Anyone who throws fists at each other for a living is more of a warrior than you or I are; they, therefore, deserve the title. They all risk their lives when they step in the ring, and they all take shots just the same. No, they all aren't crazy or dumb enough to just go and exchange blows.
Achilles was considered the greatest warrior to ever live, and he was never hurt (until his fight with Hector in which his achilles tendon was cut and he later died), but he was considered a warrior nonetheless.
Why should these guys, who regularly risk their lives, whether or not they go to war with each other all the time, be any less of a warrior than the other people?
1 One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
2 One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict.
That's how warrior is defined, and, in my opinion, both Tarver and Jones fit the definition perfectly. Perhaps you have some skewed view on what a warrior should be, as Martin has on what boxers should be (he thinks they should needlessly go to war, rather than use the sweet science like Mayweather does, to him, these guys are not true prize fighters because they are safety first rather than fan's fun first), but they are, indeed warriors.
What an excellent post. You beat me to the punch, no pun intended. But I do agree somewhat about the Warrior standard that boxing fans put on fighters. They do get in the ring, which takes more balls than most of the people around here have, and some like to use the sweet science, some like to just let 'em fly. I guess what I'm trying to say is there are the fighters like Mayweather, Tarver, Jones....then there are the "warriors" like Holyfield, Bowe, Barrera, Gatti etc. Just my opinion which usually sucks anyway.