Tweet
One would argue that like Jermain Taylor, light heavyweight champ Antonio Tarver is a tall, angular guy who kind of hard to get to. Add to that the fact that he's a southpaw, and the natural question is how would Bernard Hopkins make this result any different than his two losses to Taylor?
After all, Tarver is younger, bigger, presents a style problem, and has some accomplishments under his belt, while Hopkins is over 40 and on a two-fight losing streak.
It doesn't appear as if the chips would be stacked in Hopkins' favor.
You can't help but respect what Tarver's done as a pro. But for those of us who go back that far, when he was an amateur we honestly expected a little more out of him. He didn't achieve what he wanted to in the Olympics; part of that may have been that he was somewhat spoiled while still in the "non-paid" ranks. It is clear he had already been recruited by professionals and had some of the resultant accoutrements long before his Olympic bid.
Tarver wants to be in the Hall of Fame. By the standards that exist now, he probably will be. He gained revenge with wins over Eric Harding and Glen Johnson, and beat Roy Jones two out of three times. He comes to the table with some credentials, but they're not overwhelming. he was awkward for Jones to fight, to be sure, but I don't know if I consider him to be impenetrable.
I don't consider Tarver to be anything sensational. Solid, yes. But sensational, no. There are *****s in his armor. I'll tell you this much - if I were betting on Tarver I'd be worried about what happened in that third Jones fight. At a couple of different junctures he was out on his feet and ready to go, but Jones confirmed that he was at that point in his career where he just couldn't pull the trigger anymore. If he was sharp; if he were the Roy Jones of old instead of the old Roy Jones, Tarver may very well have been knocked out. So let's not lose perspective on that, and let's caution ourselves against possibly overrating Tarver based on the Jones fights.
Although you may hear differently from certain HBO announcers who are not well-versed in boxing history, Bernard Hopkins is not an all-time great fighter. I've editorialized about that on more than one occasion, so I won't do it all over again except to say that it would be fair to put Hopkins on an all-time Top 20 list of middles, but to go much further might be stretching it. [details]
After all, Tarver is younger, bigger, presents a style problem, and has some accomplishments under his belt, while Hopkins is over 40 and on a two-fight losing streak.
It doesn't appear as if the chips would be stacked in Hopkins' favor.
You can't help but respect what Tarver's done as a pro. But for those of us who go back that far, when he was an amateur we honestly expected a little more out of him. He didn't achieve what he wanted to in the Olympics; part of that may have been that he was somewhat spoiled while still in the "non-paid" ranks. It is clear he had already been recruited by professionals and had some of the resultant accoutrements long before his Olympic bid.
Tarver wants to be in the Hall of Fame. By the standards that exist now, he probably will be. He gained revenge with wins over Eric Harding and Glen Johnson, and beat Roy Jones two out of three times. He comes to the table with some credentials, but they're not overwhelming. he was awkward for Jones to fight, to be sure, but I don't know if I consider him to be impenetrable.
I don't consider Tarver to be anything sensational. Solid, yes. But sensational, no. There are *****s in his armor. I'll tell you this much - if I were betting on Tarver I'd be worried about what happened in that third Jones fight. At a couple of different junctures he was out on his feet and ready to go, but Jones confirmed that he was at that point in his career where he just couldn't pull the trigger anymore. If he was sharp; if he were the Roy Jones of old instead of the old Roy Jones, Tarver may very well have been knocked out. So let's not lose perspective on that, and let's caution ourselves against possibly overrating Tarver based on the Jones fights.
Although you may hear differently from certain HBO announcers who are not well-versed in boxing history, Bernard Hopkins is not an all-time great fighter. I've editorialized about that on more than one occasion, so I won't do it all over again except to say that it would be fair to put Hopkins on an all-time Top 20 list of middles, but to go much further might be stretching it. [details]