Boxing

Will trio be great or only good?

History's scorecards are yet to be collected to see if the Tarver-Jones trilogy ranks among the greatest.

By JOHN C. COTEY
Published October 1, 2005

TAMPA - Antonio Tarver would like for you to believe that tonight's final fight with Roy Jones Jr. is destined for greatness no matter the result. He has tossed the word trilogy around as if his series with Jones should be enshrined right next to Ali-Frazier and Graziano-Zale.

But when the two meet tonight at the St. Pete Times Forum, most of those familiar with boxing think the finale will need to be spectacular for the series to go down in history.

And chances are, Jones, a big underdog, will have to win.

"I think it all depends on how good this fight is," said HBO analyst Larry Merchant, who will work the fight on pay-per-view. "I don't know how to rank it. If this turns out to be a dramatic fight and Roy wins, people will look back at all three (in a fond way). But he has to win in a theatrical way. That would make it a great trilogy, maybe."

Others wonder if it will take even more than that.

Tarver has done his part. He pressed the action in the first meeting, and threw the knockout punch in the second.

But throughout his career, Jones has been a reluctant warrior. With the exception of his savage beating of Montell Griffin in 1997, he hasn't been a fighter willing to battle in the trenches.

Whether that's because he was good enough to win fights with his skills or he was merely protecting an eggshell jaw remains a point of debate, but it's not a style made for great trilogies.

Ali-Frazier is universally rated the greatest boxing trilogy, if not the greatest sports rivalry; Rocky Graziano and Tony Zale's series of beatings is never far behind.

Look down any list and you will see Marco Antonio Barrera-Erik Morales, Riddick Bowe-Evander Holyfield and Arturo Gatti-Micky Ward listed among the greats. All have a common theme: brutal, toe-to-toe, nonstop action.

Exactly the way Jones has refused to fight.

"I don't think anything with Jones in it is that great," said former Sports Illustrated writer Pat Putnam, who now writes for thesweetscience.com. "He was certainly very talented, but I think he lacked in heart. He didn't give the fans what they deserve. Those other trilogies had fighters that did. When they left the ring there was nothing left to give. Jones doesn't do that, has never done that."

So far, the trilogy-to-be has been more interesting outside the ring than in. Jones' 12-round victory in the first fight was hardly a classic, and Tarver's second-round knockout was stunning.

But for true excellence, a third fight has to be demanded by boxing fans. Fans have to want to see it one more time.

Jones killed some of the buzz for a third meeting with his subsequent loss to Glen Johnson, a knockout even more devastating than the one by Tarver.

That loss severely damaged Jones' reputation, led to a yearlong semi-retirement, and has many asking why this fight is even taking place. Some boxing writers have opined about a genuine fear for Jones' well-being, especially in light of Leavander Johnson's death after his Sept. 17 loss to Jesus Chavez.

Jones' seclusion in the runup to tonight hasn't exactly created any crackle between the fighters, though the pair seem to have a genuine dislike for each other.

"In a great trilogy, there has to be a chemistry there," said Ed Schuyler, the national boxing writer for the Associated Press from 1970-2002. "Ali and Frazier had a chemistry, and they brought the best out in each other. Even in the third fight, when both had faded, that chemistry was there."

Jones has clearly brought out the best in Tarver, but there remain questions about whether the opposite is true.

"It's an interesting trilogy," HBO's Jim Lampley said. "You've had two very interesting results. The first fight was a pretty good fight, but it wasn't a great fight because one of the fighters clearly fought below his capabilities. The second has a shocking, unforgettable moment, but again, one of the fighters was fighting below his perceived talent level.

"It's a good trilogy, but not one of the greatest."

[Last modified October 1, 2005, 01:46:16]