Thread: Jones- Tarver 1

Who else thinks this was a robbery. A draw is ok but the other two judges,.. wow even ring magazine had Jones ahead surprisingly

I had Jones in a close 1. Tarver tried to steal the rounds by fighting the last 30 seconds but Jones did his usual pot shots to the body and flurried here and there to take the decision. Jones should have never fought Tarver to begin with.

I had Jones winning the first fight. He out fought Tarver who just flurried to steal rounds. Jones landed the cleaner shots.

It was a fairly close fight, Jones finished the stronger man and completely won the 12th round.

I think the only people who could have scored it as a win for Tarver either wanted to see Roy loose or weren't used to seeing Jones struggle in a fight and let that taint the scoring.

Just because he slightly edged a round when you're used to seeing him completely dominate a round... it doesn't mean that he didn't slightly edge the round.

I had it a draw but was glad Jones got the decision, he should never have come back after that.

im a huge jones fan and wanted him to win but i just see no way he could of won that fight. He was outlanding him big and Jones was feinting the whole fight. Tarver was the better guy. HBO mustve effected people's views

I completely agree with the poster who said that people were overreacting to seeing Jones in a close fight for once. This is the same in any fight where prime versions of Shane Mosley, Floyd Mayweather, etc get hit. They've just blasted the guy from pillar to post and then when they themselves get tagged with a grazing punch the crowd and announcers go crazy! It's silly. Jones just picked up Tarver's slack. That's what happened with Cotto and Clottey, Mayweather - De la Hoya and various other matchups to differing degrees. There was nothing glorious about it. No horrendous robbery. It was just an awkward fight to score.



In case someone is interested, what follows is an article I wrote on the Tarver - Jones trilogy at it's conclusion in 2005. Many, myself included, were still coming to terms with the Punch Heard 'Round the World.



THE TARVER - JONES TRILOGY
Monday, November 28, 2005
by Dadi Astthorsson



I wonder if people understand why Superman has fallen. Why Antonio Tarver is so perfectly suited to beat Roy Jones Jr, who historically will always remain the greater fighter.

Many people do not comprehend how he can lose to a light heavyweight when he can beat heavyweights. The truth is that if Jones were still fighting at heavyweight, he would probably be unbeaten (not counting the first Montell Griffin fight). There are few fighters with the proper skill set to derail Jones at heavyweight. Only Chris Byrd and James Toney offer the kind of tactical acumen to challenge Roy in the big boy league - curiously they are both former middleweights like Roy. In fact, the only other viable fighters from 160 lbs upwards are Bernard Hopkins and Antonio Tarver. Not Jermain Taylor, not Vitali Klitschko and not Glen Johnson. Johnson is the kind of fighter anyone will lose to unless they bring their A game, but not a highly skilled performer. (NOTE: I am not ignoring that a much larger man like a Klitschko could beat any smaller man by that very virtue... I'm arguing simply from a styles standpoint. I am not interested in discussing the unpredictable.)


Some people don't see why Jones didn't try harder in the third match. It wasn't a question of trying, but rather it was the tactical brilliance of Tarver and his mastermind trainer Buddy McGirt in both planning and execution of an elaborate gameplan set specifically to offset Jones. Tarver, like no other, shuts people down. His style isn't pretty, but it's very effective.

Watch the third fight and imagine you are Roy Jones for a minute. Look at your opponent. He's taller than you, bigger than you and he's not going for your feints (the best in the business). He's staying always exactly in middle range and you can't get him to lead. He's got his guard up and his chin down. All you can hope for is to use your own movement to initiate the action, steering and turning him. You have to keep moving and feinting so he'll open up that defensive shell of his.

In the second fight of the trilogy, Jones didn't try to get Tarver to lead, but aggressively attacked whatever openings he could find... mostly body shots. In the second he went for a right hand to the head and got caught with a monstrous left swipe from Tarver. Game over. A Tarver in tiptop shape presents you with a puzzle that can only be picked apart slowly and methodically.

I'm not sure Jones could have beaten Tarver even during his prime. It's a tactical match, unlike prospective contests with the comparatively slow and lumbering heavyweights he should be preying on right now. There are certain things that a smaller man can get away with against larger fighters (Jones did against David Telesco, Richard Hall, Derrick Harmon, Julio Gonzalez, Glen Kelly, Clinton Woods and John Ruiz) because they are tactically incomplete. Montell Griffin and Eric Harding gave the first hints at how to beat RJJ: Tactical maneuvering. Virgil Hill might actually have been a big threat to Jones, had he been slightly younger and equipped with a solid gameplan. He had the tools for the job. Tarver has both the tools for the job and the brain in his corner to come up with the right plan.

Some people are whining and saying Jones didn't throw enough punches and that he cheated them out of their PPV money. You don't just jump straight in and throw punches at a world class fighter like Antonio Tarver. He'll knock your block off. You have to maneuver your opponent into position before you start firing. Tarver didn't exactly play along.

The fact that Jones didn't deliver on the unrealistic expectations of others does not change the reality of the puzzle presented to him by Antonio Tarver. If one pays to watch a Jones - Tarver fight, what you'll get (if both fighters are in proper physical condition and employing the best conceivable gameplan) is the tactical match that came to fruition the last time they met. During the second match, Roy was overly aggressive and paid the price. He's already given us what people think he ought to have done.

Jones was, for a more than a decade, on an incredible winning streak (again not counting Griffin I). Roy, just like John Wooden did with the UCLA Bruins, ran the same plays, the same style, for such a long time because he did it better than anyone else. It took Buddy McGirt via Antonio Tarver to finally exploit the weaknesses of this style. It can't be done in any other way than shown in the methodical performance of Antonio Tarver.

I think people were just surprised that Jones didn't dominate Tarver like he had most people, but I had him up by a fair bit in the first fight, I think a draw is kind of crazy, Tarver did well early, but most rounds Roy landed a lot more punches cleanly.

Originally Posted by Taeth

I think people were just surprised that Jones didn't dominate Tarver like he had most people, but I had him up by a fair bit in the first fight, I think a draw is kind of crazy, Tarver did well early, but most rounds Roy landed a lot more punches cleanly.

Totally agree! It was the closest fight he had been in since the first Griffin fight but I thought he was still a close but clear winner.

Had this fight happened before he moved up to HW I think he would have either KO'd or certainly won by a wide unanimous decision.

I didn't really see this as a close/controversial fight at all, people cried robbery because they wern't used to see Roy Jones Jr in a close fight. I had the fight dead even going into the 11th round.

And Roy Jones Jr clearly won the last 2 rounds making it 7-5 on my card, it could of possibly been 7-4-1 though.

Roy Jones Jr didn't need to take the rematch he clearly won this fight, Antonio Tarver would try and steal rounds with flurries at the end of the round.

But in my mind this was a clear win for Roy Jones Jr.

Originally Posted by gest12645

im a huge jones fan and wanted him to win but i just see no way he could of won that fight. He was outlanding him big and Jones was feinting the whole fight. Tarver was the better guy. HBO mustve effected people's views

What ? this was an easy fight to score. The fight was close until the last 2 rounds, where Roy Jones Jr clearly won the last 2 rounds, winning by atleast a few points.

What the hell did Antonio Tarver do ? Roy Jones Jr may of been landing only one punch at a time.

But atleast he was consistent throughout the round, where as Antonio Tarver would do nothing until the end of the round.

Antonio Tarver lost the middle rounds big, and he lost the championship rounds big.

This wasn't a hard fight to score at all IMO, the rounds were all pretty easy to score. And Roy Jones Jr clearly proved he was the better man winning the last 2 rounds.

I don't think total robbery, or robbery at all really... But some of the score cards makes you wonder if they got their judging license free with their last pair of contact lenses...
One of the worst aspects of boxing, is that in a clearly even fight, or even a relatively one sided fight, a supposedly world class level judge can sometimes score it blindingly wrong in a way that they should be taken out the back and shot.. Let alone allowed to continue judging... All judges should have an analysis scorecard, and after a bunch of shit decisions, should be handed a huge please explain, then kicked out if they don't get their eyes checked..

Jones won this fight.

Tarver would have effective 5-10 second flurries along the ropes, and then he would do absolutely NOTHING the rest of the round.

Tarver has only himself to blame for losing this fight. He had a tired weight-drained Jones and just didn't throw enough punches to win.

I had it 114-114

One of thee most boring trilogies ever.

The only thing that made this fight, was the knock out.

Who won the first fight? It really doesnt matter who I thought won, it wont change nothing.