Why does Hopkins get very little credit for beating Tarver?

It was your grammar, not your spelling that was the issue. Your is possesive, you're is a contraction for you are. Furthermore, Roy looked pretty good in there against Tito. He didn't look like an old man in that fight. Hopkins may have aged a little better, but he was 41 against Tarver, and coming off two losses. Roy was 34 or 35 and had just won a HW title.

 

Please Reg, never comment on my spelling/grammar again till I do something simlarly irritating :good.

Roy looked good against Tito.... who is not a fighter at 170 was past it and who Roy should have stopped if he had anything left. Roy should retire.

Roy lost his legs when he went back down. He got caught by a big punch and stopped and in the thrid fight he fought scared in the third fight.

Roy at 35 was shot, Benard at 35 was at his best. Different fighters become shot at different times.

 

seriously Roy said himself before the fight

"If i don't knock him out then i should retire"

but now there are rumours of a torn ligament in his bicep so maybe that affected him, but also if he is getting injured in training nowadays then maybe he really should retire.

 

Fine, I'll ignore all of the spelling and grammar mistakes contained in this post. Moving on, we're not comparing a 35 year old Hopkins to a 35 yeard Jones. We're comparing a 41 year old Hopkins to a 35 year old Jones. Jones lost his legs after coming back down from HW, yet that didn't stop him from winning the first fight. He looses 3 straight after this fight and the weight loss now becomes an issue.

I don't care how washed up Tito is, Roy looked good in that fight. He still had great speed, and was still throwing the lead straight right and left hook well. The only thing that's really gone down is the power. I love Roy as a fighter, but let's stop with all the excuse for why he got his ass kicked by two fighters who are about the same age as him.

 

1. Thank you, I find it very very irritating. Correcting english does not make your point more or less valid :good

2. Moving up in weight allowed Hopkins to gain some energy back. So a 41 year old Hopkins is better than the 35 year old Jones.

3. Roy looked average, he has no legs. Gets caught on the ropes and does nothing for long periods and could get hurt if he went in against a good fighter who could apply pressure and could punch.

4. The fact that they were the same age is irrelevent. Peoples primes are at differnt ages. Hopkins was at his best when he was 35. Roy was at his best at about the age of 26. Tarver didnt turn pro till he was in his mid-late 20's so his "prime" is not at the same age as Roy's would have been.

 

Repeat ad nauseum- Winky was crap against Hopkins. I'm completely dumbfounded as to why some people cant recognize this. A meaningless farce that should have no importance attatched to it.
The Tarver win was decent however.

 

The highlighted parts are all bogus claims on your hehalf. There's no use debating if you're going to make **** up.

 

The only time a fighter loses energy is when they weight drain themselves. Hopkins never did that. So, saying that he gained energy at an increased weight doesn't hold water, simply because there was never anything lost when he was at 160. If anything, he'd lose speed at the higher weight.

Jones got KOed by the better fighter that night. In fact, he looked very good before he got KOed by a WELL TIMED PUNCH (caps for those that insist it was a lucky punch). After the brutal KO, the decline of Roy became much more apparent. One could say that Tarver ruined Roy that night. So the guy that ruined Roy sucked only after Hopkins made him look stupid. But, as many on ESB frequently state, the level of one's competition is what makes them great. Somehow, Tarver was left out of that equations.

 

So people dont have their primes at different ages?

and

Hopkins almost doubling his punch output compared to his fight with Taylor dose not suggest he had more energy?

:huh

 

Nope. Tarver likes to counterpunch and Taylor likes to initiate. 2 very different fighters that required very different strategies.

 

What about against Winky then?

 

Same thing. Different fighter that required a different strat. Can't expect a fighter to have the same strat for a completely different fighter do ya?

 

In his fight with Winky, they were both initiating the action and he threw over 600 punch's. Also was moving better and had more legs against both fighters than against Taylor.

 

I remember when Bhop beat tarver it was pandemonium at ESB lots of people gave Bhop his due respect we laughed at the legend killer for a long time i still smile everytime i read tarver's quotes before and after the fight.

 

I think it mostly had to do with Tarver not being that great of a champ. He was technically the 175 lb linear undisputed champ but going 1-1 with Johnson and not defending the title very much hurt Tarver's stance as champ. Most people would have picked some of the younger guys like Adameck to beat Tarver but they didnt get a chance at it.


So then yes Bhop did become champ but the quality of the 175 linear title at the time was low, it was being held by the older guys (tarver, johnson) who would have probably lost to some of the younger guys that didnt get a shot at it.



However, has a head to head match, it was a great win, I too thought Tarver would win because he would be "too big" but Hops filled out really well and looked great at the weight. I was amazed when I saw the weight in pics and Hops condition. he schooled Tarver good, on both the technical level and physically out muscled him on the inside as well.

He was actually pretty close to stopping Tarver in the late rounds. I remember his trainer telling Hopkins not to get careless and to keep on boxing dont take any risks and basically NOT go for the KO, which I was disappointed because I think that if Hops pressed it, he could have stopped Tarver.