View Single Post
Old 01-26-2013, 11:17 PM   #96
Rex Tickard
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Default Re: I see Roy Jones hanging past his prime is hurtin his legacy more than Ali hurt hi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
If so, he then wouldn't have been baited into coming back from heavy to fight him in 2003.
He would've always been baited by the fact that Tarver had snatched up several of his titles that he had vacated when moving up to fight Ruiz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
If Tarver had've beaten Harding, Roy would have fought him in 2000.
Not a certainty - we've seen how Jones played around to avoid mandatory challenges from Nunn and Rocchigiani.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
He came from 199 down to 175, at nearly 35, after 50 fights. It took a lot out of him.
Maybe so, but all the more reason he shouldn't have waited until he was in his mid 30s to either fight a HW and/or eliminate his chief rivals at 175.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
Tarver didn't turn pro til he was about 28, and he'd only had 20 odd fights.
On the flipside, he'd also had a history of drug problems, and there was also criticism (mainly in the wake of the Harding loss) that he'd spent too long as an amateur and expended his prime years there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
That night saw the best of Tarver, ...
That's debatable - Tarver, with only about 20 pro fights (as you noted), was taking a big step up in his first true megafight and looked correspondingly tentative.

He looked more motivated in the rematch, and walked through more fire and took a bigger risk to KO Jones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
History has shown, that Tarver at his best, couldn't beat Roy in Nov 03.
But history has also shown that Tarver could one-shot KO a better conditioned and more motivated Jones in the rematch.

Jones' win in the 1st match only proves that he can beat Tarver, not that he always would beat him every time. Tarver's win in the rematch proves that he can also beat Jones and with a lot less effort, which leaves open the possibility that he could win a series with any "version" of Jones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
The rematch was a perfect shot. It happens. Tarver had some skills, and anybody can go when they're caught. If you watch the replay, Tarver had his head down, and his eyes were closed.
It was also the result of Tarver taking a risk and loading up on a big shot in the center of the ring, rather than simply waiting for Jones' back to touch the ropes before unloading big punches on him, as he had in the 1st fight.

Also, your argument that "it happens" and "anybody can go" undermines your certainty that Jones would've won if they fought sometime earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
After Glen Johnson had dominated and knocked Roy out just three months later, I don't think anyone cared what happened for Tarver III. Roy hadn't fought since the Johnson fight, and he'd been out for 13 months. He was also approaching 36.
On the flipside, while Jones was resting during that 13 months, Tarver was in two punishing wars with Johnson - and he was likewise approaching 36. Tarver also looked weak and weight-drained in the rubber match much like Jones did in the 1st fight, but still managed to outbox and outgut Jones down the stretch. This fight was essentially the reverse of the 1st fight, with Tarver looking noticeably subpar but Jones failing to fully capitalize.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post
They obviously didn't want Roy as much as what they both claimed.
I don't claim that they did. In fact, I don't believe either Calzaghe, Hopkins, or Jones went all-out to fight any of each other when they were still in their primes. However, every one of those fights were still makeable if one fighter simply made certain concessions to the other.

Jones even admits that the main reason the Calzaghe fight didn't happen sooner was because he himself simply wasn't interested enough in it - not because Calzaghe outright avoided or sabotaged the fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudon View Post

Roy fought Joe for 50/50, because in 2008, Roy hadn't fought at elite level for three years, and Joe was now the man on top.

In 2002, Roy was the king, and Joe was a nobody. Roy had bigger fish to fry. In 2008, Roy's circumstances were different.
Using this logic, Calzaghe should've never conceded 50-50 to Jones in 2008, but he did.

Jones could've chosen to make the same sort of concession for the sake of enhancing his legacy as Calzaghe did here, but he elected not to.
Rex Tickard is offline  Top
Reply With Quote