Tarver: "I Will Floor Hopkins In Five Rounds"

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 22 Mar 2006, 12:12

Just in case it was in any doubt what Hopkins will be doing against Tarver then this bet confirms it...RUNNING! At least for the first 5 rounds anyway, probably the entire fight. This matchup seriously doesn't interest me in the slightest, anyone think otherwise?

Tarver: I'll floor Hopkins
2006-03-23
BERNARD Hopkins says it will be the last fight of his Hall of Fame career and light heavyweight champion Antonio Tarver is vowing to make it a quick one.

International Boxing Organization champion Tarver has agreed to give Hopkins US$250,000 out of his purse if he fails to knock him out within five rounds of their scheduled 12-round bout on June 10 at Boardwalk Hall in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

"I bet US$250,000 that he won't make it to the sixth round," Tarver told a news conference in New York on Tuesday. "I'm a man of my word and I gotta hold true to that."

The 41-year-old Hopkins, who made 20 middleweight title defenses after winning it in 1995 until losing two decisions to Jermain Taylor in 2005, is stepping up to light-heavyweight in a bid to round off his remarkable career in style.

"You're going to see a legendary performance," said Philadelphia native Hopkins, 46-4-1 in his career. "Bernard Hopkins will walk away no matter what happens with dignity. I'm going to lay it all on the line. That's going to be everything that I've accomplished wrapped up in one night of legendary performance."

Tarver, 37, knows Hopkins will be a crowd favorite, but the southpaw is used to going against the big names.

"Hopkins gives us this feel good story of how he's going to walk away from the boxing game, riding out on his throne," said Tarver, who has held all the major light-heavy titles but relinquished them along the way for big payday bouts.

"The only problem is they picked the wrong guy. I'm the legend killer," said Tarver, whose 24-3 record includes two victories over the much-acclaimed Roy Jones Jr.

Tarver said he has work to do to get ready for the fight after gaining weight to play the role of a heavyweight champion in "Rocky Balboa," the sixth installment of Sylvester Stallone's boxing movie series which is due out next year.

states · Post by **states** » 22 Mar 2006, 12:31

Enjoy the pre-fight verbals is my only advice here. Because the fight is going to be boring as fornicate. I'm really struggling to care about this one.

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 22 Mar 2006, 12:40

u can't see this one being a classic can ya.

i think it's got 12 rd borefest written all over it.

i reckon tarver on points, but i'm not 100% on it. hopkins struggles with speedy fighters and tarver is quick fisted.

however, b-hop can rough it up with the best of em when he wants to.

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 22 Mar 2006, 12:44

Tarver likes a wager or two.

I once heard a story about his playing a game of golf against De La Hoya and they decided to bet on a skins system where each hole was worth a certain amount.

Apparently DLH schooled Antonio all over the course and was well up by the 18th.

Tarver payed up by writing The Golden Boy a cheque which I understand may well have bounced had DLH ever tried to cash it - Tarver hasn't always been as wealthy as he now undoubtedly is.

If I were Hopkins I would accept his challenge, but ask for the money to be made avainable in cash. We dont want another financially embarrasing incident from the Magic Man..

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 22 Mar 2006, 12:48

This is a boring boring fight, Hopkins will want to at least ensure he doesn't get stopped, because he's retiring after this fight in any case, win or lose.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 22 Mar 2006, 13:08

Hopkins is going to school this guy, whose technique hasn't developed too far from his amatuer days. I never believed Hopkins would ever make that move up in weight, but I always thought he'd carry 175 (or just below) well. He put on 12 lbs after the weigh in for Keith Holmes and looked good big.

Jermain Taylor is a pretty good specimen, with size, speed and power. I don't think Hopkins lost either of those fights. Tarver might be a light heavy but he has nowhere near Taylor's dynamism and hasn't aged as well as Hopkins. I see this as winnable for BH.

In terms of speed and technique, middleweights have a decent advanatge over light heavies. Sure, they can get overpowered, but they can also outbox the bigger guys if they have exceptional technique.

I mean look at the results of these fights

Leonard v Lalonde
Hearns v Hill and Andries
McCallum v Jeff Harding

Would be a nice double whammy if Hopkins wins. He's already beaten Glen Johnson - albeit at middleweight. Imagine if he beats the other top RJJ Depression Era light heavyweight

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 22 Mar 2006, 13:14

I think he is going to win also, but I think it will be close.

Differences in your analogies was that Leonard and McCallum were closer to thirty than forty when they fought Lalonde/Harding respectively - and Hearns was a freak and had the height and reach over both.

Lalonde had Leonard in serious problems prior to the stoppage - yes, Leonard was winning the fight handidly, but it seemed almost every time Lalonde landed clean he hurt Ray.

Also, Hopkins is no Leonard and Tarver is better than Lalonde - if not the other Light Heavyweights mentioned.

Still think he will win, but think it will be another Hopkins vs Taylor or Jones vs Tarver 1 affair - each round will be with little action, with arguments for both sides.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 22 Mar 2006, 13:20

stujones wrote:I think he is going to win also, but I think it will be close.

Differences in your analogies was that Leonard and McCallum were closer to thirty than forty when they fought Lalonde/Harding respectively - and Hearns was a freak and had the height and reach over both.

Lalonde had Leonard in serious problems prior to the stoppage - yes, Leonard was winning the fight handidly, but it seemed almost every time Lalonde landed clean he hurt Ray.

Also, Hopkins is no Leonard and Tarver is better than Lalonde - if not the other Light Heavyweights mentioned.

Still think he will win, but think it will be another Hopkins vs Taylor or Jones vs Tarver 1 affair - each round will be with little action, with arguments for both sides.

sure Hopkins is no Leonard, in terms of speed, but Leonard was never the technician that Hopkins would be.

it's interesting, McCallum was listed as 37 or 38 when he beat Jeff Harding. But there was always dispute over his birth certificate, which the Jamaican gov't never properly verified by showing anyone. Most boxing ppl believed McCallum had passed 40 going into the Harding fight.

my analogy doesn't hold up too far, as McCallum had a pretty impressive workrate (needed it to keep off Harding), lol

Razor · Post by **Razor** » 22 Mar 2006, 13:38

I think Hopkins will win, dont ask me why, just a feeling i have.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 22 Mar 2006, 13:56

cos Hopkins is a great, complete technician and Tarver is certainly not great. that's what i think the difference will be. it's easier to make a 37 year old light heavy miss than it is to make a 2_ yr old world class kid.

Hopkins has stunk recently, but can anyone imagine what he would have done to Taylor given an extra 3 rds? Hopkins started slowly but by the end, whether you think he won enough rds, there's little debate that he'd mastered Taylor. imo he won the 1st fight by 2 rds and the 2nd fight by 1 rd

I object to any Tarver hall of fame talk. I have to keep telling ppl that the only three very good fighters he beat also beat him. and that he has made a whopping 1 title defense in the light heavyweight division.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 22 Mar 2006, 19:53

viciousmaussa wrote:
stujones wrote:I think he is going to win also, but I think it will be close.

Differences in your analogies was that Leonard and McCallum were closer to thirty than forty when they fought Lalonde/Harding respectively - and Hearns was a freak and had the height and reach over both.

Lalonde had Leonard in serious problems prior to the stoppage - yes, Leonard was winning the fight handidly, but it seemed almost every time Lalonde landed clean he hurt Ray.

Also, Hopkins is no Leonard and Tarver is better than Lalonde - if not the other Light Heavyweights mentioned.

Still think he will win, but think it will be another Hopkins vs Taylor or Jones vs Tarver 1 affair - each round will be with little action, with arguments for both sides.
sure Hopkins is no Leonard, in terms of speed, but Leonard was never the technician that Hopkins would be.

it's interesting, McCallum was listed as 37 or 38 when he beat Jeff Harding. But there was always dispute over his birth certificate, which the Jamaican gov't never properly verified by showing anyone. Most boxing ppl believed McCallum had passed 40 going into the Harding fight.

my analogy doesn't hold up too far, as McCallum had a pretty impressive workrate (needed it to keep off Harding), lol

What utter bollocks!

Leonard was a fantastic technician, as good as and better than Hopkins could ever dream to be. As good as Hopkins is, there's no way you can compare his skills to Leonards. Leonard had it all, one of the most complete fighters I've ever seen. The only thing he lacked was one shot power, and he wasn't exactly a light hitter. Do you think a technically deficient fighter could have come out of retirement and lasted with even a slightly faded version of the monster that was Marvin Hagler?

Leonard of course fought LaLonde at a catchweight, which left Donny drained, which is why he wobbled whenever he landed, but Leonard's punch power even late in his career was impressive. Not all those blows he landed on Hagler were shoe shine jobs, he rattled that bald noggin enough times to get Haglers respect, otherwise Marvin would simply have walked through him.

Much as there is to dislike about Leonard, there can be no doubt that he is one of the most talented and also the highest achievers there's been. In a short career he faced most of the available challenges and defied the odds to prevail late on.

McCallum is a good example too, overall, a better fighter than Hopkins I would say technically, and fought better competition, aside from perhaps Trinidad, but Trinidad was a welterweight originally. Hearns, Leonard and Hagler all avoided McCallum as they knew he was the real deal, he had finesse, balance, timing and power, the one chink was that he wasn't that fleet of foot and could be upset by a mover, but every fighter has a weak spot.

Hopkins is a hall of fame fighter, a modern great, but he campaigned in a piss poor middleweight era, he would have been a contender in any era, but I don't know about him being champ in tougher eras, Hagler would have had too much, and a cute infighter like Duran would have given him murders. Hearns, who knows, he may just have been able to put a dent in Hopkins, who never had the offensive prowess of Hagler in full flight.

states · Post by **states** » 22 Mar 2006, 20:07

I find myself in agreement with Mr Mcdonnell. Greatness in a fighter is defined mostly by 3 things: Talent, opposition, and longevity. Hopkins's greatness is mostly defined by his ability to stay on top for so long. His era was poor. Very poor. Not to say he wasn't a great fighter, because he achieved an awful lot. But for all his achievements post the Jones Jnr fight, I think a great measure of his talent is the fact that he came up short against a truly talented fighter there. Yes, it can be argued that Hopkins was green in that fight, but I honestly think that the best of Roy at 160 would beat the best of Bernard at 160 9 times out of ten. Of course, that could just prove that Jones wasa phenomenom at his true weightclass of 160/168.

The Trinidad win was awesome, a real masterclass. But it's essentially that one fight that propelled him to the mythical top 10 'pound for pound' level. What kept him there was the fact that he didn't get beaten, not any truly great performances. Who was there to challenge him? Eastman? A shopworn Joppy? Hakkar?

I really think Hopkins is in danger of being overrated, in terms of his 'all-time' status. He has that long line of defences, sure. But I don't know if his in ring achievements match up well against the likes of Monzon or Hagler. And, as I say, I think Jones would have whupped him, prime for prime. Hopkins stayed in the division for so long, which keeps him there in the all time stakes. But I can see a few guys who would have beaten him.

One thing I will say: It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he'd taken the Calzaghe fight that was proposed a few years ago*

*Before anyone starts on the fine print about why it didn't happen, I don't care for the details. It would have been a real defining fight for one of them though.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 22 Mar 2006, 20:15

I didn't realise that McCallum was that old when he faced Harding, he certainly didn't fight like a 37 year old - not with that workrate.

Hopkins is utterly superb for 41 don't get me wrong, but he definately isn't the fighter he was - McCallum was at the very top of his game when he fought Harding. He was still very impressive in beating Carl Jones on the Benn vs McLellan bill.

The last time Hopkins utterly impressed was vs Joppy - he hasn't been the same fighter since. He attributed the poor workrate vs Eastman and Allen to motivation and making sure of himself ahead of a bigger challenge (DLH after Allen/ Taylor after Eastman) - but the he had a much better workrate vs Morrade Haakar, an even less dangerous opponent. Why? Cause he was a couple of years younger.

Completely agree on Leonard - you don't win the Olympics or outbox Wilfredo Benetez if you were not among the very best technically.

Leonard had one of the best punch form and punch technique I have ever seen - he was so good at working off the range and just catching his opponent.

Infact, VM - your reply makes me wonder if you have seen Hopkins' last three fights? Especially the last two - those wild overhand rights, rushing in wildly - if Taylor was a better backfoot boxer he would embarresed Hopkins. He was so amateur in his attacks, reminded me of Chris Eubank in that respect - go forward Hopkins is poor, especially against a bigger opponent. Even against Eastman he struggled to impress, he struggled to really find away to consistently penetrate Howard, who only offered a decent extended guard.

These discussions are actually starting to make me change my mind.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 23 Mar 2006, 01:42

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:
stujones wrote:I think he is going to win also, but I think it will be close.

Differences in your analogies was that Leonard and McCallum were closer to thirty than forty when they fought Lalonde/Harding respectively - and Hearns was a freak and had the height and reach over both.

Lalonde had Leonard in serious problems prior to the stoppage - yes, Leonard was winning the fight handidly, but it seemed almost every time Lalonde landed clean he hurt Ray.

Also, Hopkins is no Leonard and Tarver is better than Lalonde - if not the other Light Heavyweights mentioned.

Still think he will win, but think it will be another Hopkins vs Taylor or Jones vs Tarver 1 affair - each round will be with little action, with arguments for both sides.
sure Hopkins is no Leonard, in terms of speed, but Leonard was never the technician that Hopkins would be.

it's interesting, McCallum was listed as 37 or 38 when he beat Jeff Harding. But there was always dispute over his birth certificate, which the Jamaican gov't never properly verified by showing anyone. Most boxing ppl believed McCallum had passed 40 going into the Harding fight.

my analogy doesn't hold up too far, as McCallum had a pretty impressive workrate (needed it to keep off Harding), lol
What utter bollocks!

Leonard was a fantastic technician, as good as and better than Hopkins could ever dream to be. As good as Hopkins is, there's no way you can compare his skills to Leonards. Leonard had it all, one of the most complete fighters I've ever seen. The only thing he lacked was one shot power, and he wasn't exactly a light hitter. Do you think a technically deficient fighter could have come out of retirement and lasted with even a slightly faded version of the monster that was Marvin Hagler?

Leonard of course fought LaLonde at a catchweight, which left Donny drained, which is why he wobbled whenever he landed, but Leonard's punch power even late in his career was impressive. Not all those blows he landed on Hagler were shoe shine jobs, he rattled that bald noggin enough times to get Haglers respect, otherwise Marvin would simply have walked through him.

Much as there is to dislike about Leonard, there can be no doubt that he is one of the most talented and also the highest achievers there's been. In a short career he faced most of the available challenges and defied the odds to prevail late on.

McCallum is a good example too, overall, a better fighter than Hopkins I would say technically, and fought better competition, aside from perhaps Trinidad, but Trinidad was a welterweight originally. Hearns, Leonard and Hagler all avoided McCallum as they knew he was the real deal, he had finesse, balance, timing and power, the one chink was that he wasn't that fleet of foot and could be upset by a mover, but every fighter has a weak spot.

Hopkins is a hall of fame fighter, a modern great, but he campaigned in a piss poor middleweight era, he would have been a contender in any era, but I don't know about him being champ in tougher eras, Hagler would have had too much, and a cute infighter like Duran would have given him murders. Hearns, who knows, he may just have been able to put a dent in Hopkins, who never had the offensive prowess of Hagler in full flight.

I agree with you on McCallum. Any guy who beats Graham, Watson, Collins, Kalambay, Harding, Kalule, McCrory, Curry and Julian Jackson is somethig special. But...

Leonard had nowhere near the scientific skills of Hopkins. He relied so much on speed and shoeshining, even if he was great at it. Look at the 2nd Duran fight, the way Leonard just circled out of range, running and running, not committing to any punch unless he could run After the punch. Leonard's a great speedster but no way was he a great technician.

Leonard's sole middleweight fight was against a horrendously slow Hagler. Hearns never even beat a top flight middle, don't get me started on Hearns.

Hopkins would have been a champion in any era. Joppy and Keith Holmes weren't exactly shit. Glen Johnson showed he could fight as a middle vs Merqi Sosa (even tho he should never have been thrown in after a nasty loss to Hopkins), and he took both Johnson's and Tito's unbeaten records.

Hagler would have had nightmares vs Hopkins. Anyone who could fight small and compact gave Hagler fits. Hagler is what Dundee called a 2 stepper. He's a deliberate type who does one thing at a time, steadily and peoperly and he leaves gaps that can be pecked away at to fornicate up his rhythm. Little old Duran did this.

Hopkins, by contrast, is supremely intelligent and at his best, his technique was fluid, in a constant state of change. He could seamlessly edge forward, tease out his opponent's lead, counter, then evade the opponent's counter in what would look like one move. Didn't matter if the opponent was orthodox or southpaw.

Also, fittingly, Hopkins could also do this to little compact men, like DLH and Carl Daniels. He could coax open the smallest of targets with his hyper fussy approach to technique. Hopkins had a great advantage of being able to fight small, with a pinpoint accuracy vs smaller men. Hagler hates clever gusy who can fight smal. This is an underrated part of BH's game. Hagler's game didn't even exist on this advanced technical level, and with MH's very mechanical style, there would be so many gaps that a super accurate man like Hopkins could exploit

I think you underrate Hopkins, he could've hung with anyone

Axe · Post by **Axe** » 23 Mar 2006, 03:20

This fight is going to be terrible, and I don't recommend spending youre hard earned money on it...I get this for free, but I aint watching (unless I feel like I need a sleeping pill).

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 23 Mar 2006, 06:34

steve689 wrote:Just in case it was in any doubt what Hopkins will be doing against Tarver then this bet confirms it...RUNNING! At least for the first 5 rounds anyway, probably the entire fight. This matchup seriously doesn't interest me in the slightest, anyone think otherwise?

Tarver: I'll floor Hopkins
2006-03-23
BERNARD Hopkins says it will be the last fight of his Hall of Fame career and light heavyweight champion Antonio Tarver is vowing to make it a quick one.

International Boxing Organization champion Tarver has agreed to give Hopkins US$250,000 out of his purse if he fails to knock him out within five rounds of their scheduled 12-round bout on June 10 at Boardwalk Hall in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

"I bet US$250,000 that he won't make it to the sixth round," Tarver told a news conference in New York on Tuesday. "I'm a man of my word and I gotta hold true to that."

The 41-year-old Hopkins, who made 20 middleweight title defenses after winning it in 1995 until losing two decisions to Jermain Taylor in 2005, is stepping up to light-heavyweight in a bid to round off his remarkable career in style.

"You're going to see a legendary performance," said Philadelphia native Hopkins, 46-4-1 in his career. "Bernard Hopkins will walk away no matter what happens with dignity. I'm going to lay it all on the line. That's going to be everything that I've accomplished wrapped up in one night of legendary performance."

Tarver, 37, knows Hopkins will be a crowd favorite, but the southpaw is used to going against the big names.

"Hopkins gives us this feel good story of how he's going to walk away from the boxing game, riding out on his throne," said Tarver, who has held all the major light-heavy titles but relinquished them along the way for big payday bouts.

"The only problem is they picked the wrong guy. I'm the legend killer," said Tarver, whose 24-3 record includes two victories over the much-acclaimed Roy Jones Jr.

Tarver said he has work to do to get ready for the fight after gaining weight to play the role of a heavyweight champion in "Rocky Balboa," the sixth installment of Sylvester Stallone's boxing movie series which is due out next year.

Not I :x . A guy that walks around at 200 against a guy that's never gets past 170 when not in training, fightint at lightheavy? - this is NOT wtf boxing is supposed to be about :x :x . What will it take for something to be done about this sort of anti-boxing rubbish? A death during an actual fight? Is that what people want to see? :x :x :x

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 23 Mar 2006, 07:45

stujones wrote:I didn't realise that McCallum was that old when he faced Harding, he certainly didn't fight like a 37 year old - not with that workrate.

Hopkins is utterly superb for 41 don't get me wrong, but he definately isn't the fighter he was - McCallum was at the very top of his game when he fought Harding. He was still very impressive in beating Carl Jones on the Benn vs McLellan bill.

The last time Hopkins utterly impressed was vs Joppy - he hasn't been the same fighter since. He attributed the poor workrate vs Eastman and Allen to motivation and making sure of himself ahead of a bigger challenge (DLH after Allen/ Taylor after Eastman) - but the he had a much better workrate vs Morrade Haakar, an even less dangerous opponent. Why? Cause he was a couple of years younger.

Completely agree on Leonard - you don't win the Olympics or outbox Wilfredo Benetez if you were not among the very best technically.

Leonard had one of the best punch form and punch technique I have ever seen - he was so good at working off the range and just catching his opponent.

Infact, VM - your reply makes me wonder if you have seen Hopkins' last three fights? Especially the last two - those wild overhand rights, rushing in wildly - if Taylor was a better backfoot boxer he would embarresed Hopkins. He was so amateur in his attacks, reminded me of Chris Eubank in that respect - go forward Hopkins is poor, especially against a bigger opponent. Even against Eastman he struggled to impress, he struggled to really find away to consistently penetrate Howard, who only offered a decent extended guard.
These discussions are actually starting to make me change my mind.

i've seen just about every Hopkins fight from Jones to Taylor II, including the last three. Taylor is an awesome young specimen and Hopkins is 40/41. Whether you think he won or not, in both fights he drew the sting out of this kid (painstakingly so) and finished in total command.

Don't judge Hopkins' technique on his last few fights.

Hopkins' sloppy lead rights used to be one of the sneakiest and most surprising punches in the whole sport. Now he has trouble getting off in the first 1/2 of fights, but this was a punch that proved many a good fighter's undoing: he bashed up Segundo Mercado, disorientated John David Jackson this way. Those were good, tough fighters. It's also the very same punch that Hopkins used to stagger so-called p4p #1 Trinidad in only the 2nd round.

Eusebio pedroza used to throw lead right after lead right, in his peak. It was one fornicate of a predictable move and he usually missed loads of 'em. Hopkins has taken many ppl by surpise with his right. In his peak it flashed out from nowhere and usually hit with nasty accuracy

as for the guy who says Hopkins is in danger of being overrated, Hagler and Monzon also faced ordinary guy m/w's and big name welters etc...For the record, Hopkins never got his biggest fights until he was 36 frigging years old, when he was already having to realy pace himself and start reducing his punch output, yet he still either dominated or stopped rival titlists Joppy, Holmes, Tito, DLH...Imagine what the more intimidating 32 year old version, who all but suffocated G Johnson and A Council, would have done to these guys? Hopkins isn't overrated, but rather his best form is overlooked.

There's a myth that Jones could've been the greatest middle and made 50 defenses - and it's a load of shite. Jones admitted he outweighed Hopkins by a whopping 20lbs. Carrying that kind of weight, how would he remain at m/w or even s/m? tellingly, he spent most of his career at LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT...Hopkins is a scrawny natural middle who could make 156 at the age of 40

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 23 Mar 2006, 07:47

Yes, Hopkins could have hung in any era - but I think your criticisms of Leonard and Hagler are a bit much.

Hasn't Hopkins' got flaws? Ask Roy Jones, ask Jermain Taylor - got even a fat ODH, Carl Daniels and Howard Eastman caught him once or twice.

Hopkins looked very amateurish vs Taylor and even was perplexed by Eastman's reach advantage (even though Howard did fornicate all about it).

Yes, a prime Hopkins would have competed no doubt - but you seriously don't think Hagler would have had a field day with Bernard's approach to the Taylor fight - those wild charges, where he would have been caught time and time again.

And, I repeat - as for Leonard - watch the Benetez fight please. Benetez was far better technically than any of Hopkins' opponents - yes I include a prime Roy Jones and a prime Oscar De La Hoya, but Leonard outboxed him - not by running.

Your arguments against Leonard is based on two fights, two fights in which he fought hard punchers with quick hands but slower leg speed.... and you expected him to stand and trade?

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 23 Mar 2006, 08:01

stujones wrote:Yes, Hopkins could have hung in any era - but I think your criticisms of Leonard and Hagler are a bit much.

Hasn't Hopkins' got flaws? Ask Roy Jones, ask Jermain Taylor - got even a fat ODH, Carl Daniels and Howard Eastman caught him once or twice.

Hopkins looked very amateurish vs Taylor and even was perplexed by Eastman's reach advantage (even though Howard did smeg all about it).

Yes, a prime Hopkins would have competed no doubt - but you seriously don't think Hagler would have had a field day with Bernard's approach to the Taylor fight - those wild charges, where he would have been caught time and time again.

And, I repeat - as for Leonard - watch the Benetez fight please. Benetez was far better technically than any of Hopkins' opponents - yes I include a prime Roy Jones and a prime Oscar De La Hoya, but Leonard outboxed him - not by running.

Your arguments against Leonard is based on two fights, two fights in which he fought hard punchers with quick hands but slower leg speed.... and you expected him to stand and trade?

i can talk down SRL and MH a tad if you guys are holding them on a pedestal. esp when the main strike being made against Hops is the Taylor fights, when his reflexes weren't so great & could no longer land shots confidently from the outside...You think he had that problem in his peak?

the scales aren't balanced very well, are they? what, a peak Hagler against a 41-year-old Hopkins? You can tell me to look @ more SRL fights, but why only reference the Hopkins of the Taylor fights? let's be fair

for my money, the 41 year old Hopkins is better preserved and more able than the sluggish 33 or whatever yr old Hagler of the Mugabi and SRL fights

i've seen SRL-WB. Leonard used mad speed and power to overhwhelm WB's radar defense. Leonard was one of the most speed/reflex dependent fighters I've seen. When his speed went he was getting hammered by Norris, whereas at the same time in '91-2, McCallum, a real old school technician, had loads more to fall back on and for my money won at least one of those Toney fights.

the 32-35 year old BH didn't have so much trouble getting off, and used to be able to bang of lead right hands accurately and swiftly. i see Hopkins as a McCallum level 'grandmaster' of technicians. no, they weren't perfect but old school technicians seem to go overlooked a bit.

"Your arguments against Leonard is based on two fights, two fights in which he fought hard punchers with quick hands but slower leg speed.... and you expected him to stand and trade?"

vs Duran 2 he really had his running shoes on, almost to an absurd degree. It's like he had to circle several times just so Duran would be off guard enough that he could throw a punch and escape unscathed. yet many times in the early rds he would commit nothing to those shots. he'd go round like a frigging whirlpool, and pull back his punch before it could even land before getting back on his bike again...full credit to him for beating Duran, Benitez and Hearns...but he didn't exactly outbox TH - SRL did nothing for 6 rds, untiul he landed that left that TH didn't see coming. great fighter, very fast, but not a real technical fighter

numpty · Post by **numpty** » 23 Mar 2006, 08:05

Can't stand the pair of em, but it would be funny if Tarver KTFO Hopkins!

I think it will be a dull split decision or majority decision in favour of Hopkins myself!

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 23 Mar 2006, 08:30

Good counter argument, yes my argument against Hopkins is flawed as I am basing it on the Taylor fight... The reason I am doing this though, is because Taylor was one of only a few natural Middleweights who with a bit of pedigree that Hopkins faced.

Yes, you can mention Glengoffe Johnson, but he is just a trialhorse come good. Defeats to Omar Sheika, Sven Ottke and serveral others make it hard to consider him an elite. He's an elite Light Heavyweight because the talent depth is poor in the devision (and thats why I am tipping Hopkins, cause Tarver is no great shakes).

Its hardly a great list - outside of Holmes and Joppy there isn't an elite natural middleweight on the list. Trinidad is 3-2 as a Middleweight and two of his wins have come against a shot Cherifi and a blown up Welter (Margarito) - I do think the Wright demolition of Trinidad has tarnished the tito legacy a bit (certainly his Middleweight legacy) and as a result made alot of people think - how would a 27 year old Wright have done vs the Hopkins of 2001. Then of course there was Harry Simon, who beat Wright.

Holmes and Joppy were decent fighters, but were they much better than the likes of Kinichen or Roldan who are on Hearns's hit list (to counter an earlier argument you made). Nothing on the slate of either to suggest they were.

As for Leonard vs Norris - please take into account Leonard hadn't fought for a year and half, and (crucially IMO) hadn't fought at 11 stone since the early 80's. There was no snap in his shots, no workrate what so ever- he was a punch bag, so I fail to see why that makes him so bad technically.

Yes, he got outboxed by Hearns for 6 rounds, but then who has successfully outboxed Hearns - nobody. I thought he beat Barkley in the rematch.

What I liked about the Leonard performance vs Benetiz wasn't the speed, but his ability to make Wilfredo miss not just with his reflexes but with parrying and little subtle leg movements.

johnswan1 · Post by **johnswan1** » 23 Mar 2006, 08:59

It's highly unlikely Tarver will knock Hops out in five rounds. Hops will block and run if he needs to. Tarver also said he'd knock out Glen Johnson and Jones in the third fight, but none of those predictions came through.

bigzab · Post by **bigzab** » 23 Mar 2006, 09:20

So many have posted about Hopkins building his rep against smaller men. Hopkins and Taylor are both quality, Taylor won out coz he is in his prime.
Really, really hope that Hopkins wins this.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 23 Mar 2006, 09:27

stujones wrote:Good counter argument, yes my argument against Hopkins is flawed as I am basing it on the Taylor fight... The reason I am doing this though, is because Taylor was one of only a few natural Middleweights who with a bit of pedigree that Hopkins faced.

Yes, you can mention Glengoffe Johnson, but he is just a trialhorse come good. Defeats to Omar Sheika, Sven Ottke and serveral others make it hard to consider him an elite. He's an elite Light Heavyweight because the talent depth is poor in the devision (and thats why I am tipping Hopkins, cause Tarver is no great shakes).

Its hardly a great list - outside of Holmes and Joppy there isn't an elite natural middleweight on the list. Trinidad is 3-2 as a Middleweight and two of his wins have come against a shot Cherifi and a blown up Welter (Margarito) - I do think the Wright demolition of Trinidad has tarnished the tito legacy a bit (certainly his Middleweight legacy) and as a result made alot of people think - how would a 27 year old Wright have done vs the Hopkins of 2001. Then of course there was Harry Simon, who beat Wright.

Holmes and Joppy were decent fighters, but were they much better than the likes of Kinichen or Roldan who are on Hearns's hit list (to counter an earlier argument you made). Nothing on the slate of either to suggest they were.

As for Leonard vs Norris - please take into account Leonard hadn't fought for a year and half, and (crucially IMO) hadn't fought at 11 stone since the early 80's. There was no snap in his shots, no workrate what so ever- he was a punch bag, so I fail to see why that makes him so bad technically.

Yes, he got outboxed by Hearns for 6 rounds, but then who has successfully outboxed Hearns - nobody. I thought he beat Barkley in the rematch.

What I liked about the Leonard performance vs Benetiz wasn't the speed, but his ability to make Wilfredo miss not just with his reflexes but with parrying and little subtle leg movements.

true, Taylor and Jones are the only 2 Olympic super athletes and they both beat him. It would be interesting to see how a peak BH would do vs them.

With SRL-Norris, Leonard basically took 1990 off i think. Of course, Leonard was an amazing fighter on form, I just don't think he's the tactical genius when not supported by great speed. I can't knock SRL too far as he won a handful of megafights

IMO Glen Johnson is a very good s/m & light heavy who's been giving as good as he gets vs some top fighters, certainly Hopkins' win looks better in retrospect; Joppy, Holmes, Council, Vanderpool, Echols compare pretty well with the guys Hagler beat i.e. Antuofermo, Hamsho, Obel; Tito and DLH aren't as good as SRL and Hearns, but Hopkins was 36-40

there's not too many more ppl Hopkins could have fought unless above middle. Ottke, Michalczewski, Jones rematch, Calzaghe would all have been interesting, but hopefully the Tarver fight will make up for that...at m/w it would have been great to see him in with Winky and Harry Simon circa 97-00, but I don't think they wanted anything to do with him.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 23 Mar 2006, 16:24

I think this interesting debate is getting to the end, enjoyed it.

Just one question - you don't think Hopkins was at his peak when he fought Roy?

Tarver: "I Will Floor Hopkins In Five Rounds"

Tarver: "I Will Floor Hopkins In Five Rounds"

Re: Tarver: "I Will Floor Hopkins In Five Rounds"