Despite of what people think of him as a person, I think he was a pretty good fighter in his prime that could actually give some problems to other great light heavys, though I don't know if he would win. Thoughts?
Better than average journeyman. Remember, he started late. Maybe if he'd been in the game from the start, he could have been a great. As it is, his main claim to fame is being Johnny-on-the-spot.
Lets not make it seem like Tarver is just some scrub. He catches a lot of heat for his lost to Hopkins but the Glen Johnson loss in the first fight was a very close fight. I had him winning because he was landing the more effective shots. I also had him winning the first Roy Jones fight also. For someone to have gotten the late start he did, he did accomplish a lot more than other guys. Additionally he was very flat against Hopkins. To say he was an "average" champion would say that he's on some Clinton Woods level where lets be realistic, Clonton Woods looked like utter crap against Jones and it could be said that Tarver has 3 wins against RJ.. He's not great but I would say at his best, he was very good, a difficult style matchup for anyone..
Pretty good fighter nothing special though had a decent workrate,nice boxing skills,some power,some speed,a chin but I feel like his gas tank is pretty bad and hurt him in some fights. Best wins really are agianst a somewhat shot Jones Jr,Glen Johnson,a fadded Montell Griffin and a lucky win vs Harding in the rematch. I honestly dont view him as a hall of famer like some do.
He was a late starter professionally, but had a long illustrious amateur career. Tarver was one of the best amateurs in the world. Wins over Griffin, Harding, Johnson and Jones and an Olympic bronze medal (which could have been gold, I thought he edged Jirov, though it was close) are not too shabby. Don't forget Jones was p4p#1 and Johnson/ Tarver winner was recognised as ring mag's Champ.