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.