I said back when he fought Aguilera (even though Aguilera sucks) that based on that performance even a blow-up old Tarver could become a contender in today's weak HW era.
top ten american, perhaps. no way top twenty overall. you don't think perhaps banks job was to make him look good? tomake him a viable opponent for wlad?
Maybe at the lower end, but it's pretty clear to me that Banks was not really up to it last night. He's been busy training Wlad, for what? the last two years???? That was from his most inspired performance, think he would have beaten Tarver fairly easily a couple of years ago. Now... My top 10 us heavies would look something like this. Jennings,Thompson,Cunningham,Chambers,Arreola,Mansour,Martin,Scott,Breazeale, and Wilder. Can't see Tarver beating these guys. Even some of the more question names. As flawed as Breazeale, and Wilder are are think the disparity in size/strength, and the difference in youth would be far too much for an old bloated Tarver to deal with... Also. Banks was always a guy with a low punch output/lackadaisical style, and he was never the hardest of punchers..... So I guess in hindsight it's not shocking that he lost, especially considering he probably wasn't as well prepared as he should have been, given his duties as Wlad Klitschkos trainer, and I don't think it's unlikely that he looked past Tarver in this one.
Top 10 US is what I meant for Banks, yes. After the Mitchell KO people were calling him the #2 or even #1 American HW. (and I think it might have even been while Scott was undefeated) :-( even after the Mitchell rematch I think consensus was that Banks wasn't top 5 in the country but not too much lower and definitely top 10. It seems a bit unfair then for Tarver not to now take his place.