Tarver's lost to Jones already...

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 02 Nov 2003, 09:24

Antonio Tarver is a good fighter, a good puncher and sounds like a good guy from this article by Steve "Tramp" Bunce:

Clinton Woods will fight Glencoffe Johnson, of Jamaica, for the vacant International Boxing Federation light-heavyweight title next Friday at the Hillsborough Leisure Centre in Sheffield if an extra £15,000 in sanctioning fees can be raised by his promoters.
Woods and Johnson were due to fight a final eliminator for the IBF title, but yesterday the champion, Antonio Tarver, decided to vacate just eight days before his planned defence against Roy Jones on 8 November in Las Vegas. Tarver still holds the World Boxing Council version and that will now be the sole offering when he meets Jones, who in March won the World Boxing Association heavyweight title.
It is understood that Tarver will have to give Jones a rematch if he wins and would mean that the winner of next Friday's bout in Sheffield would have a wait of 10 months or more before a title fight if the contest remains merely a planned eliminator for the IBF crown. Woods, who lost to Jones in September 2002, has had to wait patiently for over a year to secure the eliminator so the opportunity to fight Johnson for the vacant title is something that he has welcomed.
However, the IBF's fees for a proper world title, which are expected to be about $20,000 (£11,800), has left next week's promoters, Dennis Hobson and Robert Waterman, short of cash and if they fail to find the fee the fight will remain an eliminator for a vacant title. One option is that the pair request some extra funding from the BBC, whose plan to screen the fight just before midnight could change if it becomes a real title fight.
Woods against Johnson has received the blessing of Tarver, who insists he relinquished his title so that other fighters were not forced to wait years for a chance to fight for the championship. He said: "Jones kept me waiting three years and that is wrong. I hope that Woods and Johnson can fight for my old belt and then one day I can fight the winner."

Forget the good guy stuff. Tarver's being very clever here in my opinion. He knows he's probably going to lose to Jones, and rather than hand over both titles for the forseeable future, he's decided to ditch one in the hope he can challenge for it again after losing.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 02 Nov 2003, 09:46

Bennie, I've heard a different story and one that's frankly more believable. That has apparently come from Tarver's mouth (over at boxingtalk.net).

Basically he's claiming that 'when' he beats Jones, he'll have fight Jones again (rematch clause) which, according to the rules of the IBF, if he does stand by his contractual obligation to Jones - he'll be forced to give up the belt.

So why pay the sanctioning fee's even if he is going to be stripped of the belt within months.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 02 Nov 2003, 09:49

stujones wrote:Bennie, I've heard a different story and one that's frankly more believable. That has apparently come from Tarver's mouth (over at boxingtalk.net).

Basically he's claiming that 'when' he beats Jones, he'll have fight Jones again (rematch clause) which, according to the rules of the IBF, if he does stand by his contractual obligation to Jones - he'll be forced to give up the belt.

So why pay the sanctioning fee's even if he is going to be stripped of the belt within months.

You believe Tarver when he says he's going to beat Jones!

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 02 Nov 2003, 09:50

bennie wrote:
stujones wrote:Bennie, I've heard a different story and one that's frankly more believable. That has apparently come from Tarver's mouth (over at boxingtalk.net).

Basically he's claiming that 'when' he beats Jones, he'll have fight Jones again (rematch clause) which, according to the rules of the IBF, if he does stand by his contractual obligation to Jones - he'll be forced to give up the belt.

So why pay the sanctioning fee's even if he is going to be stripped of the belt within months.
You believe Tarver when he says he's going to beat Jones!

Nope!!

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 02 Nov 2003, 09:51

So don't believe his bullshit about why he's given up the belt then. He just wants a quick shot at the IBF title afterwards.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 02 Nov 2003, 09:57

bennie wrote:So don't believe his bullshit about why he's given up the belt then. He just wants a quick shot at the IBF title afterwards.

Whether I think he can do it is not here or there, surely Tarver thinks he can.

I remember after Sugar Ray Leonard losing to Camacho, when re-announced his intentions to box on (which thankfully never happen). He actually said that he believed he could beat Roy Jones.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 02 Nov 2003, 10:04

stujones wrote:
bennie wrote:So don't believe his bullshit about why he's given up the belt then. He just wants a quick shot at the IBF title afterwards.
Whether I think he can do it is not here or there, surely Tarver thinks he can.

I remember after Sugar Ray Leonard losing to Camacho, when re-announced his intentions to box on (which thankfully never happen). He actually said that he believed he could beat Roy Jones.

Talk's cheap. Don't listen to what fighters say in the build-up to a big fight. Look at Zab Judah and DeMarcus Corley recently?

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 04 Nov 2003, 16:48

stujones wrote:I remember after Sugar Ray Leonard losing to Camacho, when re-announced his intentions to box on (which thankfully never happen). He actually said that he believed he could beat Roy Jones.

It's questionable whether SRL could've beaten Jones in his prime, much less at the time Camacho smashed him back into retirement. You think a middleweight Jones would've let Leonard flurry and pitty-pat his way to win cheap rounds like Hagler did? I doubt it. As a middleweight Jones had just as much handspeed as Leonard, at least as much power as Hagler, and more elusiveness than either.

Anyway, Tommy Hearns said something similar as little as a few years back, and that was after his pathetic showing against Uriah Grant. It's called "a desperate attempt to remain in the news."

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 04 Nov 2003, 17:06

Tarver will beat Jones.

Dont ask me why, I cant justify my pick, but all along I have thought that Tarver will win.

I am putting myself up for ridicule here, but I am as sure as I can be that we are going to see what will be the biggest upset in Boxing history.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 04 Nov 2003, 17:24

knockout artist wrote:Tarver will beat Jones.

Dont ask me why, I cant justify my pick, but all along I have thought that Tarver will win.

I am putting myself up for ridicule here, but I am as sure as I can be that we are going to see what will be the biggest upset in Boxing history.

Jones deserves to be the odds-on favorite, but to my mind the big uncertainty here is Jones' having to really struggle to make weight for the first time in his career. Especially at age 34, first bulking up to 200 lbs. to fight Ruiz (and supposedly he put on even more weight after fight, in anticipation of another big-money heavyweight fight materializing) and then having to drop it all again has to take something out of a fighter. Sugar Ray Robinson did that yo-yo act and was never the same after coming back down in weight. On the other hand, Jones has always been an incredibly disciplined and well-conditioned athlete, and with the kind of fitness and nutrition experts he has on his staff, if anyone can pull off this kind of diet successfully, he can.

On the flip side, the psychological side of the equation, the fact that Jones was willing to come back down from heavyweight indicates that he really wants to make a point vs. Tarver. So it basically comes down to mind over matter, and in just over 4 days, we'll know which winds up on top.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 04 Nov 2003, 17:36

Eric the Viking wrote:
knockout artist wrote:Tarver will beat Jones.

Dont ask me why, I cant justify my pick, but all along I have thought that Tarver will win.

I am putting myself up for ridicule here, but I am as sure as I can be that we are going to see what will be the biggest upset in Boxing history.
Jones deserves to be the odds-on favorite, but to my mind the big uncertainty here is Jones' having to really struggle to make weight for the first time in his career. Especially at age 34, first bulking up to 200 lbs. to fight Ruiz (and supposedly he put on even more weight after fight, in anticipation of another big-money heavyweight fight materializing) and then having to drop it all again has to take something out of a fighter. Sugar Ray Robinson did that yo-yo act and was never the same after coming back down in weight. On the other hand, Jones has always been an incredibly disciplined and well-conditioned athlete, and with the kind of fitness and nutrition experts he has on his staff, if anyone can pull off this kind of diet successfully, he can.

On the flip side, the psychological side of the equation, the fact that Jones was willing to come back down from heavyweight indicates that he really wants to make a point vs. Tarver. So it basically comes down to mind over matter, and in just over 4 days, we'll know which winds up on top.

Good post. I'm astonished Jones has dropped back down to light-heavyweight after his superb win over Ruiz (Jones became the first former middleweight champ to win a 'world' heavyweight title since Bob Fitzsimmons). Roy did the hard work in winning the belt, had a chance to defend it against someone like old foe James Toney, or Mike Tyson, or even Lennox Lewis (and several other names banded around), but instead struggles to get back down to 175 pounds for a fight with Tarver. It doesn't make sense. Okay, he doesn't like Tarver, but the question I want to ask is: why give up a prestigious world heavyweight belt to fight him?

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 04 Nov 2003, 18:25

bennie wrote:I'm astonished Jones has dropped back down to light-heavyweight after his superb win over Ruiz (Jones became the first former middleweight champ to win a 'world' heavyweight title since Bob Fitzsimmons). Roy did the hard work in winning the belt, had a chance to defend it against someone like old foe James Toney, or Mike Tyson, or even Lennox Lewis (and several other names banded around), but instead struggles to back down to 175 pounds for a fight with Tarver. It doesn't make sense. Okay, he doesn't like Tarver, but the question I want to ask is: why give up a prestigious world heavyweight belt to fight him?

Apparently none of the HW matchups that had the kind of risk/reward ratio Jones was looking for (e.g. Lewis, Tyson) materialized. I'm not positive what nixed a potential Holyfield/Jones matchup, but it was most likely money - Toney was probably willing to fight Holyfield for much less money, and Holyfield probably felt (incorrectly, as it turns out) that he had much better chances against the supposedly stationary Toney than he would vs. the elusive Jones. Now that Toney has impressed vs. Holy, Jones/toney becomes potentially much more lucrative (though still nowhere near Lewis or Tyson vs. RJJ), but in the meantime Jones was under pressure to make a fight vs. a name opponent, and if it wasn't to be money motivating him, it was apparently going to be personal animus.

Another factor going into Saturday night: check out my latest post to the "More Mouthing off from Tarver" thread in the Current Scene section of the forum. In one of the articles linked to in the post, Montell Griffin says some very interesting things to the effect that Jones deeply dislikes anyone (Toney in this case) stealing his thunder, and as a result will be looking to make a strong statement to the effect of "y'all musta forgot" on Saturday night. Of course to do that he'll have to take more risks than he normally does in a fight.

Oh, and about the HW title: note that (by special vote at the WBA convention in Moscow a few months ago) Jones hasn't had to give it up to fight Tarver - if he wins he has 90-120 days to make a HW fight vs. either the winner of the Dec. 13th Rahman/Ruiz eliminator (let's hope it's not Ruiz - we definitely don't need that particular rematch) or some other big-name heavyweight, subject to approval by the WBA (which leaves the door open for Tyson and perhaps someone like Sanders.) The main thing he gave up to fight Tarver was all the weight he worked so hard to gain for the Ruiz fight. Even if you believe the steroid allegations, which seem bizarre based on that they date back to his 1999 light-heavy fight with Richard Hall - he tested clean for the Ruiz bout - he still had to work his butt off to gain that kind of quality weight, and work even harder now to lose it again. That's not going to put him in a good mood.

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 04 Nov 2003, 19:54

Let's not forget that RJ is a master of mind games. He says that he has trouble making weight, but is he? I don't think so. And I also don't think it's as personal as it's being made to be either.

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 05 Nov 2003, 12:38

Is this on TV in the UK?

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 05 Nov 2003, 12:47

bbc is i wanted sky to do it,

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 05 Nov 2003, 12:52

I'm quite happy for this fight to be on the BBC as there's no undercard fights to get excited about so if we miss them it'll be no big deal.

Although seeing as Tarver is unlikely to last long (unless Roy carries him) there should be plenty of airtime left to show Winky Wright & co if the beeb feels it's worth doing so.

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 05 Nov 2003, 12:54

REAL_DEAL wrote:bbc is i wanted sky to do it,

I prefer SKY to.
I've looked at the BBC2 listings for sunday. All I see is golf.
Maybe looking at a dodgy listings.
We are talking Sunday Granstand aren't we?

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 05 Nov 2003, 12:56

no

Time - 23:50 - 00:50 (1 hour long)

(Roy Jones Jr v Antonio Tarver)
America?s Roy Jones is in action as he tries to win back the WBC and IBF world light-heavyweight titles from champion Antonio Tarver.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 05 Nov 2003, 12:56

It's sunday night 11:50pm - 12:50am.

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 05 Nov 2003, 12:58

REAL_DEAL wrote:no

BBC Two 2330-0030

Of course, midnight

The "boxing slot" on the BBC. I should have known.

Thanks boys (kilburn also).

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 05 Nov 2003, 13:00

i got the time wrong starts at 23. 50 , bbc keep changing it but it will be on around midnight and i will allready know the result :x :x

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 05 Nov 2003, 13:12

REAL_DEAL wrote:i got the time wrong starts at 23. 50 , bbc keep changing it but it will be on around midnight and i will allready know the result :x :x

Couldn't you just avoid the result during sunday? I'm pretty sure they won't all be discussing it in your local, so if you keep off the net for a few hours you're sorted!

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 05 Nov 2003, 14:01

Kilburn wrote:
REAL_DEAL wrote:i got the time wrong starts at 23. 50 , bbc keep changing it but it will be on around midnight and i will allready know the result :x :x
Couldn't you just avoid the result during sunday? I'm pretty sure they won't all be discussing it in your local, so if you keep off the net for a few hours you're sorted!

You're right. I'm planning to miss the result and watch.It's quite easy to miss boxing results, especially for US fights. It's not so easy with other sports though.
I tried to miss the Japanese Grand Prix results, and watch the reply at midday.
I was in Halfords on sunday morning, the radio is on inside the shop, and I hear:
"And it's a record 6th title for Schumacher"......

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 05 Nov 2003, 14:07

Yeah shouldn't be too hard to avoid the result - even if Tarver wins with a 30 second knockout it still wouldn't make the news..

Griffin, who's fought them both, reckons Roy will destroy Tarver early.
Could be right there..

BBC are showing Barrera/Pacman the following Sunday night too.