped the belts so he wouldn't have to face a live body in Paul Briggs before the Adamek fights.

In fact, Adamek is another one.

Woods, Adamek, Briggs, Erdei & Johnson were the best in the division before Hopkins fought Tarver, Tarver fought 1 of those guys and dropped a loss to one also.

Didn't say he avoided them all, just one directly, Briggs. But you said he fought the best in the division, that's utter horse****, he held the division hostage and took the money fights, no disrespect for that but he wasn't active and took the money fights only and stayed away from hungry young live fighters.

Harding and Griffin were well before the Hopkins fight and Tarver was in poor condition for the Hopkins fight, having drained back down to 175 just like Jones did for their first fight.

This is why it's only a decent win because of Hopkins' domination. And he didn't 'Lacyed', he took a beating, but it was a controlled one because Hopkins at this point in his career refuses to go all out on a fighter, so it wasn't the type of beating to just end a guy and his performances against the last two journeyman just show the state he's in, he's shot.

And people justify victories with 'everybody thought this and that', **** that, I picked Hopkins by wide UD confidently back then, just like I picked him to KO DLH and others. Just because most people can't analyse **** doesn't mean that it's hard to tell who's a better fighter than who and Tarver was always a mediocre one and Hopkins was ALWAYS an excellent one.

 

If you look at Hopkins' age (Which is irrelevant), both their streaks and whatnot, yes. however, Tarver isn't a great fighter. For it to be classed as an "excellent" win, Tarver would have to be better that he is. He isn't a great fighter at 175lbs, despite what his and Bernard's fans think.

I'd give Hopkins all the credit in the world if he beat an in-shape Winky. But he didn't. He beat a version who was clearly overweight, and as a result, lacked speed and stamina. Don't forget that Winky was a 1000 punch per fight guy. Obviously Hopkins wasn't going to let him throw that amount of punches, but Winky was in no shape to match his usual punch output.

 

Please, i don't buy that.

You don't beat top contenders like Harding, Griffin, Johnson and especially the great RJJ by being "garbage". You have to have some skill and talent to do that. His style is awkward and looks weird and that might lead people to think that he was never good all along.

 

And that's the only reason that it's a decent win, if it was close then it'd mean nothing, other than both are shot and the better skilled guy won. He dominated him and obviously wasn't shot, but he sure looked bad against Winky.

 

Well, Griffin wasn't the Griffin of the 90's mate and he lost to Harding as well very clearly and if you don't remember, was losing a lop sided fight up until the 5th round, where he scored a KO over Harding. Harding is definitely his best win outside of Jones.

Then Johnson, lots of guys have beaten Johnson, so that says low for both Woods & Tarver that they have struggled so much with him.

Tarver's missing any young, strong fighters on his resume. Like a Paul Briggs for example.

 

Let me guess, you only saw the fight once when you were drunk right?

 

Tarver broke his jaw early in the first Harding fight. That affected him. And in the rematch, he dominated Harding.

Same with Johnson. I actually think Tarver won both fights. He lost a MD in the first one but the judges gave the fight to Johnson because of his activity. Tarver was more effective in both fights. And in the rematch, he against clearly beat Johnson.

Give the guy some credit.

 

Is was a big
win for hopkins, because he needed one pretty bad. But Tarver is a pretty one dimensional fighter anyway.

 

I want you to name 1 fighter that has looked good against Winky over the last 10 years?

 

Maybe my memory's bad, but I seem to remember a huge amount of gushing praise for Hopkins here after he outboxed Tarver. The usual ATG, vs SRR etc threads popping up, the works.

 

He gets the credit he deserves...because Tarver was faded.

Roy Jones Jr. stopped being a force in 2003 and Glen Johnson in 2004. Hopkins beat Tarver in 2006, by which time, Tarver was, himself, a spent force.