BoxRec

Booker was great.

Booker wasn't great but he was really good... He won 66 of 79 fights beating Lloyd Marshall and Holman Williams on points with his good skills. In the odd fight he went for broke, when he felt he had the upper hand -- knocking out Archie Moore and Harry Matthews. He knocked Moore down many times and kept pounding him until the referee jumped in. He was a guy you heard the old timers talk about.

The thing Archie Moore had over almost any other boxer was his ability to absorb innumerable knockdowns and even KO losses. Archie shook them off, and showed up for another fight in short order.. Like Jake LaMotta, he didn't show any signs of deteriorating mental capacity until he was well into his 80's.

Booker had to retire from a detached retina right in the peak of his prime. Monzon was a guy who had to do the same before his prime and he had already beaten great fighters.

golden oldie wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

golden oldie wrote:Name me some other genuine ATG's who got KTFO by one up from journeymen types when they were still anywhere near their primes.

Johnson was a contender, not a journeyman. He had lost to several boxers. If you call that a journeyman, then I will step up to the challenge. I'll name five that leap out at me.

Mike Tyson lost to Buster.
Lennox Lewis lost to McCall.
Archie Moore lost to Eddie Booker.
Ken Norton lost to Jose Luis Garcia.
Max Schmeling lost to Gipsy Daniels.

I wrote Johnson was ONE UP from a journeyman, as evidenced by the fact that everytime he stepped up in class he lost more often than not. After the Tarver " shock " Glenn was probably seen as the best / easiest option for Roy Jones to get a title back.

Sorry, you must have missed my post. You asked someone to name someone. I named 5.

I don't think I've ever seen that guy quote a post and actually comment on the content. Granted. I have him on ignore but you still catch posts.

golden oldie wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
I wrote Johnson was ONE UP from a journeyman, as evidenced by the fact that everytime he stepped up in class he lost more often than not. After the Tarver " shock " Glenn was probably seen as the best / easiest option for Roy Jones to get a title back.

Sorry, you must have missed my post. You asked someone to name someone. I named 5.

Ok, by your own logic was the 42 - 1 underdog Douglas a CONTENDER?

If a guy with a record of W2 - L2 - D1 at 175 is considered a " contender " then that division is in a pretty crap state at that time. And it is hardly a case of Glenn setting the world on fire at Middle or S/ Middle either is it? He had already been beaten 7 times at those weights. Some contender.

And please pass on the message to the anti anyone NON American sad fuk to honour his threat of putting me on ignore. Fantasists, and weirdo's I can do without.

Johnson was a very capable fighter and had some good results running up to that fight.

Two questions for you....

1. Do you class Buster Douglas going into the Tyson fight as a contender?

2. Would you class a boxer with a 33-17-4 record a contender or a journeyman?

golden oldie wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Ok, by your own logic was the 42 - 1 underdog Douglas a CONTENDER?

If a guy with a record of W2 - L2 - D1 at 175 is considered a " contender " then that division is in a pretty crap state at that time. And it is hardly a case of Glenn setting the world on fire at Middle or S/ Middle either is it? He had already been beaten 7 times at those weights. Some contender.

And please pass on the message to the anti anyone NON American sad fuk to honour his threat of putting me on ignore. Fantasists, and weirdo's I can do without.

Johnson was a very capable fighter and had some good results running up to that fight.

Two questions for you....

1. Do you class Buster Douglas going into the Tyson fight as a contender?

2. Would you class a boxer with a 33-17-4 record a contender or a journeyman?

A bit of perspective is required. In the run up to the Jones fight Johnson lost to both Harmon and Gonzales, beaten Eric Harding who in his previous fight had been stopped in 5 by Tarver, Drawn with and beaten Clinton Woods.

Clinton himself had been taken apart by Jones in 2002, so there was nothing to indicate Glenn would give Jones any trouble.

I already asked you whether or not you considered the 42 - 1 underdog Douglas to be a contender.

As for your second question, as I have already stated the division would need to be in a bad state at the time if a guy with a record of 33 - 17 - 4 was considered a contender. And it would be a huge upset if that guy fought and beat the reigning champion.

Yes I do class Buster as a contender going into that fight. Can you please just clarify if you class him as a contender?

The guy with the 33-17-4 record is Freddie Pendleton who had just won a world title. Records aren't everything. Freddie was a solid contender for years,

golden oldie wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
A bit of perspective is required. In the run up to the Jones fight Johnson lost to both Harmon and Gonzales, beaten Eric Harding who in his previous fight had been stopped in 5 by Tarver, Drawn with and beaten Clinton Woods.

Clinton himself had been taken apart by Jones in 2002, so there was nothing to indicate Glenn would give Jones any trouble.

I already asked you whether or not you considered the 42 - 1 underdog Douglas to be a contender.

As for your second question, as I have already stated the division would need to be in a bad state at the time if a guy with a record of 33 - 17 - 4 was considered a contender. And it would be a huge upset if that guy fought and beat the reigning champion.

Yes I do class Buster as a contender going into that fight. Can you please just clarify if you class him as a contender?

The guy with the 33-17-4 record is Freddie Pendleton who had just won a world title. Records aren't everything. Freddie was a solid contender for years,

No I don't consider Douglas as a contender going into that fight. I considered him to be the same as the odds makers, nothing more than a sacrificial lamb to boost Tyson's record to 38 - 0.

In his only previous attempt at winning a World title he quit against Tucker in a fight he was far from losing. A ploy which caused his own father / trainer to publicly label him a DOG. So NO I don't consider him to have been a contender.

Pendleton.

Which he promptly lost in his second defence and then proceeded to lose the majority of the fights in which he stepped up in class, as was the case prior to winning his Lightweight title.

You said, "Name me some other genuine ATG's who got KTFO by one up from journeymen types when they were still anywhere near their primes"

I gave you five and I don't get even as much as a thank you.

golden oldie wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
No I don't consider Douglas as a contender going into that fight. I considered him to be the same as the odds makers, nothing more than a sacrificial lamb to boost Tyson's record to 38 - 0.

In his only previous attempt at winning a World title he quit against Tucker in a fight he was far from losing. A ploy which caused his own father / trainer to publicly label him a DOG. So NO I don't consider him to have been a contender.

Pendleton.

Which he promptly lost in his second defence and then proceeded to lose the majority of the fights in which he stepped up in class, as was the case prior to winning his Lightweight title.

You said, "Name me some other genuine ATG's who got KTFO by one up from journeymen types when they were still anywhere near their primes"

I gave you five and I don't get even as much as a thank you.

Now you have admitted they are " one up from journeymen " ( which is precisely what I labelled Glenn Johnson ) you can pat yourself on the back, and apply for a blue peter badge.

You might like to learn to read what posters write before jumping in to reply to what you think they wrote. So to reiterate this is what I posted.

Name me some other genuine ATG's who got KTFO by one up from journeymen types when they were still anywhere near their primes.

For your information Booker was never KTFO by anyone.

You could also learn to read the posts. As it was Moore who was knocked out, not Booker.

golden oldie wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Now you have admitted they are " one up from journeymen " ( which is precisely what I labelled Glenn Johnson ) you can pat yourself on the back, and apply for a blue peter badge.

You might like to learn to read what posters write before jumping in to reply to what you think they wrote. So to reiterate this is what I posted.




For your information Booker was never KTFO by anyone.

You could also learn to read the posts. As it was Moore who was knocked out, not Booker.

My bad for not explaining myself properly.

Booker was no journeyman, or even one up from a journeyman. In 76 fights he had been beaten a mere 5 times. Coincidentally the same amount of defeats another of your examples had going into the Lewis fight. The difference being of course Oliver contrived to lose 5 times in 29 fights, not 76.

Oh, and in 1944 Archie Moore was considered far from being an ATG. Similarly Lewis wasn't considered an ATG when he lost to McCall.

So you have failed again in your desperation to compare someone as ordinary as Glenn Johnson KTFO a guy considered an ATG, and in the top 5 p4p at the time.

Buster Douglas was a contender, how can you not see that? He was rated highly going into the fight following back to back wins over McCall and Berbick.

Ken Norton lost to Jose Luis Garcia.
Max Schmeling lost to Gipsy Daniels.

Are those two good enough for you?

golden oldie wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Now you have admitted they are " one up from journeymen " ( which is precisely what I labelled Glenn Johnson ) you can pat yourself on the back, and apply for a blue peter badge.

You might like to learn to read what posters write before jumping in to reply to what you think they wrote. So to reiterate this is what I posted.




For your information Booker was never KTFO by anyone.

You could also learn to read the posts. As it was Moore who was knocked out, not Booker.

My bad for not explaining myself properly.

Booker was no journeyman, or even one up from a journeyman. In 76 fights he had been beaten a mere 5 times. Coincidentally the same amount of defeats another of your examples had going into the Lewis fight. The difference being of course Oliver contrived to lose 5 times in 29 fights, not 76.

Oh, and in 1944 Archie Moore was considered far from being an ATG. Similarly Lewis wasn't considered an ATG when he lost to McCall.

So you have failed again in your desperation to compare someone as ordinary as Glenn Johnson KTFO a guy considered an ATG, and in the top 5 p4p at the time.

Buster Douglas was a contender, how can you not see that? He was rated highly going into the fight following back to back wins over McCall and Berbick.

Ken Norton lost to Jose Luis Garcia.
Max Schmeling lost to Gipsy Daniels.

Are those two good enough for you?

golden oldie wrote: Clinton himself had been taken apart by Jones in 2002, so there was nothing to indicate Glenn would give Jones any trouble.

I already asked you whether or not you considered the 42 - 1 underdog Douglas to be a contender

If you look at Roy Jones's record and Glen Johnson's record you think Roy should be a prohibitive favorite---but styles make fights and Roy hated to fight attackers or guys who stayed on you for 3 minutes a round. But Johnson didn't always fight that way. He certainly didn't against Hopkins. In certain fights like Chad Dawson, Johnson attacked like crazy and most people think Glen won their first fight. That's how you fight a boxer.

That's the way Henry Armstrong fought 95% of the time, and he lost a significant number of fights to tough, strong, brawler types who could hit... Some guys ate his lunch, but he ran over light hitting boxers because he didn't let them breathe. Johnson didn't butt you, shove you, and shoulder you around the ring like Armstrong, but he was capable of staying on you for 3 minutes if you liked to work outside exclusively and take your time. The funny thing is that Glen always told everybody he could beat Roy and not a soul ever believed him. When you're so positive you can score a major upset you tend to train like never before because not even your friends believe you'll win. You can tell when people are lying to you and shining you on.

Douglas caught a lot of jokes and bizarre comments from friends before the Tyson fight. He wasn't amused at all. His mother had absolute faith in him and a few genius level bettors who liked the odds and that's about it... His dad taught him to box from the time he was 3 and he didn't think he'd win... Holyfield didn't even say who'd win. When asked he said, "I think it might go 5 or 6. It'll go a few because Buster looks to be in great shape."

golden oldie wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
My bad for not explaining myself properly.

Booker was no journeyman, or even one up from a journeyman. In 76 fights he had been beaten a mere 5 times. Coincidentally the same amount of defeats another of your examples had going into the Lewis fight. The difference being of course Oliver contrived to lose 5 times in 29 fights, not 76.

Oh, and in 1944 Archie Moore was considered far from being an ATG. Similarly Lewis wasn't considered an ATG when he lost to McCall.

So you have failed again in your desperation to compare someone as ordinary as Glenn Johnson KTFO a guy considered an ATG, and in the top 5 p4p at the time.

Buster Douglas was a contender, how can you not see that? He was rated highly going into the fight following back to back wins over McCall and Berbick.

Ken Norton lost to Jose Luis Garcia.
Max Schmeling lost to Gipsy Daniels.

Are those two good enough for you?

Douglas was rated as NOTHING going into the Tyson ffs. Your reputation as a quitter doesn't disappear on the strength of beating Berbick and McCall in his 17th fight. Douglas lay down in the White fight, quit in the Tucker fight, and NO ONE outside of his family gave him a cat in hell's chance of beating Tyson.

You convince yourself he was a legitimate contender if you wish. You might also like to convince yourself there actually was a Batman and Robin.

You come across as quite an angry person, maybe you need to just take a breath and calm yourself.

So are you saying Douglas was better or worse than Johnson going into the Tyson and Jones fights respectively?

I think there are elements of a few dynamics on this one.

Like any inconsistent fighter, you have to look at best and worst. Anyone who was exposed to ONLY Buster's best performances must have known that he had a genuine shot.

However....with that said, his down side is what most were assessing at the time.

You have a guy in Buster who has proven to be a bit weak minded on occasion......versus Tyson who was considered to not only be damn good, but also a proven ability to psyche his opponents into being beaten before they arrived.

So.....(as Kalan reminds us) the media and the gestalt emotional train were hard at work defining this fight as a given before it started.


Where I differ with Kalan, is that Kalan apparently (in this case) describes some folks as "genius betters" I'd say they were simply guys who assessed that the very best of Buster was going to show up based on his personal stuff. Now how anyone could (with any genuine absurdness) predict that Buster was going to take his life drama and forge a willfulness to succeed he had never really shown before is beyond me.

I'd say they were lucky.....even though I agree that he had the tools, I wasn't sure he had the inner fortitude to overcome Mike's psyche powers and bring those tools to work that day. But he stayed focused and only allowed his very best to participate in that fight.

But over and over again, we see examples of guys with that great tool belt being bested by fighters who have a knack for scaring the kids.

Buster's "kid" did not show up that day. So I suppose Kalan see's that as genius on behalf of those betters........and to some degree he's right. But Buster's mom's passing could have made Buster give up on himself. I think you'd need to be pretty close to the action to see in advance just which Buster was going to arrive on that night.

Or be willing to take a pretty big chance based on those set of occurrences.

golden oldie wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Douglas was rated as NOTHING going into the Tyson ffs. Your reputation as a quitter doesn't disappear on the strength of beating Berbick and McCall in his 17th fight. Douglas lay down in the White fight, quit in the Tucker fight, and NO ONE outside of his family gave him a cat in hell's chance of beating Tyson.

You convince yourself he was a legitimate contender if you wish. You might also like to convince yourself there actually was a Batman and Robin.

You come across as quite an angry person, maybe you need to just take a breath and calm yourself.

So are you saying Douglas was better or worse than Johnson going into the Tyson and Jones fights respectively?

Don't confuse sarcasm with anger. I think both were no hoper's going into the respective fights, hence the consensus view the wins were " upsets ". Make of that what you will.

You said Douglas and Johnson are both at the same level (no hopers), so there is the answer to the question you posed.

Name me some other genuine ATG's who got KTFO by one up from journeymen types when they were still anywhere near their primes.

The answer. is Mike Tyson. You answered it yourself.

Eddie Booker gets his long overdue hof induction.

Kalan,

I think we can agree that Pazienza was a natural Lightweight who lost to Greg Haugen at 25 in his 25th fight at Lightweight...and then started eating his way out of the division... A super fat Pazienza didn't match up well with Roy Jones...so Roy could do anything to him.. Roy didn't to that to Lou Del Valle or Antonio Tarver who were better match ups for Roy size wise.. and who both parked Roy on his butt.. but Roy couldn't park them on their butts.

I think we can all agree that you've completely missed my point.

Not just any fighter could have knocked out Vinny in the manner that Roy did. Not anyone can finish off an overmatched opponent with a 6 punch combination whilst walking forward. That knockout was based on SKILL not just athleticism.

No, Roy couldn't put Del Valle and Tarver down? And? Styles make fights. But he could put other fighters down who were on their level.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Roy didn't like southpaws, is it a coincidence that he missed fighting so many? I doubt it. Amazing loudons Roy internet bat signal still works after all these years. Your dedication to man love is impressive.

I had to come back. I'd gone too long without reading up on your great knowledge.

Thanks for the kind words. They're very much appreciated.


How many southpaws did Roy miss?

He fought a lot of southpaws. Some good, some not so good:

Byrd
Grant
Del Valle
Frazier
Johnson
Harding
Hall
Harmon
Tarver x 3
Calzaghe
Lebedev

That's 13 fights.

The noticeable ones he missed were:

Roch, Nunn and Liles.

Nunn wanted to fight him, but Liles didn't, and HBO at one point didn't want Roch as an opponent.

I'd like to know how many he missed, especially ones that were viable.

Kalan,

He would have... He would destroy him a lot quicker than somebody like Kirkland Laing... As for Benitez.. he was done at 25 when Matt Hilton iced him

And it's GGG... It's not GG you imbecile.

You've made some awful posts, but surely this has to top the list.


I'd really think before calling someone else an imbecile if I were you.

Why can't I call him GG, which is obviously short for Gennady Golovkin?

You don't write 'GGG' so what's the difference?


Instead of looking at my abbreviations, concentrate more on trying to make some relevant points.

Golden Oldie,

So, just to clarify, Roy can't be considered an ATG, due to him losing in the manner that he did against the likes of Johnson?

golden oldie,

Something like that. We'll put aside the PED use for a moment, but let me give you an example of someone whose ATG status shouldn't be reduced due to being sparked.

Larry Holmes was 38, hadn't been in the ring for 21 months, and got sparked by a 21 year old guy reckoned to be one of the most devastating punchers of that time. That in any right thinking persons mind should give Larry a pass.

I agree regarding Larry. But it's absolutely laughable to say that Roy isn't an ATG. It's a joke.

Roy Jones on the other hand was 35 and only 14, then 18 months away from being praised as the best thing since sliced bread due to him being the first Middleweight to win a version of the Heavy title since Bob Fitz. Then of course there the facts that both Tarver and Johnson were older than Roy Jones, and neither were seen as devastating punchers.

You're so biased.

1. All those guys are practically the same age.

2. Antonio Tarver didn't turn pro until he was about 28. He'd only had about 22 fights when he fought Roy.

3. A fighter isn't young at 35, especially if he's had 50 fights and gone up and down in weight.

4. Roy never looked as sharp after he'd lost muscle to drop back down to LHW to fight Tarver. And the same thing happened to Tarver himself, as well as Chris Byrd and Chad Dawson.

I'm totally uninterested in the length of career argument, because it could well be argued Johnson had a far harder career than Jones at that point in time. Also Roy Jones fans can't have their cake and eat it, by claiming the guy was an untouchable genius who could knock guys over at will, then say he had a long and tough career as an excuse for him losing.

Well of course you're uninterested in the length of his career. Because again, you're completely biased.

Again, there are no excuses. Tarver deserves an enormous amount of credit for his win. But you have to note that he couldn't knock Roy out in their first fight when Roy was absolutely exhausted.

Regarding Johnson, again, I also give him credit. But in my honest opinion, he was in the right place at the right time.

Do you honestly believe that Glen Johnson would have beaten Roy before he went up to HW? If you say yes, I won't believe you.

Nobody can go on forever.


Yes, it's fair to say that other ATG's didn't fall as fast and as hard as Roy. But that does wipe out everything that Roy had done up to that point.


Any boxing fan who was objective would rate Roy as an ATG.

He had over 10 years of absolute dominance.

He won titles in 4 weight classes.

He barely lost rounds.

He made decent top 10 ranked guys look like absolute nobodies.

He has a good resume.


If Roy isn't an ATG, then what the hell is your criteria??


Again, it's just a joke.

I know a lot of people who dislike Roy for a number of reasons, but you're the only guy I've ever come across who doesn't think he's an ATG.

He's a bonafide ATG.

golden oldie,

The most hilarious part of your post is you have the temerity to accuse me of BIAS. The rest of course is worth almost nothing. Was Ali EVER put to sleep like a dog? Was Foreman? How about Sugar Ray Robinson? Marvin Hagler perhaps.

Temerity?

Ha!

You should be on stage.

I've got to give you credit. Your posts are highly entertaining.


No, Marvin, George, Ray and Ali, weren't put to sleep.

AND???

That means that Roy wasn't an ATG because he was??

A fighter getting put to sleep in his THIRD weight class at 35, after 50 fights??

Wow!

Shocking, right?

He wasn't put to sleep by Tarver, and it was just a great shot that he was caught by. And that happens. Guys like Lennox were put to sleep by the likes of Rahman. It's boxing. The knockout by Johnson was bad, but it was a shot that hit him on the side of the head, just months after the Tarver loss.

And you just want to wipe out everything he did beforehand?

Pathetic.

You are the biggest joke on this forum.

I am even less interested in feeble excuses about a guy who took drugs to enhance his performance, went to Mackie Shilstone to " bulk up " then decided to come back down again to the weight that his 5' 11" frame with its 72" reach was more suited too, than I am in the X factor to be honest.

Both are nonsense.

What are the feeble excuses? Enlighten me.

What nonsense?

A former MW going to HW and back? Yeah, that happens all the time.

The only nonsense here, is your horse manure posts that make me cringe.

Your hero built a reputation fighting bugs and earwigs ( hence he " moved " up from Middle and S / Middle before the threats became unavoidable ) then got sparked by guys that could have fought the likes of Archie Moore, Michael Spinks, or Ezzard Charles at L / Heavy a thousand times and not beaten ANY of them even once.

Ha!

You're absolutely clueless.


Bugs and earwigs?

He moved up from MW and SMW before the threats became unavoidable?

Then he got sparked by guys in Tarver and Johnson, who couldn't have beaten the likes of Charles, Moore and Spinks had they had 1000 attempts?


Oh my.


1. Roy left MW to fight Toney who was classed as the P4P no. 2 fighter in the world at the time.


2. He then left SMW when Liles wouldn't fight him, and a Benn fight couldn't be made due to Don King wanting options.


3. You say: "Then he got sparked by..."

No, Roy moved up to LHW, which was his 3rd weight class, where he beat a lot of good fighters, only eventually losing to Tarver and Johnson, after almost 8 YEARS at the weight, which was after he'd moved back down from HW.


4. Michael Spinks was a great fighter, but we don't know how he'd have fared had he have gone back to LHW like Roy did, and you have to note that Roy had fought an extra 20 fights before losing to Tarver and Johnson.


5. Archie was an ATG, but he LOST to guys who were the calibre of Tarver and Johnson all throughout his career.


6. The same applies to Ezzard Charles.

Roy Jones was only an ATG in your mind, and / or in an era of PPV television.

Yeah, there's only me who thinks Roy was an ATG.


Will you kindly answer the following questions:


1. What is your criteria in determining who qualifies as an ATG?

2. Do you think Glen Johnson would have beaten Roy before he moved up to HW?

3. If Roy had retired after he'd beaten Tarver, would you still not have classed him as an ATG?

4. If you think that Roy was still prime in 2004 and the weight loss wasn't significant, how can you account for guys like Byrd, Dawson and Tarver suffering the same fate?


I'll look forward to your response, which I'm sure will be 100% objective.

Roy Jones suffered a bit from making 175 for Tarver 1... He was well beaten in that fight but gifted a MD on 2 scorecards... It was unreal because his hometown fans booed the decision... I laughed out loud at the decision,. Only in Boxing do we have "flexible" judges like this, so the book says Roy won.

But it was more than 6 months later that Antonio Tarver knocked Roy out in 2 rounds... Roy had time enough to adjust to the weight in the meantime.

Kalan wrote:Roy Jones suffered a bit from making 175 for Tarver 1... He was well beaten in that fight but gifted a MD on 2 scorecards... It was unreal because his hometown fans booed the decision... I laughed out loud at the decision,. Only in Boxing do we have "flexible" judges like this, so the book says Roy won.

But it was more than 6 months later that Antonio Tarver knocked Roy out in 2 rounds... Roy had time enough to adjust to the weight in the meantime.

If you think Roy was well beaten in the first Tarver fight, you need to see an optician.

Buddy McGirt knows who won that fight. In between the rounds, he was constantly asking Tarver if he was okay and why his instructions hadn't been carried out. Yet Tarver just sat there looking despondent.

There was no gift. I suggest you go back and look at it again at some point.

Regarding the rematch, Tarver just caught him with a perfect shot.

loudon wrote:

Kalan wrote:Roy Jones suffered a bit from making 175 for Tarver 1... He was well beaten in that fight but gifted a MD on 2 scorecards... It was unreal because his hometown fans booed the decision... I laughed out loud at the decision,. Only in Boxing do we have "flexible" judges like this, so the book says Roy won.

But it was more than 6 months later that Antonio Tarver knocked Roy out in 2 rounds... Roy had time enough to adjust to the weight in the meantime.

If you think Roy was well beaten in the first Tarver fight, you need to see an optician.

Buddy McGirt knows who won that fight. In between the rounds, he was constantly asking Tarver if he was okay and why his instructions hadn't been carried out. Yet Tarver just sat there looking despondent.

There was no gift. I suggest you go back and look at it again at some point.

Regarding the rematch, Tarver just caught him with a perfect shot.

It was one of those cases where the rounds Tarver won were more exciting and memorable, but he still won less of them than Roy. I had it 115-113 Roy. Tarver just took too many rounds off.