Fans and their "out of their prime" excuse

[Bozo_no no]

Don't tell me you're going by Compubox numbers because NOBODY BELIEVES THOSE FIGURES ANYMORE. Don't tell me Tarver landed five ****ing punches in his flurries. I seem to remember him trapping Jones in a corner and letting his hands go all over Jones, 20 punches at a time. Don't tell me he landed 5 punches in any one round cuz that's ****ing bull**** Jones asskissing talk.

Go back and watch the fight.

Tarver rarley threw punches in rounds 3-6. He had a breif flurry in each round, where many of the shots were blocked.

Jones was controlling the tempo landing body shots while controlling the center of the ring.

The numbers reflect Tarver's minimal output in those rounds. One flurry with nothing significant landed does not win you a round when it's all you did.

[DiegoFuego]

You can stop talking because after posting those Compubox numbers, I've stopped listening. Nothing can convince me that Jones would ever beat Tarver at any point in history. Jones himself said it after the third fight that Tarver would always cause him problems because he's a tall southpaw. If you hate Tarver, don't worry because he's setting himself up to be KO'ed by a heavyweight. But please, no matter how much you hate a fighter, don't discredit him by the out of their prime excuse.

I just wanted to add that Corrales was out of his prime when he lost to Mayweather so that win by Mayweather really means nothing. Just so we get that cleared up.

[DiegoFuego]

Go back and watch the fight.

Tarver rarley threw punches in rounds 3-6. He had a breif flurry in each round, where many of the shots were blocked.

Jones was controlling the tempo landing body shots while controlling the center of the ring.

The numbers reflect Tarver's minimal output in those rounds. One flurry with nothing significant landed does not win you a round when it's all you did.

man I just told you I only scored round 6 for Tarver. I gave Jones 3-5.

[Bozo_no no]

Nothing can convince me that Jones would ever beat Tarver at any point in history.

It's too bad that reality conflicts with your spitefull view.

Jones DID beat Tarver.

And I don't care how much you don't like it, Tarver did not beat a prime Roy Jones.

Does that mean he couldn't have? No, but it's not outrageous or unfair to call it like it is.

Tarver lost to and then beat a faded 35 year old Roy Jones who'd struggled to lose 25 pounds of mussle coming back to Lt Heavy from Heavyweight.

If you're going to tell me the Jones that Tarver fought was the same Jones pre 2003, I think that's just as crazy as calling Tarver the better overall fighter.

[DiegoFuego]

I call it like I see it. Roy looked great against a slow heavyweight that couldn't catch him. 8 months later he gets beat up by a hungrier fighter that's chased him HIS ENTIRE LIFE. Why can't you just understand that willpower like Tarver's desire to beat Jones is an intangible more valuable than Jones' speed or reflexes? TARVER ****ING KO'ed JONES after Jones looked great against him a round earlier. Tarver wanted it more and knocked Jones back down to earth, crushing the myth that he was. Roy can't fight when his opponent isn't intimidated. Johnson and Tarver weren't intimidated so they knocked his ****in head off. I would LOVE to have seen Jones give Hopkins or Toney a rematch in 2002-2003 just to see a complete turnaround fight.

[BLOODSHED]

Exactly, just admit Tarver was the better man.

I dont care Tarver too I might add. I was going for Jones, but was tricked into believing he would try to win that fight.

Roy Jones fans are the KINGS of excuses. Klitschko fans, you have been surpassed! Why can't Roy fans admit Tarver is the better fighter? He arguably drew with Jones in the first fight, knocked him out in the second fight, and dominated Roy in the third and final fight. Roy showed nothing against Tarver to suggest he is the better fighter.

[BLOODSHED]

Roy was clearly past his best when he lost to Tarver, no one denies that. But he was good enough to beat him. Just like Kostya was good enough to beat Hatton.

It's simple, because Roy was past his best when Tarver beat him.

And that first fight was not "arguably" a draw. If you don't know how to score a fight it was.

It was clearly a win for Jones after he took the 11th and 12th.

With this logic, that would be like saying Taylor is better than Hopkins because he beat him back to back at the end of his career.

Tarver deserves props for being the 1st man to truely beat Roy.

But if you actually believe he's the better fighter as a whole as far as history's concerned, let me hear you say that so I can call you an idiot.

[Bozo_no no]

Why can't you just understand that willpower like Tarver's desire to beat Jones is an intangible more valuable than Jones' speed or reflexes? TARVER ****ING KO'ed JONES after Jones looked great against him a round earlier. Tarver wanted it more and knocked Jones back down to earth, crushing the myth that he was.

Why can't I understand? Because you're asking me to understand something from a biased, spiteful, and ignorant point of view.

This is your opinion, and just like calling the 1st Jones Tarver fight a draw, your "opinion" is in a tiny minority.

You seal the deal and confirm your ignorance with your last statement that I've underlined. To call the greatest fighter of this generation and a Hall of Fame legend a "myth" does nothing but show how spitefull and biased you are.

Jones was past his best when Tarver beat him (on his 2nd try after losing the 1st go around), and for you to suggest that Tarver and Johnson would have done the same thing to Jones years earlier when he was untouchable shows how much your opinion is worth.

Tarver barely beat Roy at 34 coming off all that weight loss.

You're telling me he would have beat him years earlier when his speed and reflexes were at their peak?

Please.

You're a bitter and spitefull poster. 90% of that which I read from you is hating a boxer like they stole something from you.

[DiegoFuego]

Tarver 2, Roy 1

[Bozo_no no]

Tarver 2, Roy 1

Roy had a better career.

I wonder which one of your two points posted here is more significant...