He didn't say 10 years ago from today... He said 10 years ago from when Tarver beat Jones. There is all kinds of proof that Prime Tarver was not as good as Prime Jones...Jones Professional career was TWICE as long as Tarver's, and Jones still managed to drop 20 pounds of muscle and beat the much younger(ring years) much hungrier, "prime" Tarver. In Tarver's whole career, he has never been more motivated, more in shape, or more ready for anything in his life for that matter as when he was fighting Roy Jones. And Tarver's style would allow him to do what he does best at the age he was, and many less fights than Roy. Jones on the other had, was visibly not near the same fighter he once was, no legs, had to lay on the ropes in every round, didn't have near the punch output he once did. And its not only Jones fans who see this either, its anybody with half a brain.
hatton is past prime but could hit shot very quickly as a prime hatton was not the vest boxer in the world to start and losing his reflexes and punch resistance could see him getting beat by guys he would have beat at prime. i do not count being shot as just losing one of your attributes. shot is when you have lost everything that once made you.
on eastsideboxing forums a shot boxer is a fighter with a recent loss. even if it is to the best fighter in the world. but in a reality it would be a fighter who's skills have diminished to the point to where he has to take either a journeyman status or is apparently a shell of him former self.
Haha. The difference is that when we look at their best performances, Roy was simply a better athlete. Do you really think that Tarver could have ever put in a performance like Roy did against Tony? Are you Tarver? If you are, I respect you as a boxer, but Roy is hard shoes to fill.