delete

How is it bull****?

Roy was 35, he'd had 50 fights, and he'd come back from heavy in a rush with no expert help.

For the second fight, yes he was better conditioned and Mackie Shilstone was back on board, but Roy clearly wasn't the supreme athlete that he'd once been.

Now I give Tarver credit for his win, although his eyes were shut when he threw that big left, but this wasn't the Toney version of Roy.

You're right, the loss did ruin Roy. It scarred him mentally, and that's why he took the fight with Glen just 3 months later. Roy should never have fought Glen Johnson when he did. He should have taken a year out and then had a few tune ups. But he was that shocked, he just wanted a very quick win to erase everything from his mind. The ringside doctor told Roy and Coach Merk that he was so dehydrated he shouldn't have been fighting, and that's why he was out for so long. It was a hard shot by Glen, but it wasn't a devastating punch.

Tarver and Johnson were very good fighters, but I think they were both in the right place at the right time. I think a pre Ruiz version of Roy would have beaten both fighters without too much trouble.

 

Not even close to being great imo.

If i see 5 votes for great i'm burning this forum to the ground.

 

Can't use the poll, BE.

It doesn't have a choice I consider appropriate.

 

I voted great.

 

you're joking.

 

Your move...

 

Was Teofilio Stevenson not great? No wait, he was. Now sit your crotchety ass down.

 

No.

Sadly, he is serious.

 

I wouldn't go quite as far as noNeck, but i do think there was a significant element of Jones just being caught against Tarver.

He wasn't a washed up fighter by any means. past his prime, especially compared to his 168 days but not to the extent where i think he would have been less likely to possibly get caught by that shot 3-4 years previously.

Tarver threw awkward very heavy punches(though not nearly as often as he should have throughout his career, considering the power he had) and Roy just made that slight mistake that most of the time won't result in a KO..but sometimes does.

quite comparable to Nunn vs kalambay.

 

I'm not talking about about the Glen Johnson fight. Roy was no worse than top 3 in the sport when Tarver knocked him out. It wasn't until after the Glen Johnson fight that people decided Roy was "shot" for the Tarver fight, and that's bull****. Watch the first round of Tarver-Jones II and tell me how shot he looks. He was fine until he got blasted out with one shot.

 

He was a great amatuer and i wouldn't be using his accomplishments there to prop him up as a great pro.

Tarver's amatuer accomplishments apply to his rating as an amatuer.

It's not tough to figure out.

Now sit your simpleton ass down.

 

I'm not saying Roy was at his absolute peak, but he so good that he was still basically the best fighter in the sport. If you look at Roy's fight with Del Valle, he gets caught by the same shot but gets up...so he was always vulnerable to that. It wasn't because of lost reflexes. And if you watch what Tarver did to Chris Johnson and Harding, you'll know that the big left was part his game and not a prayer shot. So I basically accept it as a no bull**** win by Tarver over a still great fighter who came to win.

 

And where do the criteria say anything about pro standings only?

 

I know you're talking about the Tarver rematch. But you said it was mostly bull**** that Roy was past it. I'm not saying Roy was shot, but it was clear from the first Tarver fight, that Roy was no longer the fighter he'd been.

There's a difference between shot and being passed his best.

You can watch round 5 of Tarver III and Roy looked great. But overall, he was a long way from his peak.

Do you think Tarver would have beaten him in 2000?

 

Tarver is one of the best American amateurs ever. I don't see why that shouldn't matter unless you completely don't care about amateurs. I'm not talking about very good as an amateur. I'm talking about one of the very best Americans to ever do it.