History repeating itself?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 30 Mar 2006, 09:48

As I suspected, Tarver bulked up for the Rocky movies, and apparently was weighing around 218. Sounds like 175 might be a struggle for him, could this give Hopkins a chance?

Would make me laugh if Tarver came in horrifically weight drained and got sparked by Hopkins after all his cussing of RJJ.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 30 Mar 2006, 09:55

Would be funny. At least RJJ really did move up to Heavyweight and really did win a real-life title!

bugs · Post by **bugs** » 30 Mar 2006, 09:59

But even an aged Rocky is still better than Ruiz. I mean Rocky was an all time great!

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 30 Mar 2006, 10:02

jamesmcdonnell wrote:As I suspected, Tarver bulked up for the Rocky movies, and apparently was weighing around 218. Sounds like 175 might be a struggle for him, could this give Hopkins a chance?

Would make me laugh if Tarver came in horrifically weight drained and got sparked by Hopkins after all his cussing of RJJ.

Yeah but did he truly bulk up like Jones did? I have read Tarver walks around at about 200 so I bet he's just added the weight. Jones was pure muscle against Ruiz, an extra 20-25lbs of it. I bet Tarver wasn't a solid 218.

Anyway fingers crossed Hopkins knocks him out I would love that.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 30 Mar 2006, 10:06

Well I would guess he would have been hoiking weights around to bulk and and look beefy, not just eating donuts and guzzling kool-aid.

True, didn't beef up as much as Jones who weighed 199 come fight night, but Tarver apparently struggles quite a lot to make weight anyway, and to whack on that much weight at age 37 and lose it again could be a big mistake.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 30 Mar 2006, 10:06

I'd never write Hopkins completly off, he will be in good shape and at his age stepping up the extra weight might work to his advantage, Hopkins was always a very strong middleweight, with an excellent chin.
The down points for Hopkins has been his workrate in the last couple of fights, he's just not throwing enough.

I'm tempted to have a few quid on Hopkins as a upset wouldn't surprise me that much.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 30 Mar 2006, 10:52

Why does everyone hate Tarver so much and want him to lose? Hate plus lack of recognition for his achievements. He beat RJJ twice and Johnson and Griffin and Harding. Yes RJJ was past his prime BUT so was Tyszu v Hatton, Charvez against Hoya, Sweet Pea against Hoya, Holyfield against Lennox, Louis against Marciano. No ones hated them so a little strange even if he does talk his fair share of trash hes earned the right to do so the hard way. Now hes fighting Hopkins who yes is past prime but still great and many thought he beat Taylor twice. Yes BHOPS is smaller but Hopkins made a career of fighting smaller good men as did Hagler.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 30 Mar 2006, 10:55

When he fights someone young enough to give him a fight I will give him respect! He's a self proclaimed legend for beating Roy Jones who was so far past his best its untrue (yet he still lost their first fight) and Glen Johnson who has countless defeats.

As for Johnson yes he is having a renaissance late in his career, but I think its more indicative of how bad the light heavyweight division has been more than Johnson being that much better than he was 5+ years ago. At least there are some young fighters who might stir things up - Adamek, Briggs etc.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 30 Mar 2006, 11:20

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Why does everyone hate Tarver so much and want him to lose? Hate plus lack of recognition for his achievements. He beat RJJ twice and Johnson and Griffin and Harding. Yes RJJ was past his prime BUT so was Tyszu v Hatton, Charvez against Hoya, Sweet Pea against Hoya, Holyfield against Lennox, Louis against Marciano. No ones hated them so a little strange even if he does talk his fair share of trash hes earned the right to do so the hard way. Now hes fighting Hopkins who yes is past prime but still great and many thought he beat Taylor twice. Yes BHOPS is smaller but Hopkins made a career of fighting smaller good men as did Hagler.

I think it's his persona that turns people off him.

Cannibal · Post by **Cannibal** » 30 Mar 2006, 11:32

Didn't Stallone give Tommy Morrison a special low calcium diet to help bulk up for Rocky and then when he went back to fighting he looked great but his bones were brittle and he broke both his wrists in his first fight back.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 30 Mar 2006, 11:34

Cannibal wrote:Didn't Stallone give Tommy Morrison a special low calcium diet to help bulk up for Rocky and then when he went back to fighting he looked great but his bones were brittle and he broke both his wrists in his first fight back.

You reckon? More like he was on the juice. Morrison has admitted himself he was on it, Stallone obviously loves his juice.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 30 Mar 2006, 11:39

Yep, no two ways about it.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 30 Mar 2006, 11:43

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Why does everyone hate Tarver so much and want him to lose? Hate plus lack of recognition for his achievements. He beat RJJ twice and Johnson and Griffin and Harding. Yes RJJ was past his prime BUT so was Tyszu v Hatton, Charvez against Hoya, Sweet Pea against Hoya, Holyfield against Lennox, Louis against Marciano. No ones hated them so a little strange even if he does talk his fair share of trash hes earned the right to do so the hard way. Now hes fighting Hopkins who yes is past prime but still great and many thought he beat Taylor twice. Yes BHOPS is smaller but Hopkins made a career of fighting smaller good men as did Hagler.

I just hate people called Antonio.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 30 Mar 2006, 11:52

Goz wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:Why does everyone hate Tarver so much and want him to lose? Hate plus lack of recognition for his achievements. He beat RJJ twice and Johnson and Griffin and Harding. Yes RJJ was past his prime BUT so was Tyszu v Hatton, Charvez against Hoya, Sweet Pea against Hoya, Holyfield against Lennox, Louis against Marciano. No ones hated them so a little strange even if he does talk his fair share of trash hes earned the right to do so the hard way. Now hes fighting Hopkins who yes is past prime but still great and many thought he beat Taylor twice. Yes BHOPS is smaller but Hopkins made a career of fighting smaller good men as did Hagler.
I just hate people called Antonio.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 30 Mar 2006, 12:14

everything Tarver talks about is Roy Jones, even after 3 fights. I beat Jones, Jones was at his best, therefore I am a better champion than Jones...Now Tarver would always have been trouble for Jones based on his size and leftie stance. Probably wouldn't have been able to beat him in say 2002 givne how gunshy Tarver looked vs Jones in 2003

now, Tarver geared his whole career toward taking Jones down. The question is, did he merely signal the end of one era or is he going to start looking like an outstanding champion all of a sudden? if the latter is the case, then he needs to get on with it.

I think Tarver will look cumbersome vs Hopkins and lose a decision. I really believe this man is for the taking and generally he's not well regarded by Brits and Europeans. Clinton Woods was so not impressed when he was on the Sky panel one time

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 30 Mar 2006, 12:48

I'm starting to think Tarver is a touch overrated (by myself as much as any) and maybe Hopkins does have a chance after all...after all he is "From the hood".

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 30 Mar 2006, 13:05

Hopkins won't beat Tarver. Not big enough and not busy enough.

Tarver doesn't deserve any more recognition than he gets though. Jones Jr would have toyed with him at his peak, as he showed in brief flashes during their rubber match. Only with the conditioning of Jones down to a mortal level does the match become competitive.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 30 Mar 2006, 13:08

I think your right, i remember thinking that at the time. Peak Jones would have made him look silly.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 30 Mar 2006, 13:20

steve689 wrote:I'm starting to think Tarver is a touch overrated (by myself as much as any) and maybe Hopkins does have a chance after all...after all he is "From the hood".

WHAT?!?!?!?!?! HES FROM THE HOOD??? Didn't know that, right changing my prediction from Tarver UD to Hopkins KO1

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 30 Mar 2006, 13:55

Terence wrote:Clash of the most ridiculously overrated fighters of the past tewn years IMO, might be dull fun.

I know I'm supposed to think that charging in with your head down, missing a right, tying a guy up and then hitting his hips is genius but I've never been a B-Hop fan, tito fight overdid it a bit, Daniels (his next fight) showed the real B-Hop. Good fighter in a poor division; Tito had been going downhill since the Campas fight and forgetting his skills, ODH showed it and Hopkins capitalised. Hopkins looked awful in most of the fights after Tito and lost to his first live challenge.

I'll get some stick but for my money Hopkins was a poor "legend." A good fighter in a piss poor division. Proof that if you stand still long enough you'll end up leading the race. I like his engaging interview style though. I just don't get the education some claim to when he fights. I enjoy defensive guys like Charles, Locche, Benitez, Whittaker and IMO Hopkins was average in defence and attack. Not in the league of Hagler and not as good as a peak Benny Briscoe, or even a post-peak Benny Briscoe.

I've not seen enough early Hopkins fights to date, but to be fair I think that by the time Hopkins got the exposure, he was physically not able to fight at the same pace. Early in his career he really brutalised the likes of Glen Johnson, a hot prospect who is known for his toughness. Johnson said nobody ever did to him what Hopkins did.

The Tito fight was a masterful performance, although Tito was perhaps a bit trigger happy by then, he was no patsy and he did annihilate Joppy with ease.

I don't think Hopkins was of the quality of Hagler, but being the best of your era is all you can do. He was 40 when he lost to Taylor, so nobody can use that as a stick to beat him with.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 30 Mar 2006, 16:08

Hopkins isn't overrated.

You can pull down many a great fighter just cos he didn't beat an electrifying level of opposition. If Hopkins is a poor great then the same can be said for Eusebio Pedroza and Larry Holmes. Most ppl don't even think Pedroza beat his best foe, Rocky Lockridge and Holmes never unified his division nor did he go for any of the talented rival champs.

The man was remarkably skilled, and his longevity was quite amazing. Like JM said, Hopkins wasn't near his best when he got the big fights. Most ppl judge him on his showings from when he was a 36 year old onward.

Let's face it, none of those top flight middles, light middles and welters wanted to go anywhere near prime (1996-00) Hopkins...and who else could he have beaten? Winky (would have been suffocated), Vargas (would have been beaten to within an inch of his life), Harry Simon, David Reid, Terry Norris?

If he had beaten these guys ppl still would have complained and moaned.

Hopkins wanted to move down a division in 96 to fight Norris, but TN wanted nothing to do with it. Nothing wrog with going for smaller men, which Hagler and Monzon did. Hopkins could make 157 aged 36 and 156 aged 40!

Remarkable fighter.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 30 Mar 2006, 16:34

nickd wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:As I suspected, Tarver bulked up for the Rocky movies, and apparently was weighing around 218. Sounds like 175 might be a struggle for him, could this give Hopkins a chance?

Would make me laugh if Tarver came in horrifically weight drained and got sparked by Hopkins after all his cussing of RJJ.
Yeah but did he truly bulk up like Jones did? I have read Tarver walks around at about 200 so I bet he's just added the weight. Jones was pure muscle against Ruiz, an extra 20-25lbs of it. I bet Tarver wasn't a solid 218.

Anyway fingers crossed Hopkins knocks him out I would love that.

I'd cream my pants If Bernard Ko's him. I like Tarver but I love Hopkins, one of my faves of all time

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 31 Mar 2006, 05:23

Tarver might be big, but he's not a really physically strong light heavyweight. He throws arm punches in close and I've seen him backed up and bullied by Eric Harding - hardly a man of good physical strength let alone punching power.

Also, his stamina isn't impressive. Nor is his workrate.

The most unforgivable knock against Tarver being great, is that he had what Hopkins termed a "dead man walking" in Jones I, & didn't turn up the heat very much. I mean you have Jones, who's been un-fornicating-touchable for ten years, with no speed and reflexes and what do you do, but get drawn into a very even feinting match.

Ppl may mistake me for a Tarver hater, but it's not true. I liked his performances vs Eric Harding II, Reggie Johnson, Lincoln Carter, Chris Johnson - he was an exciting, hard working top contender who seemed to learn from every fight

Ultimately, there's a lot of things he does wrong and his stamina seems to be deserting him. When did he last use a jab? Coming down from having big muscles for Ricky 7 (with his ego, is anyone telling me he's not having movie star muscles?), he may be further depleted.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 31 Mar 2006, 05:42

Terence wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Terence wrote:Clash of the most ridiculously overrated fighters of the past tewn years IMO, might be dull fun.

I know I'm supposed to think that charging in with your head down, missing a right, tying a guy up and then hitting his hips is genius but I've never been a B-Hop fan, tito fight overdid it a bit, Daniels (his next fight) showed the real B-Hop. Good fighter in a poor division; Tito had been going downhill since the Campas fight and forgetting his skills, ODH showed it and Hopkins capitalised. Hopkins looked awful in most of the fights after Tito and lost to his first live challenge.

I'll get some stick but for my money Hopkins was a poor "legend." A good fighter in a piss poor division. Proof that if you stand still long enough you'll end up leading the race. I like his engaging interview style though. I just don't get the education some claim to when he fights. I enjoy defensive guys like Charles, Locche, Benitez, Whittaker and IMO Hopkins was average in defence and attack. Not in the league of Hagler and not as good as a peak Benny Briscoe, or even a post-peak Benny Briscoe.
I've not seen enough early Hopkins fights to date, but to be fair I think that by the time Hopkins got the exposure, he was physically not able to fight at the same pace. Early in his career he really brutalised the likes of Glen Johnson, a hot prospect who is known for his toughness. Johnson said nobody ever did to him what Hopkins did.

The Tito fight was a masterful performance, although Tito was perhaps a bit trigger happy by then, he was no patsy and he did annihilate Joppy with ease.

I don't think Hopkins was of the quality of Hagler, but being the best of your era is all you can do. He was 40 when he lost to Taylor, so nobody can use that as a stick to beat him with.
I loved the Tito fight, it was a clinic don't get me wrong; however it was relatively close for 6 rounds and Tito had been asking for that for years. I've got pretty much all Tito's early fights and later ones (in fact sod it lets say most of his career) and he was a smartish puncher who became obsessed, as they all do, with loading up the bombs. Joppy is very much overrated IMO and the Eastman fight must have been tough on him. Regardless he whacked Tito with some big shots himself before going down.

The Johnson fight was impressive yet I watch it and wonder how Glen campaigned there and the Mercado fight, in one of those I saw he was very fortunate to get any kind of result. I don't think B-Hop ever relied on physical gifts as much as graft and he fought the same spoiling type fight he did recently versus Eastman and Taylor when he was younger. He is the best of a bad bunch and Tito was a tabla rasla for a good hiding IMO and Hopkins did what ODH should have done. As for Jermain, he has a tick before every jab. He swings his arm a little, gestures with his head and then lets the jab go (it is hard to explain but you see it clearly in the fights), Hopkins the master should have picked up on this. A jab beats speed and Hopkins did not realise this in 24 rounds, his approach was totally wrong in both fights and nothing to do with age IMO. It was not an aging genius being beaten by a young slickster but a rough-house old-man who was elevated by a press hungry for old-school "genius" being beaten by a relative novice with quick hands.

Someone on here mentioned Hagler getting by blown-up welters. I disagree and feel that Hagler was best as a contender. His leg work was lovely. I have his Philly wars and in those fights he fought out of Philly when it meant a lot and Hopkins would not have done the same.

I have a lot of Hagler's early fights on tape, and people forget what a beautiful boxer he was. He was actually more of a counterpuncher early in his career, but once he became champion, he decided he was going to try and kill anyone who got in that ring with him.

Slapsie Maxie · Post by **Slapsie Maxie** » 31 Mar 2006, 06:03

Well said

I have a few of the early fights and Hagler was pure poetry.

Mind you, I think my favourite fight was Vs Mugabe the fight, I think after which neither was the same again.

Slapsie

History repeating itself?

History repeating itself?

Re: History repeating itself?

Re: History repeating itself?