Objectively, how good is Antonio Tarver?

[blockhead]

good enough to beat the most over rated boxer of our generation twice.

[THE REAL NINJA]

The pre-2000 Tarver was a far better fighter than the guy who beat up a ridiculously faded Jones Jr and the average journeyman Glen Johnson. He had a good right jab and counter left uppercut.

Tarver was a very good amateur, beat Jirov in 1995 at World Games if I'm not mistaken (Jirov was THE GOODS in his amateur career), and he was robbed against Roy Jones Jr in the final of the 1982 Sunshine State Games before becoming a crack head (seeing Jones Jr at the Olympics in 1988 inspired Tarver to start boxing again).

Guy had tools, but is very, very old now.. and was over-rated like **** these last two or three years.

Tarver also lost to Jirov in the Olympics....but anyways he's good just not as good as he thinks he is.I think more then any thing he was in the right place at the right time ..I guess i think of him as a little better then a Joppy but not as good as a B-Hop or a 7 on a scale of 10

[ROSEWOOD]

Note that I'm saying "objectively".

Because the fact is, I really don't know. I've seen just half a dozen Tarver fights (his last six, basically) and I've seen the guy beat a severely faded Roy Jones (arguably) three times. I've also seen him have two close fights (again, you can argue he won both) with Glen Johnson, a solid if unremarkable pro who's rep was, like Tarver's, boosted by KOing and old Roy.

Both seemed to flatter Tarver, in a smoke and mirrors kind of way, then last week he gets hopelessly outclassed (though possibly weight drained, ironically) by a blown-up middleweight. Tarver was P4P top ten(ish), and it wasn't even close.

So just how good is the guy?

your average fight that fought the right guy at the right time to win the championship belt...that it

[boski]

He is a ****in bum! Period!

[DiegoFuego]

Tarver was only good because of his motivation to beat Roy Jones Jr. Since he did that, he lost all the hunger a fighter needs to make it. He looked bad against Johnson the first time, which motivated him to come back and win going away in the rematch. He beat Roy in the third fight for money, and after that, he had nothing left to give boxing. If ever a fighter was in it for himself, it was Tarver. He crushed his boyhood nemesis Roy and made his money, and that's where the train stops.

[Kendo]

i beg to differ. he was motivated to beat roy yes. not motivated enough in the first fight. but ok he comes back and beats an aged roy twice. you say he has nothing left that was his big horrah in his mind. what about when roy said it was hard to get up for tarver bc he had done everything he wanted to do. all he wanted to do was win a HW title. he did that. than tarver seen the chance to get up on a weak RJJ. he beat johnson who cares someone roy also would have dominated in his prime. tarver is really nothing. he talks about how RJJ didnt fight anyone he fought all the same guys to get where he is now. if someone has a title belt im sorry they are the champ and thats who RJJ went after titles. tarver is very very overated. he had alot to fight for in this fight with hops too. he said it himself i am going to kill another legend that is what i am basing my focus on. he had alot to fight for. but he got his ass handed to him and people are trying to make excuses for him when you know that he is sitting at home with the pipe and the dollar bill sitting next to him thinking of excuses. he is just an overated fighter and will always be an overated fighter.

[TheGreat1]

in my opinion, one of the weakest lhw champs of the last 20 years. tarver is the same guy who got his ass handed to him twice by harding before landing a lucky punch and had a lower punch output then a 37 year old journeyman, glen johnson.

arnt they the same age?