There might’ve been a little window around the Richard Hall fight when Tarver could’ve fought him. I’m sure Tarver would’ve beaten the hell out of him by that point but Dariusz may have been starting to fade.
From the perspective of decisiveness/dominance, no doubt. But in terms of quality of opponent, I don't think Hill was better than Beter, particularly in light of his earlier shellacking by Dariusz, who was basically a poor man's/protected version of Beter IMO. I agree, I don't get this notion that Bivol has "won" his series w/ beter. They split 2 indecisive fights IMO. Beter deserves the opportunity for a rubber match just as he gave Bivol an immediate rematch.
The point isn't how it would've gone. They fight the fights to figure that part out. The point is that the fight never got made and it's a blight on Roy's legacy irrespective of the reasons either man has for not pursuing the fight. Imagine if Ali never fought Frazier and simply said 'I'm the real champ and the politics is getting in the way.' Ali would, rightfully, get flack for not pursuing a fight with his most accomplished contemporary. Not the cleanest analogy admittedly but I'm sure you see the point I'm getting to.
No. Hill was coming off a decisive loss & had no titles. He lost all his belts to DM. That's who Jones should have fought. It's not comparable to Bivol taking undisputed Beterbievs 0.. Historically that will be viewed as a GREAT win. Beating 98 Hill isn't. Dariusz dethroned him not Jones. Tarver had his number. Harding beat no one. Griffin would lose to Canelo & Woods loses to Zurdo.
Yes Hill losng the titles to DM doesn't demeanish the quality of Jones' win, that's crazy talk. He brought more to the table than Beterbiev did at 40, having just defeated Maske (ranked as either the best or second best LHW for most of the 90s alongside Hill) right before DM and Jones. And even though it wasn't at LHW and therefore doesn't affect the divisional status of Jones' win over him, he still managed to spark out the #2 CW in the world 2 years after Jones punked him with ease. Saying it's not even comparable is utterly ridiculous. Beterbiev didn't even convincingly beat Bivol the first time around and more than looked his age in both fights. Not to mention that his wins over Smith and Yarde certainly aren't comparable to beating Maske. The main reason Bivol's win over Beterbiev willli be remembered historically is because the division hadn't had an undisputed showdown in ages, not because a Beterbiev on the way out was great. Also, career comparisons aren't the same as H2H. We're comparing resumes here. Who did Zurdo ever beat other than the padestrian Joe Smith jr and an old inactive Sullivan Barrera at LHW ? Woods beat Julio Cear Gonzalez twice, as well as Glen Johnson. Also lol at Harding never beating anyone, he literally has both Tarver and Griffin on his ledger, while Canelo only has a win over Kovalev, who has only had 2 fights against bums since, and is on his way out. And have you tried seeing how Lyndon Arthur compares to Reggie Johnson, or Sullivan Barrera to Antonio Tarver ? Not even a contest. Jones > Bivol
Roy was a worldwide superstar so it should have been DM who tried to make the fight but instead he wanted no parts of Roy and everyone knows that so I have no clue why you put that on Roy. It has 0 implications on Roys legacy simply because DM would not leave Germany. I don't blame DM because he was making great money but don't think for one second that he so "desperately" wanted to fight Roy because he did not.
Tarver didn't have his number. Jones got old. A lot of Jones opponents were good but simply outclassed. If Jones wasn't there it would have been viewed as a competitive era. But he was so dominant the division now gets underplayed.
The same could be said for this era if We took away Beterbiev and Bivol. Some other guys would emerge on top. Maybe Gvozdyk would be an undisputed champion. Or Zurdo. Roy's era was very average. You didn't have any stand-out amateurs until Tarver. A lot of guys were tough, but clearly not very polished from technical stand-point (Hall, Telesco). Others were well schooled, but could not be described as anything more than solid (Harmon, Woods). I'm honestly not sure if Clinton Woods was better than Craig Richards for example. Glen Johnson should be 3-0 against him. Montell Griffin and Eric Harding were certainly quality fighters - but Tarver and Glen Johnson, when He finally put it all together, I think were clearly superior to any of the earlier Jones era contenders. Perhaps excluding Virgil Hill. I'll admit I'm not that familiar with him, did not see him defending his title in his prime - although watching him barely scrape through crafty, but lazy, Lou Del Valle - and get thoroughly dominated and worked over by Dariusz, I don't think He was quite at his best when Roy got him.
I disagree I thought Bivol won the 2nd fight decisively I had it 8-4 for Bivol and he outlanded Beterbiev in 9 out of the 12 rounds. It was basically a repeat of the 1st fight but without Beterbiev's strong rally in the last 3 rounds hence it was decisive. I don't know what people are watching when they score it a draw Bivol totally controlled the fight after the 6th round. Bivol has certainly looked the better fighter over their 2 fights and has made it more his type of fight tactically than Beterbiev has. Beterbiev has been largely ineffective against Bivol in regards to getting his offence or effective aggression going. Hence that's why Beterbiev has a very low connect rate percentage over the 2 fights. Beterbiev only landed 20 percent of his punches in the 1st fight and then had an even lower percentage in the rematch at 17 percent. 1st fight was close but Bivol still looked the better fighter overall for longer periods outside of the last 3 rounds. The 2nd fight was a clear win for Bivol and he separated himself from Beterbiev in that fight IMO.
Bivol has surpassed Jones at LHW now. I know the copage is hard for the groupies to come to terms with but the facts are the best LHWs in Roys era were DM & Tarver.. He lost twice to one & never fought the other. Hill was his best win & he was coming off a loss & had zero belts. If this era were to replicate Roys then Beterbiev & Bivol would never fight each other.. Gvozdyk would be the whipping boy for BOTH.. after beating Gvozdyk Bivol would then get sparked by Zurdo & Callum Smith.. & Bivols extemely elevated testosterone levels (Harding fight) for the Smith fight would be put down to a tainted monster energy drink.
Its funny cause you're devaluing some of Darius's few top wins while making the case that RJJ should have fought him.
Tarver and Johnson only became 'top' LHW fighters after beating an ageing Jones. Had they fought him earlier both would have been relegated to 'routine' names on RJJs victim list. In terms of relative competiton Tarver had already lost to Jones victim Harding on the way up. And Johnson went life and death with Clinton Woods three times. My point is that good, solid decent fighters were simply outclassed during the Jones era. So I think his competition gets unduly criticised.
Tarver was already acknowledged as arguably Roy's most dangerous LHW opponent heading into their 1st fight, after soundly beating 3 consecutive former Jones challengers. After their series, he went on to completely outclass Woods, who was thought to be an improved fighter from the 1 that fought Roy. After Johnson teamed up w/ Cuellar, he went 4-1-1 vs. former Jones challengers, w/ the 2 non-wins vs. Woods being hotly debated. Dariusz was undefeated vs. multiple common opponents as Roy until finally losing to Gonzalez, by which time he was clearly shopworn. Even if Roy had not been around, all 3 of these fighters proved that they were generally a cut above the others of Roy's era. Disagreed, only their 3rd fight was "life & death" IMO. Woods was lucky to get a draw in their 1st fight & even more soundly beaten in their 2nd IMO.