BoxRec

Posted: **12 Jun 2006, 09:01**

Hopkins didn't let Tarver do a thing. Immeidately, he took every single punch of Tarver's away. it's funny, whenever anyone puts on a masterclass, it's due to the other guy not showing up. I was certain Hopkins was going to outclass him. Tarver doesn't exist on the level of awareness that Hopkins does. If we're talking weight so much, the extra weigt Hopkins carried really did him some good. He doesn't look like a skeleton any more, and it seems to have added a lot to his armoury.

Remember how Hopkins took Tito's left hook away? Tarver only really has a right jab and a straight left. He used excellent movement, to skip outside of the punches. Tarver's shots whizzed by, and his attempt to continually cut off the ring was..continually foiled.

I don't see how the Taylor fight is a good comparison. Taylor has extremely quick, powerful hands and Hopkins - 41 - had to be wary of that over the first half, before getting the measure of him. Tarver isn't the kind of athlete that Taylor is, and is over a decade older than him. Aslo, oldr light heavies are slower than young middles.

Rematch? Buddy McGirt was telling Tarver to run away & to hold on for dear life! Tarver looked totally baffled, not drained. Put it this way, if a guy comes at Hopkins, pawing with a right jab and lining up a left, he's gonna use subtle movement to take your only two punches away, counter your head off, and beat you up.

Posted: **12 Jun 2006, 09:14**

Maybe that was the best of Tarver that we saw. If that's the case then the division has been dead for a while now.

Posted: **12 Jun 2006, 09:32**

Kilburn wrote:Maybe that was the best of Tarver that we saw. If that's the case then the division has been dead for a while now.

Tarver's good, but if Eric Harding could handcuff him for 8 rds of their 1st fight and 3 1/2 rds of their rematch, I know Hopkins could get him. I don't think we'll see a craftier technical fighter than Hopkins for many many years. Light heavy isn't dead, as Tarver has beaten some good men and has shown he can pull himself out of a crisis. Like Jones II and Harding II. And beating guys like Johnson (Glen) is no small feat. But light heavies, good-very good ones, do struggle with great smaller men. Remmeber all those late 80s/early 90s fights, when hearns, mccallum etc went up

Posted: **12 Jun 2006, 10:40**

I think Calzaghe would do precisely what Taylor did, but more emphatially. I like Hopkins and have a lot of respect, but he hasn't got the engine to deal with a fast younger fighter. Despite his age, Calzaghe can fight at a hectic tempo for 12 rounds, has a good chin, and better movement and ability than Taylor.

Posted: **12 Jun 2006, 10:46**

A lot of people are being wise after the fact here.

How many people genuinely picked Hopkins to systematically dismantle Tarver in his first bow at 12st 7 since his pro debut? I certainly didnt and give credit where its due.

Hopkins did a wonderful job, came to fight in fantastic shape, and put the icing on a fantastic career.

Posted: **12 Jun 2006, 11:53**

Who picks Taylor over Wright? I know I don't. But then I haven't picked a fight correctly all year so far.

Posted: **12 Jun 2006, 12:08**

Kilburn wrote:Who picks Taylor over Wright? I know I don't. But then I haven't picked a fight correctly all year so far.

There could be a job for you at the sportinglife on that form kilburn!

I think its gonna be a close one but Winky knows enough to make Taylor look bad. Having said that Winky has lost a few keys fights (Vargas, Simon were both close, debatable scores) and Taylor is HBOs poster boy at 11st 6, so I expect Taylor to eke past him in a learning fight.

Posted: **12 Jun 2006, 12:59**

TerribleTerry wrote:
Kilburn wrote:Who picks Taylor over Wright? I know I don't. But then I haven't picked a fight correctly all year so far.
There could be a job for you at the sportinglife on that form kilburn!

I think its gonna be a close one but Winky knows enough to make Taylor look bad. Having said that Winky has lost a few keys fights (Vargas, Simon were both close, debatable scores) and Taylor is HBOs poster boy at 11st 6, so I expect Taylor to eke past him in a learning fight.

WInky suffers againts high workrate fighters i think
Soliman, Simon and Vargas all threw lots of shots.... havent really seen Taylor but i dont think he has that kind of workrate does he????

Posted: **13 Jun 2006, 04:27**

Hopkins was mean and nasty enough to stop Taylor from letting his hands go, in previous fights Taylor threw lots of fast hard shots, and whilst Winky has a good guard, he is often flat footed when punching. A stoppage isn't out og the question, as Taylor is very physically strong, but I'll go with Taylor UD.

Posted: **13 Jun 2006, 04:37**

Terence wrote:This fight really needs perspective. I enjoyed it and the performance of Hopkins, especially given his age and boxing body-clock, yet Tarver has never really sold himself to me.

People made Tarver out to be a legend or a great yet only negative public opinion got him the fight he will be remebered for as Jones outpointed him clearly, in my mind, in fight I. Jones was clearly drained yet Tarver, on the night many say was his best, only punched for 30 seconds a round, flurried on the gloves and failed to press advantages. In fight II, IMO, Jones was shot and since then Tarver has been quite frankly woeful. He looked poor in the 36 rounds he's had with Johnson and Jones and looked dire in Jones III, lets not forget that in this fight Jones was coming off two consecutive KO losses. He then took a break and piled on weight.

Tarver is not a particularly tricky southpaw, he is a flurrier who can only fight for 30 seconds a round. Now it is less than that as he somehow thinks he is a world-class hitter. Hopkins was ideal for him. Hopkins kept at range, pick-pocketed shots and when he did bomb in he clinched before hitting Tarver on the hips and side. Basically he did the same things that saw him lose to Jermain Taylor. I saw no improvement, talk of Hopkins beating Calzaghe is premature, the man should retire as a fast-handed fighter will come along and beat him.

Credit to Hopkins though and this is not a slur, I just don't buy Tarver as Archie Moore redux! If they are stupid enough to pay Hopkins for fight II take the money and run.

Do you think Taylor or Winky could've done that to Tarver?

The Taylor fight comparison can only be taken so far. (I actually had Hopkins winning those Taylor fights, but whether he started too late to win enuff rds of not, one thing can't be debated: he had the younger man well and truly figured out by the championship rds...). In a sense that Tarver isn't the athelte, isn't as fast or explosive as Taylor, I knew Hopkins would be able to start much earlier.

But at light heavy, Hopkins is a superb specimen, strong inside, quick enough, a good dig in his punches. I think at middle, the 41 yo definitely had to fight much more sparingly. I mean, at 41, at 160, he was near skeletal. almost like a healthy skeleton. being at 175 is very good for Hopkins. it's freed him up physically. There was a world of difference in Hopkins, but of course this is emphasised even moreso in that he's fighting a bigger (thus bigger openings...) slower guy.

I've taken the piss out of Tarver on these boards. I just don't like him, not that I don't rate him as a good fighter. But everyone rates Glen Johnson - even you picked Johnson to stop Calzaghe - and Tarver had Johnson well and truly beaten in their 2nd fight. It was ugly, it looked horrid, but it worked. Tarver isn't sophisticated - a Big reason why he couldn't lay a glove on Hopkins - but he's an extremely confident fighter who has been adept at pulling himself out of crises (Harding 2, Jones 2).

I had Tarver-Jones I a draw. The big mark against Tarver (hence why he should never have been thought of as great) is that he had a wasted Jones for the taking and he didn't take him. Ironically, int he 2nd fight, a fit and fast Jones turned up, Tarver was taxed, required to do more, and he was able to find it with Jones tendency to jump in and pull back

To me, he's like a Vernon Forrest -big, gangling guy that doesn't really want to let you win, and will use his size to make things difficult and win ugly. Tarver always makes me think of Forrest in the Mayorga fight or Forrest in the 2nd Mosley fight. Dreadful to watch, but effective

This was lean, economical, artful boxing at its very best. Austere elegance in the manner that veteran martial artists appreciate. To me, that was one of the great modern performances by Hopkins. Tarver as Moore? Never. lol. But Hopkins is drawing plenty of comparisons with Moore, Harold Johnson, Walcott, Charles, and is thoroughly deserving of them

Posted: **13 Jun 2006, 13:18**

Terence wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:
Terence wrote:This fight really needs perspective. I enjoyed it and the performance of Hopkins, especially given his age and boxing body-clock, yet Tarver has never really sold himself to me.

People made Tarver out to be a legend or a great yet only negative public opinion got him the fight he will be remebered for as Jones outpointed him clearly, in my mind, in fight I. Jones was clearly drained yet Tarver, on the night many say was his best, only punched for 30 seconds a round, flurried on the gloves and failed to press advantages. In fight II, IMO, Jones was shot and since then Tarver has been quite frankly woeful. He looked poor in the 36 rounds he's had with Johnson and Jones and looked dire in Jones III, lets not forget that in this fight Jones was coming off two consecutive KO losses. He then took a break and piled on weight.

Tarver is not a particularly tricky southpaw, he is a flurrier who can only fight for 30 seconds a round. Now it is less than that as he somehow thinks he is a world-class hitter. Hopkins was ideal for him. Hopkins kept at range, pick-pocketed shots and when he did bomb in he clinched before hitting Tarver on the hips and side. Basically he did the same things that saw him lose to Jermain Taylor. I saw no improvement, talk of Hopkins beating Calzaghe is premature, the man should retire as a fast-handed fighter will come along and beat him.

Credit to Hopkins though and this is not a slur, I just don't buy Tarver as Archie Moore redux! If they are stupid enough to pay Hopkins for fight II take the money and run.
Do you think Taylor or Winky could've done that to Tarver?

The Taylor fight comparison can only be taken so far. (I actually had Hopkins winning those Taylor fights, but whether he started too late to win enuff rds of not, one thing can't be debated: he had the younger man well and truly figured out by the championship rds...). In a sense that Tarver isn't the athelte, isn't as fast or explosive as Taylor, I knew Hopkins would be able to start much earlier.

But at light heavy, Hopkins is a superb specimen, strong inside, quick enough, a good dig in his punches. I think at middle, the 41 yo definitely had to fight much more sparingly. I mean, at 41, at 160, he was near skeletal. almost like a healthy skeleton. being at 175 is very good for Hopkins. it's freed him up physically. There was a world of difference in Hopkins, but of course this is emphasised even moreso in that he's fighting a bigger (thus bigger openings...) slower guy.

I've taken the piss out of Tarver on these boards. I just don't like him, not that I don't rate him as a good fighter. But everyone rates Glen Johnson - even you picked Johnson to stop Calzaghe - and Tarver had Johnson well and truly beaten in their 2nd fight. It was ugly, it looked horrid, but it worked. Tarver isn't sophisticated - a Big reason why he couldn't lay a glove on Hopkins - but he's an extremely confident fighter who has been adept at pulling himself out of crises (Harding 2, Jones 2).

I had Tarver-Jones I a draw. The big mark against Tarver (hence why he should never have been thought of as great) is that he had a wasted Jones for the taking and he didn't take him. Ironically, int he 2nd fight, a fit and fast Jones turned up, Tarver was taxed, required to do more, and he was able to find it with Jones tendency to jump in and pull back

To me, he's like a Vernon Forrest -big, gangling guy that doesn't really want to let you win, and will use his size to make things difficult and win ugly. Tarver always makes me think of Forrest in the Mayorga fight or Forrest in the 2nd Mosley fight. Dreadful to watch, but effective

This was lean, economical, artful boxing at its very best. Austere elegance in the manner that veteran martial artists appreciate. To me, that was one of the great modern performances by Hopkins. Tarver as Moore? Never. lol. But Hopkins is drawing plenty of comparisons with Moore, Harold Johnson, Walcott, Charles, and is thoroughly deserving of them
Tarver is better than Moore, haven't you heard.

Winky no, Taylor could do a number on Tarver, I'd say that at light-heavy Taylor would be bigger than Hopkins and still have greater speed.

Hopkins-Taylor we could argue forever but if Hopkins had Taylor figured out in the Championship rounds of fight 1 shouldn't Jermain get credit as Hopkins again struggled in the early going of fight 2? Fact is fact and against a big, strong and fast fighter with ambition Hopkins will always struggle. Tarver is none of the above.

At 175lbs Hopkins is now #1 and they fight at a slower pace but no one is as slow or ponderous as Tarver has been. He thought he was a puncher after Jones II and has wasted his momentum, similar to Hopkins after Tito - no wonder they met in the ring.

I've said, at 175 which I assumed they would meet at, that Glen could wear Joe down, it depends on how Joe reacts to hitting a bigger man, Glen has a harder noggin' than Ashira. Fight II I had Tarver winning but he still looked awful, Johnson tried to get a bit cute in that fight and paid the price, recently he is looking strong again.

I had Jones beating Tarver first time out, he landed regularly and with harder blows. Tarver fought 30 seconds at a time and flurried onto the glvoes at times. In fight II Jones looked like his legs were weak from the start, he'd bulked up too much for Ruiz and has not looked the same since, to be honest I thought he showed signs of slippage versus Woods.

The Forrest comparison is unfair, Forrest negates guys with his jab and reach whereas Tarver, certainly recently, has not played to these strengths, also I feel Shane had more to offer when beaten by Forrest than Jones had when he faced Tarver, Forrest has more in his arsenal and yes he can be negative but the Mayorga fight, first time, was the one time he deviated and look what happened.

Hopkins showing Walcott skills, not for my money. Lets take Walcotts step and shuffle from a time when he was faded, the Marciano Suzy-Q fight. Walcott did turn his back and side-step aside but the comparison ends there, Joe would walk a few steps in a semi-circle and then turn as his guy came onto him, he'd then tag them with hard right hands from a stance that was really dug into the canvas. Hopkins turns and walks away but he practically sprints across the ring and then comes back on himself with the effect that his right hand is fast but not as solid as Joe's. The much-lauded Walcott technique, done by Hopkins, is a less-effective pastiche and does not allow Hopkins to get as much steam on his right, he is negating the space not getting his guy to walk onto rights and in trying to close the gap he makes Hopkins his not digging his feet into the canvas and is punching with less steam.

No, Tarver is the modern Michael Spinks. At least that what noggins were saying when he Ko'd Jones. Jones was quite fast in that 2nd Tarver fight & didn't seem mentally shot, but his tendency to pull back after throwng his own shots killed him in that fight. Tarver is a capable counter puncher. If Jones had tried to put more in his shots and push him back it could've been different. Jones could be troubled by lefties, especially with his way of stepping right, ie into a s/paw left. Harding was troubling peak Jones, be4 Eric's arm went.

I rate Tarver above Vernon Forrest, in terms of being a quality modern champ. Never been big on Viper and I never forgave him for his stink tactics in the 2nd Mosley fight. Tarver would've beaten Taylor. It takes method, a cultured application of solid moves to beat a heavy hitting, bigger guy like that. Taylor still has a lot of amateur in him, lots of shoeshine but not a massive amount of purpose.

I don't have a real problem with Hopkins' approach in the 2 Taylor fights, other than being dull. At 41 and 160 he's not going to start fast vs a young, fast kid. But i reckon he made Taylor miss enough to get some even rds early on, and when he got going late on, i felt it was enough to win a decision both times

Not trying to push the Walcott comparison too far. Of course, we can say many fighters are into pastiche. Pastiche is often associated with being a 'blank' copy or even a satire. Naz and Ali/Leonard, etc. Hopkins' work in that fight with Tarver did call on the old, economical grandmasters. But it was practical, purposeful, and appropriate for the fight. Sliding outside of the other guy's punches is not easy to pull off, but it has a demoralising effect when you're trying to pressure someone & they disappear from the side. and next time, when you think they're going to slide away, they cosh you with a right hand etc

BoxRec

Hopkins Outclasses Tarver...