Hopkins is really fighting for a payday or he is probably deluded.

[BigMix27]

Bhop completely dismantled Glen Johnson en route to an 11th round TKO, he handed him his first pro loss and is the only man to ever stop him... Why couldn't Tarver?

that Glen Johnson that Hopkins fought is no where near the Glen Johnson of today. The Glen Johnson of today is a tough mature and very hardworking fighter that got better with his age and experience.

Secondly, Tarver has beaten other fighters than Roy Jones and Glen Johnson, and all these fighters were lightheavyweights. And I'm not judging Tarver because he koed Jones, I'm judging Tarver from his body of work which culminated in him Koing and beating Jones as when compared to Hopkins body of work culminating in the beating of Trinidad and has gotten worse since with two recent 12 rd defeats by the hands of Taylor. The only thing Hopkins has going for him now is the running of his mouth and his 2001 victory over Trinidad.

[Purist]

Tarver doesn't like fighting defensive fighters cause he has to lead.

[NuthaPug]

Hopkins was the 3-1 underdog against Tito.

But his work-a-day lackluster ho-hum approach to Taylor (in the ring at least) in both fights is troubling. To me, it was his approach to the fights more than his age or loss of skill that cost him.

I'm sure his stamina isn't now what it was 5 or 10 years ago but remember he's smart and cagey. He sees his abilities change and instead of denying it he adjusts to it.

I like that about him. I just wish it had been more effective against Taylor.

But let's say that he did beat Taylor twice, just unconvincingly enough that the money folk could do what they wanted - crown the new prince early so they can get him a longer career and make more money off him rather than leave the old lion on the throne.

Apply that to Tarver-Hopkins. Is there any benefit to the money-machine to have one or the other win? Anyone speak to that?

[Hairdoo]

Hopkins was the 3-1 underdog against Tito.

But his work-a-day lackluster ho-hum approach to Taylor (in the ring at least) in both fights is troubling. To me, it was his approach to the fights more than his age or loss of skill that cost him.

I'm sure his stamina isn't now what it was 5 or 10 years ago but remember he's smart and cagey. He sees his abilities change and instead of denying it he adjusts to it.

I like that about him. I just wish it had been more effective against Taylor.

But let's say that he did beat Taylor twice, just unconvincingly enough that the money folk could do what they wanted - crown the new prince early so they can get him a longer career and make more money off him rather than leave the old lion on the throne.

Apply that to Tarver-Hopkins. Is there any benefit to the money-machine to have one or the other win? Anyone speak to that?

nothing to gain nothing to lose =