AS a boxing match Taylor won a close decision. I had it even 6 ronds a piece, but would have given it to Taylor because he was the champ.

The 1st fight i also had it 6 to 6 with Hopkins winning cause he was the champ.

On both fights tho, if it would have been judged by the whole fight instead of round by round Hopkins would have won a lopsided win in the 1st and a closer but still unanimous decision on the 2nd.

The round that Taylor won in both fights were won by just points punches, he never hurt or did any harm to Hopkins, on the other hand Hopkins did hurt Taylor in both fights. In the 2nd fight he didnt have him KO on his feet like the 1st one but he did beat him up

thsi thing giving it to the champ is ****. i dont use that

thsi thing giving it to the champ is ****. i dont use that

Bingo. There is no rule that says that nor should there be. You just score the fight and that's that. Whoever has more rounds deserves to be the winner. Favoritism is wrong no matter what the case.

Hopkins lost the first fight. Hopkins lost the 2nd fight.

also if ya think hop won the first one, hed still be champ so would
of won the second fight, based on your summary. dead end thread

Bingo. There is no rule that says that nor should there be. You just score the fight and that's that. Whoever has more rounds deserves to be the winner. Favoritism is wrong no matter what the case.
i kinda feel u there, but i also beleive u have to snatch the title away from a champion. The champion has worked hard to have the title and they shouldnt take his title away from a fight where the challenger just won one round more than the champ, and by a small margin also.

To beat a champion the challenger should undoubtably win the fight.

But whatever in my opinion they should have the judges just judge the whole fight as a whole and not round by round