I'd say they are equal. 1. They both beat RJJ, Woods, Griffin (although Tarver beat a better version). 2. They are 1-1 head to head. 3. They both lost to Hopkins. A case can be made Johnson is better because he arguably beat Dawson, while Tarver can make a case because he beat a better RJJ/Griffin. I know Tarver has less losses, but some of Johnsons are very questionable. All things considered, I'd say they are equal.
Tarver beat Jones twice, and probably a more focused Jones on both occasions. But I consider Glen the more complete fighter, and you have to respect his willingness to take on challenges overseas. Complete tossup, good question though.
People and history will remember Tarver a lot more than Glen, but I think Glen is better. I feel bad for Glen'd bad luck, he should have had better. Yet, he is still a hell of a fighter and can surelly get a belt or two. He should just stay away from the big names for a while, that's where he's getting his bad luck. With Green vacating the WBA belt, he may be able to get into a fight for that belt or at least for the mandatory position. Then there is Erdei, the WBO champion, who Glen can surelly beat. I think he should take one of these routes.
Tarver's resume is slightly better but Glen fought most of his fights in his opponents' backyard and suffered some controverisal losses. Their management is the real difference. I like the road warrior much better TBH. He's a real old-school fighter who's willing to take on everyone everywhere even on short notice and he always respects his opponents. A true gentleman and a helluva fighter.
Tarver is the better fighter tlent wise. Johnson is overral a loveable loser, who troubles alot of good fightrs but has legitamtely lost to many of them. Solid world ranked contender, nothing more, nothing less. Tarver has that bit more class about him - though he is no HOFer himself!
the word GREAT and fighter cant be put into the same sentence with these guys names....who is better? who cares