BoxRec

Stu

I had Tarver winning by 2 points. I actually caught the BBC broadcast from a hotel in Belgium so I was a bit bleary eyed when it came on at 12.50am! I saw Woods-Johnson up close and could see that Glengoffe missed with a lot of his shots. In some exchanges he was throwing 6 punches and only landing cleanly with 1 as opposed to Woods who maybe threw 2 retalitory shots and landed them. The fight was really easy to score for Johnson. He was the agressor, threw more leather and looked the boss. If he hadn't have faded down the stretch I would have made him a winner. In fact I had Woods a 1 point winner but I'm not prepared to argue strongly on that!

Lots of people have argued that Tarver can't win rounds based on 30 seconds bursts, but from my telly they were a damn site more effective than Jones single punches. Tarver did hit Jones' arms, but he also registered clean blows as well - Roy's face bares testimony to that.

I don't subscribe to the view that Jones is in decline or shot. I merely think he struggled to take off the weight and delivered a poor performance against a fighter who would, in hindsight, have arguably troubled him at any stage in his career. Jones has dealt with southpaws before, but I still think Tarver's stance and aggression took Jones somewhat by surprise.

Unlike so many of Jones' opponents (discounting Hopkins. Toney & Ruiz), Tarver possessed the self belief that he could win, and what's more he was prepared to take the fight to Jones and had success with the long right. Jones possibly took Tarver lightly, then again who gave him a chance? Jones, for me, didn't box so drastically different to the fighter we've seen at light-heavyweight. Again he had a fondess for throwing single shots and had a reluctance to engage. This time though Tarver wasn't blinded with his speed, kept a tight defence, came forward and let his hands ago andf took advanage of a Jones who was below his best.

Tarver turned out to be a live but still an essentially ordinary opponent. Fo me, Jones' abject performance has taken the gloss of his "legacy" rather than added evidence to Tarver's credentials as a top pound-for-pound fighter.

Fair points Ben,

However I do disagree with you in some respects. I get the impression (from your respected scorecards) that you believe Tarver's agression was a lot more effective than Johnson's. I have to disagree, a lot of Tarver's shot were hitting Jones's gloves. Johnson, on the hand, although missed alot did also put in some nice counters. However, the difference between the two contests was that for the larger periods of each round Jones was in control (i.e. he would be winning 2:30, then Tarver would win the last 30 seconds big). This was not the case with Woods vs Johnson, Johnson alwaysed seemed in control of the action.

Now, I do believe the weight issue was the fundemental aspect of Jones' performance. I have never seen him look ill before a fight, please look at the weigh in pictures on this forum - he's just not healthy. Tarver faught well and set a good pace, however, its not a pace Jones' hasn't handled before confortably - imagine what Stevie Collins would have done! I believe Woods set an equally fast pace but Jones wasn't exhausted after 5 rounds, far from it. Jones' punch output was somewhere similar to Holyfield against Toney. This was all down to the weight making process in my opinion.

I disagree with your statements that only 3 fighters have had the belief they can beat Jones, there's been a lot more who have taken the fight to Jones and seem to have the belief they can win (Woods included). Usually Roy is too good, although he was very poor on Saturday (I scored it 114-114).

So what did you make of Woods' display? I was frankly disappointed and want to Woods revert to his old agression style (ala Ashley and Klemesten) for the rematch. He can win this fight and I believe he can beat Tarver, he'll be up against it because I do think Johnson should have been awarded the championship already.