Roy Jones.

There was no way that Tarver was robbed in their first fight.

At the end of just about all of the rounds, Buddy McGirt was repeatedly asking Tarver if he was ok, and questioning why his instructions hadn't been carried out. Especially in the last three rounds.

It was a joke how Tarver punched the air at the end of the fight, trying to convince people that he was confident that he'd won.

Buddy McGirt knows who won that fight, and he admitted that he thought Roy was on the slide.

 

I think Tarver overreacted at the end of the fight knowing deep down that he didn't win...

I know he obviously must have felt those body shots Roy landed, he was wincing in pain and I found it kind of ironic that after the fight he complained about the decision saying his big lips were not even busted.

Obviously two of those judges loved effective body punching.:good

 

Great post!

:good


I've seen the fight I don't know how many times.

But the last time this was debated, I went and watched the fight again.

I tried to watch it objectively, just as a boxing fan, and not just as a fan of Roy's, just to see if there was any possibility that it could have been fair if Tarver had've won.

IMHO, there's no way that Tarver won that fight.

I can't understand the crowd reaction at the end, unless they were obviously fans of Tarver's.


Btw, this has just reminded me of 'The Super fight' between SRL and Marvin.

I don't know how many times I've watched it now.

Who do you think won?

Because I have to give it to Ray.

I honestly can't see how Marvin won that fight.

He threw away all of the early rounds, and I've absolutely no idea why he didn't fight southpaw the whole fight.

That seemed bizarre to me.


:good

 

I missed reading your posts on Christmas day, so a very Happy New Year to you my debating friend.

Now back to business. You Jones fans do make me laugh at times. I have neither the time nor the inclination to look for them but I'd bet there are hundreds if not thousands of posts on this board villifying Joe Calzaghe for taking a fight with 43 yr old Hopkins and you know it.

So lets please not have any of this s**t about him coming off great back to back wins. Oh and that is without all the Yanks who still cry that Hopkins really won the fight.

Now I will try one more time. If fighter A wins 11 out of 12 rounds against fighter B he has humiliated and embarrassed him. That is a fact, not a matter of opinion, if for no other reason that those scores are documented for all time.

Now all this if your grandmother had bollox she would be your grandad nonsense, is just that. Nonsense. They fought when they fought, Jones ran his big stupid mouth about whupping Calzaghe and got fvcked for his troubles. End of.

What coulda, woulda, shoulda happened in any other year is of no importance to anyone other that Jones fanboys who couldn't stand seeing their hero toyed with like a baby.

And yes Joe taking the p**s out of Jones the way he did was far worse ( humiliating ) than either Tarver, Green, or Lebedev KHTFO.

 

Foxy 01,

Likewise.

This is a fun debate.

:good

No, I don't believe that. There's many threads disputing the outcome, but I don't recall any questioning why Joe took the fight.

Bernard was still classed as an elite fighter, coming off of wins against Tarver and Wright, and Joe had accomplished all he could at SMW.

Do you think he beat Bernard?

If you do, then it was a great win for Joe. His victory over Kessler to unify, was only five months prior.

So what are you disputing?

His wins against Kessler and Hopkins were two of the best wins in his career.

I don't understand.

Why weren't they two great back to back wins?

First off, do you agree with my rating system?

Secondly, did you think my football an*logy was accurate?


If fighter A, wins 11 rounds to 1, over fighter B, he has humiliated him, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Which again, is why I keep referring to my football an*logy.

It's a fact that if Chelsea (Joe in boxing terms) thrashed a league one side, (Roy in boxing terms) then nobody would be shocked.

It happens every year in one of the cup competitions.


Now if Chelsea thrashed Barcelona in the Champions league, then that would be unbelievably humiliating to them.

But if Chelsea thrashed Sheffield United, who would care?

Nobody!


How can you disagree with that?

You haven't allowed for any CIRCUMSTANCES.

You seem like an intelligent guy, so I don't know why you won't allow for them?

It's not nonsense.

What I've just wrote above, is accurate, and I want you to go and find someone who disagrees with what I've wrote.

I mean this is getting ridiculous now.

It's like the Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver knockout defeats, four years earlier, didn't even happen according to what you've been typing.

I'm mystified.

Haha!

Seriously, WTF??

Glen Johnson out boxed him and then knocked him cold for a long time, FOUR YEARS earlier. Before that, Tarver had beaten him, with McGirt saying that he was on the slide.

Joe did nothing to Roy, that hadn't been done before.

Danny Green beat him in a single round just a year later.


Those aren't opinions, they are stone cold facts that can't be disputed.

The facts that I quote, by far out weigh your opinions.

An opinion isn't as important as a fact.

Haha!

How??


In 2004:

Roy was considered the best fighter on the planet. Número uno. The man!

Apart from the DQ to Griffin, he was undefeated in 50 fights!

Antonio Tarver knocked him out in just two rounds!

Two rounds!

The worlds best fighter, knocked out in two rounds.

That would be like Floyd Mayweather TODAY, getting knocked out in two rounds.

IT WOULD SHOCK THE BOXING WORLD!

Just like how the boxing world was shocked in 2004.


In 2008:

Roy was 3-3 in his last 6 fights, and was 9 weeks away from his 40th birthday.


So HOW could losing via a decision in 2008, be MORE humiliating than losing to Tarver in 2004, when he was considered the best fighter on the planet???


I'm sorry, but you have no argument here whatsoever.


You can't outsmart LOGIC!



Great debate!

:good

 

Its actually been about 5 years years since I last watched that one, but I have always thought Leonard won...

I will try and go have another look when I can to freshen up my memory and get back to you.:good

 

Idiots like Foxy make me laugh about Roy's chin.

In his PRIME he had a SOLID chin.

 

:good

 

Jake La Motta and Oliver McCall George Foreman Holyfield, Mike Mccallum, and Hagler had solid chins you numpty, and it has nothing to do with being prime. As a fighter gets older and slower he gets hit more often. If he has got a solid chin he stays on his feet. If he has a s**t chin like Jones he gets KTFO.

Know nothing fools like you shouldn't contaminate boxing boards with your total lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

Are you saying that a fighters punch resistance can't decline as he gets older and slower?

The irony.

Complete haters like you shouldn't contaminate boxing boards, because you are not objective, and it is even worse in my opinion than a "know nothing fool"

But I do wish you would keep going with Loudon in this debate of yours, he is thrashing you and it is quite funny you are being such a good sport about it.:rofl

 

No, it didn't look to be anything but one of many options back than.

In 2002, when Hopkins and Jones were #2 and #3 P4P, it probably should have went down.

In 2003 when Hopkins was #1 P4P and Jones the #2, it should have went down no question.

 

Kind of a trivial stat in regards to what is being discussed.

And yet he still missed the only guy at LHW that really mattered, and turned down 50/50 to fight the guy now rated #1 P4P.

 

You wish Loudon was thrashing me, probably due to the fact you are also a silly fanboy.

Just for the record Loudon wrote on a boxing forum
that a guy who won a fight deserves absolutely no credit for doing so.

That is both fvcking stupid, and fvcking childish, which by all accounts would suit an idiot like you down to the ground.

Now here is me along with millions of other boxing fans who thinks a fighter can only face what is in front of him in the opposite corner, and do his best to try to win, but according to you re****ed fanboys that isn't the case at all.

So who do we say deserves no credit whatsoever for winning fights next? Pacman, Mayweather, Ali, Holmes, Tyson, SRR, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Benn,..................................................................................................................you fvcking numbskulls.

And you want to claim that Loudon is thrashing me? Loudon is unfortunately making himself look very very silly by making such ridiculous statements.

Edit. By the way don't use words you simply do not understand like irony. You are Murican, and Yanks simply don't do irony, they have no concept of such things.