delete

He was a great amateur. That's it. He might've sucked **** as a pro.

 

Even if Roy was still bloody good when he lost to Tarver (didn't look it in their first fight) one win over a great fighter doesn't make a great fighter. Two wins over a great don't make a great.

Before and after I've only ever been sporadically impressed with Tarver.

 

Tarver is a legend.

 

Never a fan of this guy. His bouts bored me to sleep.

 

Definitely not great for me. If he had done something in the fairly stacked cruiserweight division, which I thought he may do, he could have established himself as great, however the Kayode draw and testing positive for roids slammed that door shut.

 

Relax. He was the most accomplished light heavy between 2000 and 2009, a time when Dariusz, Hopkins, Jones, and Dawson also were in the division. This is Ring Magazine's opinion.

 

it is true. What I like about Tarver is he does not say he is great because he beat Roy, at least I have not heard him. Barkley says he is great because he knocked out Hearns and seems upset that he is not getting the acclaims of Hearns now that both are retired. Some fighters think that if they beat the legend they become the legend. Not really true, it is a whole career thing.

 

Haven't heard that before, but it's very strange. Why just between those years?

Roy vacated his belts to go to heavy in March 2003, and then he got them back when he came back to 175 for Tarver in November 2003. Tarver didn't beat Roy til 2004. Afterwards he lost to Glen Johnson. He then beat Johnson, and then lost to Hopkins in 2006.

DM retired in 2005, and Dawson didn't do anything til 2006.

Very strange. Roy accomplished far more, because he vacated, then reclaimed them after the huge weight loss. How had Tarver accomplished more?

 

It's not strange at all. Tarver ruined Roy and got the best of Glen Johnson during that period. He won the legit light heavyweight title 3 times and picked up a belt later against Woods. Roy beat Harding, Gonazales, and Woods during that period. And Tarver, but only to get owned after. Roy doesn't have as strong of a case.

 

Of course it's strange.

Taver ruined Roy in 2004, AFTER he'd already lost to him. What had he done the previous 4 years? He'd lost to Harding, who then lost to Roy, and he only picked Roy's belts up in 2003, because Roy had vacated them. Roy then came back from heavy and then took them all back off of him. He then beat Roy, but lost straight after to Glen Johnson. Then shortly afterwards, Hopkins embarrassed him.

Roy has much more of a case, because he was the best in the division toying with Gonzalez, Woods etc, beating a guy who Tarver had lost to, and then going to heavy and back. Roy losing 25 pounds at 35, and coming back to reclaim his titles eclipses anything that Tarver accomplished at the weight. I could understand it if Tarver had've taken Roy's belts and then dominated, but he didn't.

 

Wow. You must have personal dislike for Tarver.

 

He didn't win the legit LHW title. Lineage goes through Dariusz, not Roy.

 

Who me?

 

I wonder who grachev will defend his championship against :think