Reading the Seconds Out section of Boxing News today has reminded me of a question I meant to put out to those blind mice who somehow had Tarver losing his title to Jones last month.
The question is this:
Had the roles been reversed, had Jones been the defending champion and Tarver the challenger, and had it been Jones on the attack several times with 2-fisted flurries with Tarver in the corner not firing back and basically doing nothing more than stealing the odd round with a quick but weak jab, could you HONESTLY have scored that fight to Tarver and taken away Jones's title? HONESTLY. Try to picture it. I bet there isn't a poster here who would have scored the fight to Tarver.
Come on you bums. Worm your way out of this one. 8) 8) 8)
A quick question to those who scored the fight to Jones Jnr
if everything was exactly opposite I would've scored for Tarver, yes.
Listen, I don't like Roy Jones at all and I was glad to see Tarver basically embarrass him, but Jones still won because Tarver was so sporadic. I gave it to Jones by one point because Tarver switched on and off too many times. The rounds Tarver won he won much bigger than Jones in the rounds he won, I just thought Jones won one more.
Listen, I don't like Roy Jones at all and I was glad to see Tarver basically embarrass him, but Jones still won because Tarver was so sporadic. I gave it to Jones by one point because Tarver switched on and off too many times. The rounds Tarver won he won much bigger than Jones in the rounds he won, I just thought Jones won one more.
I have seen the fight 3 times now, once on BBC at the time and twice on the HBO cast and i cannot for the life of me find Jones a winner in any shape of form. People say that Tarver was forcing the fight but most of his punches were not landing, fair argument but what if the other guy (Jones) isn't doing anything! All of Tarver's punches may not of been landing flush i accept that but JONES SIMPLY WASN'T DOING ANYTHING EITHER!!! So who wins the round? Tarver forced the fight, landed better shots, landed more shots, had Jones rattled more than anyone before, controlled the centre of the ring and backed Jones up, Jones only response was pitter patter jabs and very sparse unconvincing combinations which rarely landed flush.
Sorry but i cannot see anyone other than Tarver winning that fight, i had it 116-112.
Sorry but i cannot see anyone other than Tarver winning that fight, i had it 116-112.
Yeah I scored it 116-112 to Jones, Tarver was too sporadic.mrbassie wrote:, but Jones still won because Tarver was so sporadic. I gave it to Jones by one point because Tarver switched on and off too many times. The rounds Tarver won he won much bigger than Jones in the rounds he won, I just thought Jones won one more.
O’boy Kilburn,
I just love a good ruck.
There seems to be a tendency on the part of fans now days to award decisions on the basis of who throws the most punches rather than who lands the most effective and telling blows.
A good judge should be able to tell the difference between effective and ineffective punching.
Example:
Effective - Clean punches to a vital area that land solidly.
Ineffective - Fast-punching combination flurries landing on shoulders, and picked off on the arms and gloves.
U cannot control the center of the ring by posing & absorbing body shots.
Nor win a 3-minute round by 20 second round ending pity pats on the ropes.
(Most of which were slipped & blocked.)
It is well known Steve is a Roy Jones hater. (Revenge is sweet, heh, heh.)
Controlled the center of the ring?
Six ate nine must be the blind mouse Kilburn’s talking about.
U guys should go back and review the tape.
Use slow motion if necessary, maybe a stop watch will help U see who went forward and forced the fight most of the time.
Yers truly,
Mr. Bum 8) 8) 8)
I just love a good ruck.
There seems to be a tendency on the part of fans now days to award decisions on the basis of who throws the most punches rather than who lands the most effective and telling blows.
A good judge should be able to tell the difference between effective and ineffective punching.
Example:
Effective - Clean punches to a vital area that land solidly.
Ineffective - Fast-punching combination flurries landing on shoulders, and picked off on the arms and gloves.
U cannot control the center of the ring by posing & absorbing body shots.
Nor win a 3-minute round by 20 second round ending pity pats on the ropes.
(Most of which were slipped & blocked.)
It is well known Steve is a Roy Jones hater. (Revenge is sweet, heh, heh.)
Controlled the center of the ring?
Six ate nine must be the blind mouse Kilburn’s talking about.
U guys should go back and review the tape.
Use slow motion if necessary, maybe a stop watch will help U see who went forward and forced the fight most of the time.
Yers truly,
Mr. Bum 8) 8) 8)
Actually i am an admirer, i just needed evidence he was human and the Tarver fight provided me with such evidence. I own nearly 20 of his fights, i admire the guys ability and agree he is top 15 P4P of all time IMO.Blue wrote: It is well known Steve is a Roy Jones hater. (Revenge is sweet, heh, heh.)
I can't say I am a Jones fan. But I still had him winning that fight.
I am sorry but I can't score a round to a guy who do NOTHING for 2:30 and then launch a couple of shoots on the robes and land maybe 3-4 of them while the other completly controled the other 2:30 of the round.
The rounds that Tarver won. He won them big. But in the other he was just too passive.
I am sorry but I can't score a round to a guy who do NOTHING for 2:30 and then launch a couple of shoots on the robes and land maybe 3-4 of them while the other completly controled the other 2:30 of the round.
The rounds that Tarver won. He won them big. But in the other he was just too passive.
Blue wrote:O’boy Kilburn,
I just love a good ruck.
There seems to be a tendency on the part of fans now days to award decisions on the basis of who throws the most punches rather than who lands the most effective and telling blows.
A good judge should be able to tell the difference between effective and ineffective punching.
Example:
Effective - Clean punches to a vital area that land solidly.
Ineffective - Fast-punching combination flurries landing on shoulders, and picked off on the arms and gloves.
U cannot control the center of the ring by posing & absorbing body shots.
Nor win a 3-minute round by 20 second round ending pity pats on the ropes.
(Most of which were slipped & blocked.)
Nice attempt at being patronizing Blue!
If Tarver was so "ineffective" then why didn't Jones fight back instead of standing there letting his bruises mount up??
You really need to get a grip of this scoring lark old buddy - and before you say it NO I'm not a "hater", any more than you are one of those disgraceful, blury-eyed "nut-huggers". It's clear that the best of Roy Jones would have pissed all over Tarver no doubt about it. But that in no way excuses giving him a gift decsion and taking away Tarvers title.
Of course Tarver won the fight! I had him winning it by 3 rounds! (and that was giving the 50/50 rounds to Jones!)
Its all about money and PPV contracts and so forth. Jones has to get the decisions because hes more marketiable.....
Look at Ottke vs Reid???
40 million pissed of Germans = promoters get sod all money next time round.
Its all about money and PPV contracts and so forth. Jones has to get the decisions because hes more marketiable.....
Look at Ottke vs Reid???
40 million pissed of Germans = promoters get sod all money next time round.
Kilburn Posted: 15 Dec 2003 09:25
Nice attempt at being patronizing Blue!
I guess U think I’m assuming the manner of airs of a superior toward another.
Yet, I could say U was arrogant in loading up your bait with blind mice & bums.
But I won’t because it’s all in fun as we are here to exchange opinions.
If Tarver was so "ineffective" then why didn't Jones fight back instead of standing there letting his bruises mount up?
Please, If that were true Jones would have not been able to finish the fight.
Jones won the fight because he outsmarted Tarver. 8)
I thought he timed it well and as I said, U can’t win a 3-minute round by a 20 second flurry.
His lack of stamina was obvious, because of his weight loss (mostly muscle) and he was smart enough to go to rope for a rest once he knew he had taken the round.
He simply stole the fight fair & square.
You really need to get a grip of this scoring lark old buddy –
He wait a minute, U aren’t out-patronizing me! old buddy, ol’boy.
Blows on shoulders, arms and gloves count for something but not very much.
The only time Tarver controlled the fight was when Jones let him by resting on the ropes.
It wasn’t because Tarver forced him there.
Roy pressed the fight & controlled the center of the ring the majority of the time.
Though punch stats show Tarver landed more punches (120-111) and threw more (504-424), landing 9 more pity pats aren't enough to impress trained judges.
and before you say it NO I'm not a "hater", any more than you are one of those disgraceful, blury-eyed "nut-huggers".
My comment about Steve hating Roy was just an inside (jab) joke.
The sentence was copied from one of his previous comments about me, only the name was changed.
He took it well… So I hope I haven’t offended U or anybody. 
IMO, name calling is for when one has run out of ideas.
In your case I took it as bait for a jolly good ruck as U say in the UK.
It's clear that the best of Roy Jones would have pissed all over Tarver no doubt about it. But that in no way excuses giving him a gift decsion and taking away Tarvers title.
Tarver was afraid to commit himself because I’m sure he felt Jones’ power in the body shots which was underrated by most of the so called “pundits” in the media.
Let Tarver go back and straighten the other blotch on his record with Harding who clearly beat him in their first fight and was winning the second when he got caught. I think Eric can beat him again.
The crowd, which began overwhelmingly in Jones' favor, saw it differently. It chanted an obscenity after ring announcer Michael Buffer read the decision, clearly believing Tarver should have been rewarded for his effort.
U mean the crowd thought that they should have been rewarded for his effort. 8)
The chants were coming from many sore $$ losers in the crowd that took the attractive 9-1 odds.
Nice attempt at being patronizing Blue!
I guess U think I’m assuming the manner of airs of a superior toward another.
Yet, I could say U was arrogant in loading up your bait with blind mice & bums.
But I won’t because it’s all in fun as we are here to exchange opinions.
If Tarver was so "ineffective" then why didn't Jones fight back instead of standing there letting his bruises mount up?
Please,
If that were true Jones would have not been able to finish the fight. Jones won the fight because he outsmarted Tarver. 8)
I thought he timed it well and as I said, U can’t win a 3-minute round by a 20 second flurry.
His lack of stamina was obvious, because of his weight loss (mostly muscle) and he was smart enough to go to rope for a rest once he knew he had taken the round.
He simply stole the fight fair & square.
You really need to get a grip of this scoring lark old buddy –
He wait a minute, U aren’t out-patronizing me! old buddy, ol’boy.
Blows on shoulders, arms and gloves count for something but not very much.
The only time Tarver controlled the fight was when Jones let him by resting on the ropes.
It wasn’t because Tarver forced him there.
Roy pressed the fight & controlled the center of the ring the majority of the time.
Though punch stats show Tarver landed more punches (120-111) and threw more (504-424), landing 9 more pity pats aren't enough to impress trained judges.
and before you say it NO I'm not a "hater", any more than you are one of those disgraceful, blury-eyed "nut-huggers".
My comment about Steve hating Roy was just an inside (jab) joke.
The sentence was copied from one of his previous comments about me, only the name was changed.
He took it well…
So I hope I haven’t offended U or anybody. IMO, name calling is for when one has run out of ideas.
In your case I took it as bait for a jolly good ruck as U say in the UK.
It's clear that the best of Roy Jones would have pissed all over Tarver no doubt about it. But that in no way excuses giving him a gift decsion and taking away Tarvers title.
Tarver was afraid to commit himself because I’m sure he felt Jones’ power in the body shots which was underrated by most of the so called “pundits” in the media.
Let Tarver go back and straighten the other blotch on his record with Harding who clearly beat him in their first fight and was winning the second when he got caught.
I think Eric can beat him again. The crowd, which began overwhelmingly in Jones' favor, saw it differently. It chanted an obscenity after ring announcer Michael Buffer read the decision, clearly believing Tarver should have been rewarded for his effort.
U mean the crowd thought that they should have been rewarded for his effort.
8) The chants were coming from many sore $$ losers in the crowd that took the attractive 9-1 odds.
Thoroughly, thoroughly unconvincing Blue.
"You can't win a round with a 20 second flurry." This statement sounds to me like you're saying any time Tarver didn't throw punches it meant Jones was winning whether he himself was doing anything or not.
"Landing 9 more pitty pats aren't enough to impress trained judges." If Tarvers punches were pitty pats then what on earth does that say about Jones's shots? He fought like Derrick Gainer for much of that fight. But oh no, Jones forced the fight according to you. OMG I can't believe I'm having this debate.
"Tarver was afraid to commit himself because I’m sure he felt Jones’ power in the body shots." Baseless. Along with other comments like "Jones stole the fight" or "Jones outsmarted Tarver."
"Let Tarver go back and straighten the other blotch on his record with Harding who clearly beat him in their first fight and was winning the second when he got caught. I think Eric can beat him again." Another pointless inclusion. You may be right but so what? This isn't about Tarver being better than Roy Jones this is about Tarver beating a knackered Jones on the night but getting robbed by 3 "trained judges" who clearly did not know what they were looking at.
Please Blue, I urge you to watch your tape again. Although don't ask me to do the same as I happily sent my copy to pocketrocket. One less bum decision fight won't hurt my video library!
8) 8) 8)
"You can't win a round with a 20 second flurry." This statement sounds to me like you're saying any time Tarver didn't throw punches it meant Jones was winning whether he himself was doing anything or not.
"Landing 9 more pitty pats aren't enough to impress trained judges." If Tarvers punches were pitty pats then what on earth does that say about Jones's shots? He fought like Derrick Gainer for much of that fight. But oh no, Jones forced the fight according to you. OMG I can't believe I'm having this debate.
"Tarver was afraid to commit himself because I’m sure he felt Jones’ power in the body shots." Baseless. Along with other comments like "Jones stole the fight" or "Jones outsmarted Tarver."
"Let Tarver go back and straighten the other blotch on his record with Harding who clearly beat him in their first fight and was winning the second when he got caught. I think Eric can beat him again." Another pointless inclusion. You may be right but so what? This isn't about Tarver being better than Roy Jones this is about Tarver beating a knackered Jones on the night but getting robbed by 3 "trained judges" who clearly did not know what they were looking at.
Please Blue, I urge you to watch your tape again. Although don't ask me to do the same as I happily sent my copy to pocketrocket. One less bum decision fight won't hurt my video library!
8) 8) 8)
Kilburn Posted: 16 Dec 2003 14:09
Thoroughly, thoroughly unconvincing Blue.
So far on this thread there are more posters agreeing with my point of view.
"You can't win a round with a 20 second flurry." This statement sounds to me like you're saying any time Tarver didn't throw punches it meant Jones was winning whether he himself was doing anything or not.
It's generally accepted, certainly in the USA where the fight was held, that the fighter who goes forward be given the edge when punches seem to be exchanged fairly evenly.
I like to reward the aggressive attitude, and the fact is that Jones did turn into a slugger halfway through the fight. He wasn't particularly effective, but in my opinion initiative and aggession needs to be rewarded. 8)
Tarver let Jones have all of the middle rounds when he should have been doing the same things he did in the first 2 rounds. Frankly, Jones was there to be beat and Antonio didn't do enough.
In between rounds 2 and 3, Buddy told Tarver to not engage Roy on the ropes and to bring the fight back to the center of the ring.
In Rounds 3-7, Tarver took this advise which led to Roy dominating the center of the ring and eventually winning the fight.
In the center of the ring it was ALL Jones. This cannot be denied.
Tarver stood there and didn't let his hands go, plain and simple.
Ring generalship means being in control of the opponent.
Scoring a round is always sticky when both fighters are neither aggressive nor landing punches.
When one fighter moves away from his opponent to the extent he's not even allowing any contact to take place, I am not going to give that person that round. 8)
"Landing 9 more pitty pats aren't enough to impress trained judges." If Tarvers punches were pitty pats then what on earth does that say about Jones's shots? He fought like Derrick Gainer for much of that fight. But oh no, Jones forced the fight according to you. OMG I can't believe I'm having this debate.
U are talking to yourself and resorting to ridicule.
Jeez man, don’t lose yer mind over it.
"Tarver was afraid to commit himself because I’m sure he felt Jones’ power in the body shots." Baseless. Along with other comments like "Jones stole the fight" or "Jones outsmarted Tarver."
What about comments like? “He fought like Derrick Gainer.”
I repeate the only time Jones moved backwards was when he wanted to rest. 8)
I did see Tarver moving backwards, feinting & flicking ineffective jabs, but little else other than posing & trying to steal rounds with pitty pat flurries in the last ½ minute.
"Let Tarver go back and straighten the other blotch on his record with Harding who clearly beat him in their first fight and was winning the second when he got caught. I think Eric can beat him again." Another pointless inclusion. You may be right but so what?
I wanted to throw that in before U start begging a rematch.
This isn't about Tarver being better than Roy Jones this is about Tarver beating a knackered Jones on the night but getting robbed by 3 "trained judges" who clearly did not know what they were looking at.
That’s just your opinion and U are welcome to it.
But you haven't proved anything to me.
Actually it was a stinking fight and both used a negative strategy. :(
It was a fight that was characterized by a lot of missed and blocked punches, and a lot of posing.
It's clearly possible to witness the same fight as someone else and arrive at a totally different conclusion. I can live with that, can U?
Please Blue, I urge you to watch your tape again. Although don't ask me to do the same as I happily sent my copy to pocketrocket. One less bum decision fight won't hurt my video library!
I watched the fight live with the sound off & Jones won.
(I can’t stand to listen to the commentator’s bias opinion on fighters who have contracts to the same network that they do.)
Since people tend to take more notice of and are more likely to attribute causal links to more recent events, (Psychologists call this “Last event analysis”.) I watched the tape of the fight splitting the rounds into three minutes...Jones won by a bigger margin.
Finaly, I watched with the sound on and listened to the commentary.
All I can say is…U are easily swayed in the moment.
But never…once your mind is made up.
Thoroughly, thoroughly unconvincing Blue.
So far on this thread there are more posters agreeing with my point of view.
"You can't win a round with a 20 second flurry." This statement sounds to me like you're saying any time Tarver didn't throw punches it meant Jones was winning whether he himself was doing anything or not.
It's generally accepted, certainly in the USA where the fight was held, that the fighter who goes forward be given the edge when punches seem to be exchanged fairly evenly.
I like to reward the aggressive attitude, and the fact is that Jones did turn into a slugger halfway through the fight. He wasn't particularly effective, but in my opinion initiative and aggession needs to be rewarded. 8)
Tarver let Jones have all of the middle rounds when he should have been doing the same things he did in the first 2 rounds. Frankly, Jones was there to be beat and Antonio didn't do enough.
In between rounds 2 and 3, Buddy told Tarver to not engage Roy on the ropes and to bring the fight back to the center of the ring.
In Rounds 3-7, Tarver took this advise which led to Roy dominating the center of the ring and eventually winning the fight.
In the center of the ring it was ALL Jones. This cannot be denied.
Tarver stood there and didn't let his hands go, plain and simple.
Ring generalship means being in control of the opponent.
Scoring a round is always sticky when both fighters are neither aggressive nor landing punches.
When one fighter moves away from his opponent to the extent he's not even allowing any contact to take place, I am not going to give that person that round. 8)
"Landing 9 more pitty pats aren't enough to impress trained judges." If Tarvers punches were pitty pats then what on earth does that say about Jones's shots? He fought like Derrick Gainer for much of that fight. But oh no, Jones forced the fight according to you. OMG I can't believe I'm having this debate.
U are talking to yourself and resorting to ridicule.
Jeez man, don’t lose yer mind over it.
"Tarver was afraid to commit himself because I’m sure he felt Jones’ power in the body shots." Baseless. Along with other comments like "Jones stole the fight" or "Jones outsmarted Tarver."
What about comments like? “He fought like Derrick Gainer.”
I repeate the only time Jones moved backwards was when he wanted to rest. 8)
I did see Tarver moving backwards, feinting & flicking ineffective jabs, but little else other than posing & trying to steal rounds with pitty pat flurries in the last ½ minute.
"Let Tarver go back and straighten the other blotch on his record with Harding who clearly beat him in their first fight and was winning the second when he got caught. I think Eric can beat him again." Another pointless inclusion. You may be right but so what?
I wanted to throw that in before U start begging a rematch.
This isn't about Tarver being better than Roy Jones this is about Tarver beating a knackered Jones on the night but getting robbed by 3 "trained judges" who clearly did not know what they were looking at.
That’s just your opinion and U are welcome to it.
But you haven't proved anything to me.
Actually it was a stinking fight and both used a negative strategy. :(
It was a fight that was characterized by a lot of missed and blocked punches, and a lot of posing.
It's clearly possible to witness the same fight as someone else and arrive at a totally different conclusion.
I can live with that, can U? Please Blue, I urge you to watch your tape again. Although don't ask me to do the same as I happily sent my copy to pocketrocket. One less bum decision fight won't hurt my video library!
I watched the fight live with the sound off & Jones won.
(I can’t stand to listen to the commentator’s bias opinion on fighters who have contracts to the same network that they do.)
Since people tend to take more notice of and are more likely to attribute causal links to more recent events, (Psychologists call this “Last event analysis”.) I watched the tape of the fight splitting the rounds into three minutes...Jones won by a bigger margin.
Finaly, I watched with the sound on and listened to the commentary.
All I can say is…U are easily swayed in the moment.
But never…once your mind is made up.