Well said...
Was the Tarver v Johnson decision a robbery?
Collapse
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by grayfistUnder the circumstances that currently exist, a Tarver loss makes a rematch look a little bit more compelling than a Johnson loss, doesn't it?
If it was Tarver winning by Split Decision,a rematch most likely wouldn't happen.Comment
-
Tarver isn't the dominating fighter i thought he would be. I'm so glad Johnson won this fight, i think he is a really nice levelheaded guy. Very modest about his ability and always gives 100% in and out of the ring.Comment
-
i wouldnt go so far as to call it a robbery as it was a great close fight. it seems to me that tarver's stamina was lacking in that fight as he looked really tired in the championship rounds just as he did in the first roy jones fight. tarver allowed johnson to stay in the fight by not staying busy enough to win rounds, he simply gave them awayComment
-
DAMN! I have just lost 9.6 M points on that fight. I went for TARVER by KO.
but no hard feelings, Tarver FAILED to deliver the goods. I don't think he was robbed, that was a good close fight, some rounds were very hard to score. Tarver simply faded away in the later rounds and Johnson's aggresiveness worked for him. Finally justice for Johnson.
Comment
-
I had Tarver up 115-113. He landed more and harder punches. Not a robbery by any means, but a wrong decision. Glencoffe did not display effective aggressiveness. However, the close decision couldn't have gone to a more deserving guy. So bring on the rematch.Comment
Comment