Jermain Taylor, having defeated longtime great Bernard Hopkins on two consecutive occasions, is the undisputed middleweight champion.

He is also unimpressive, underwhelming and undeserving.

He is a champion of circumstance, a hero of happenstance, a man whose career has been advanced by favorable promoting by Lou DiBella and the suits at HBO, as well as by his amiable personality and admirable pedigree.

For his first twenty fights, Taylor preyed on undersized, lesser talented lambs, victims in preparation of his future coronation, a destiny that seemed certainty as time passed, as Hopkins aged and his planned retirement approached.

The 2000 Olympic bronze medalist stepped up his opposition in the summer of 2004, stopping former junior middleweight Raul Marquez – who subsequently retired – and then wrapping up the year with a shutout of William Joppy – who should’ve retired after the beating Hopkins had given him twelve months prior. [details (http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=2556)]

I don't like that article and don't feel that it is fair.

Like it or not, its Taylor's time now. DEAL WITH IT.

Jermain Taylor, having defeated longtime great Bernard Hopkins on two consecutive occasions, is the undisputed middleweight champion.

He is also unimpressive, underwhelming and undeserving.

He is a champion of circumstance, a hero of happenstance, a man whose career has been advanced by favorable promoting by Lou DiBella and the suits at HBO, as well as by his amiable personality and admirable pedigree.

For his first twenty fights, Taylor preyed on undersized, lesser talented lambs, victims in preparation of his future coronation, a destiny that seemed certainty as time passed, as Hopkins aged and his planned retirement approached.

The 2000 Olympic bronze medalist stepped up his opposition in the summer of 2004, stopping former junior middleweight Raul Marquez – who subsequently retired – and then wrapping up the year with a shutout of William Joppy – who should’ve retired after the beating Hopkins had given him twelve months prior. [details (http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=2556)]

thats one biased article

When you write a column based on facts and opinions, of course it will have the writer's emotion on the page. I thought it was a good article, and despite the fact that it sounds relatively mean in some of the language, it was still true.

That is written by one jealous and spiteful, ****sucking loser.

he beat hopkins twice fair n square...whoever was his competition the first 20 matches is irrevelant

Well it's not Taylor's fault that everybody that he fought suddenly grew old over night and look washed up. Including Hopkins whom he beat twice. :D

Stop hating, how can the author say that he is undeserving when he sweat and earned what he has now.

When you write a column based on facts and opinions, of course it will have the writer's emotion on the page. I thought it was a good article, and despite the fact that it sounds relatively mean in some of the language, it was still true.
The point is Taylor is the undisputed Champ, Undefeated, and willing to learn. He knows that he is still young in his career and he has alot to learn. What makes him a good champ is the fact that he is professional, unlike BHop the Ghetto bum who always has excuses and is sooooo unprofessional. Taylor has a good career in front of him, maybe not great but good. Stop trying to discredit his status.

Grease-man must've lost a lot of money on Hopkins.

Taylor is plenty deserving. He beat Hops twice. That's deserving enough. As far as "underwhelming" goes...anyone who expected Taylor to look overwhelming vs the defensive minded Hopkins is an idiot. Taylor did well.

A column is meant to incite debate, so your opinions are just as valid, although I will attempt to answer questions of bias.

I like Taylor's personality plenty, but I cannot be impressd by either fighter, not Taylor, nor Hopkins, after the 24 rounds that they performed. It's easy to make charges of bias when someone has an opinion that you don't agree with, but that is a convenient excuse that avoids the true idea of a column, which is debate, debate, debate.

So, I am unimpressed with Taylor, and feel that his rise to champion is motivated by two controversial decisions (which it is, according to more than 90% of press in the first fight, pretty much everyone but HBO and the state of Arkansas, and a very large split for the sequel), as well as adept promoting that got Taylor the shot, and not other middleweights that I'm attempting to imply may be much, much better than the version of Taylor that we're seeing.

So, since, like I said, columns are meant to incite debate, I will attempt to respond to your opinions respectfully, since, mainly, I'm just cool like that. =)

Well it's not Taylor's fault that everybody that he fought suddenly grew old over night and look washed up. Including Hopkins whom he beat twice. :D

Stop hating, how can the author say that he is undeserving when he sweat and earned what he has now.

Well, if Hopkins suddenly grew old over night and look washed up, what does it say about Taylor that he wasn't able to take the fight to Hopkins and truly take the title? Taylor doesn't look good against fighters who force him to go forwards, hasn't done so since stepping up competition against Marquez... he is much, much better as a counterpuncher, and he is an adept counterpuncher, at that. That is why Pat Burns was telling Jermain to use angles, to be out of the immediate range of Bernard's shots and able to hit Hopkins, but it was a strategy that he had difficulty following up on, as Hopkins is a difficult puzzle to solve.

he beat hopkins twice fair n square...whoever was his competition the first 20 matches is irrevelant

It matters when pointing out that there are other middleweights who may be more deserving, considering that Taylor faced none of them in his path to facing Hopkins. He was moved along with adept promoting, made the heir apparent in the hope that his considerable athletic ability would show through, and that they could make successful pay-per-view shows worth tons and tons of money. Hence why you didn't see Hopkins vs. Felix Sturm (who absolutely won that fight against De La Hoya) or any of the other lesser names at 160 whose mechanics and in-ring ability seem to have much more potential than this version of Taylor.

Mind you, Taylor could finally get that fight against a decent opponent, aside from Hopkins, where he shows the value that plenty have been expecting, including myself, but the point of this article is that, while watching the two fights, I'm thinking, "These are our champions?"

That is written by one jealous and spiteful, ****sucking loser.

I guess you wouldn't have liked my past columns excoriating Andrew Golota. It's an opinion, my friend, an opinion, and a developed one, at that. Nor do I know what I'd be jealous of... if you read a variety of press reports of the past two fights, we are not impressed with Taylor, and we're waiting to see what he's been purported to be. I've been following Taylor for years, and even though I've written a negative article about him, one which a family member said I was too harsh (but it was still my opinion), I still think Taylor has much more of a future than Golota, at the moment.

thats one biased article

If you can show where I used anything that would compromise my integrity, aside from having an opinion, which is allowed in a column and not a straight-news report (and even straight reporting in boxing is subjective, based on how you score rounds), then please dictate how so, and I will read it respectfully.

I don't like that article and don't feel that it is fair.

Like it or not, its Taylor's time now. DEAL WITH IT.

Well, if it's Taylor's time, he's surely not showing much reason for people to be excited, and even the Arkansan has been down about his performance for two straight fights, for good reason.

It was a harsh article, yes, I can agree with that, but it is founded on an opinion of a writer who has good reason to be unimpressed with someone who is supposed to be the future, but has eked out two controversial decisions, not taking it to the old man like Hatton did to Tszyu, or like so many other fighters have in crossroad matches.

You don't have to like the article, or at least the opinion within, but that's the point, and that means I'm doing my job. And when Taylor shows that it is his time, finally, I'll be on the computer, typing exactly that.

Heck, if you've read my column on a consistent basis, I wrote a column before the first fight stating that Taylor had nothing to lose, win or loss against Hopkins. And it's still true, because his career has not been ruined by two close, close fights against a future Hall-of-Famer, something that has happened to plenty of other challengers who never showed their faces with as much posterity again. But at the same point, it is difficult to coronate him until he shows that he is head and shoulders above the competition that was passed over in favor of these successful promotions, an occurrence that Taylor may still get to.

When you write a column based on facts and opinions, of course it will have the writer's emotion on the page. I thought it was a good article, and despite the fact that it sounds relatively mean in some of the language, it was still true.

Pretty much what I've been saying, except for the part about emotion. Emotion indicates bias, something I do not have against Taylor. While I did not score either fight for Taylor, mounting bias charges would insinuate that I do not like Taylor, nor do I want to see him succeed. I like Taylor, an opinion that is allowed, but I do not root for any fighter over another. The closest I can come to wanting to see someone succeed is wanting to see Carlos Maussa on television more, because he makes me laugh.

I appreciate everyone's feedback, and one poster aside, I appreciate the lack of flaming, and hope that the debate remains respectful but becomes more developed.

Thanks!
---David

Grease-man must've lost a lot of money on Hopkins.

Taylor is plenty deserving. He beat Hops twice. That's deserving enough. As far as "underwhelming" goes...anyone who expected Taylor to look overwhelming vs the defensive minded Hopkins is an idiot. Taylor did well.

A writer who bets on a fight that he's covering would be biased, a compromise of ethics.

I say Taylor is underwhelming because I can count the rounds he won in both fights combined on two hands, because he didn't take the belts, but rather usurped them via controversial decisions.

Taylor will show that he is plenty deserving when he successfully defends against other top notch middleweights. He deserves a fight off, which he will likely take, after facing the top middleweight twice in a row, but afterwards, he must face a Winky Wright or Felix Sturm or Kingsley Ikeke or other top five middleweight.

I just couldn't write something positive about Taylor, considering I thought he lost both fights, looking tentative, underwhelming and with flaws that other, prime middleweights would exploit.

We shall see where Taylor goes from here.

Oh, and the last name's not pronounced that way.

You have a decent point about Hopkins being defensive minded, and it was infuriating to watch Hopkins only throw one punch at a time, but Taylor was similarly defensive minded, never opening up and letting go, really, just waiting, waiting, waiting. It shows intelligence in Taylor, that he still found Hopkins to be dangerous with his counters, but it is not how one takes it to the champion and distances himself from the pack.

Like I said, Taylor would never look impressive vs Hopkins. No one would. You cannot make the man fight. It's difficult. Taylor beat him the best way he could. The wins are legit and it's in the books. Taylor will look impressive in future fights. He has looked impressive vs anyone not named Hopkins.

No one made a name for themself any better than Taylor with their performances leading up to the Hopkins fight, so no one deserved a shot anymore than he. Additionally, from watching the top 160 lbs guys like Ikeke, Abrahman, Sturm, and so forth...well, Taylor would deafeat them all to be blunt.

The point is Taylor is the undisputed Champ, Undefeated, and willing to learn. He knows that he is still young in his career and he has alot to learn. What makes him a good champ is the fact that he is professional, unlike BHop the Ghetto bum who always has excuses and is sooooo unprofessional. Taylor has a good career in front of him, maybe not great but good. Stop trying to discredit his status.

Yes, Taylor is undefeated, still learning and young in his career. He has an amiable personality, but you also walk right into my argument, that his demeanor, as opposed to the other, more-difficult to promote personalities (Sturm, Ikeke) earned him the tag of heir apparent before he had fought a single top ten middleweight.

You're right, though, Taylor is always professional, rarely makes excuses beyond valid ones (like the head butts in the first fight... if it's valid for people to complain about Holyfield's head, it's okay for Taylor to do the same about Hopkins).

In "discredit[ing] his status," I'm merely questioning just how undisputed he is, with controversial decisions over a man that he got to face before others did, considering that he has yet to face these others and has yet to show his superiority. All that he has shown is that he can take two close, close, close controversial decisions over a man who fights less than a minute per round, a man who a majority of experienced press felt won these fights, although there was more of a split this time.

Again, we shall see where Taylor goes, and that is part of the beauty of him being on the fast track... he will be gunned for now, and will get to show precisely why people got behind him on the track to the title shots.

Like I said, Taylor would never look impressive vs Hopkins. No one would. You cannot make the man fight. It's difficult. Taylor beat him the best way he could. The wins are legit and it's in the books. Taylor will look impressive in future fights. He has looked impressive vs anyone not named Hopkins.

No one made a name for themself any better than Taylor with their performances leading up to the Hopkins fight, so no one deserved a shot anymore than he. Additionally, from watching the top 160 lbs guys like Ikeke, Abrahman, Sturm, and so forth...well, Taylor would deafeat them all to be blunt.

Good points with the first part. Taylor would never look impressive against Hopkins, at least not the Taylor that showed up for these fights. And it is difficult to look good against Hopkins, unless you're willing to take the chances of taking the hard counters. Frankly, it ended up the right strategy for Taylor, as he took two controversial decisions, both of which are, as you say, in the books.

As for who he has looked impressive against, the names were not even top ten middleweights. Raul Marquez was a junior middleweight, William Joppy was a destroyed fighter, physically and especially mentally. Daniel Edouard was a fall guy. Yes, Taylor looked superb, but, like you said, no one made a name other than Taylor, and that is because he is American and amiable and easy to promote. That is a major contributor to his title opportunity, the promotional aspect.

Ikeke, Abraham and Sturm are still untested, too, with only Sturm having received big fight experience in America, but it's difficult to be sure about Taylor's performances against them until it occurs, and until we see how well the three of them do in their coming fights.

I'm afraid that I may not be able to get back to this thread for another day and a half, unless I procrastinate with my other priorities (a likelihood, unfortunately), but hope that you have a good day!

If Taylor continues to make 160, he'll fight all of those guys and win impressively. Physically they just don't compare. No one is gonna outbox Taylor. Whoever beats him at 160 is going to have to have real thump. Masoe might have some thump based on his record but I dunno. We'll see. One thing's for sure...I couldn't imagine Taylor having as much trouble with DLH as Sturm did. Taylor would stopped Oscar late.

I'm enjoying this thread and this debate. Thanks dgreisman for not allowing anyone to pull this down into a boring, unreadable insult fest. Nice to see dissenting opinions as long as they are supported by evidence.

If you can show where I used anything that would compromise my integrity, aside from having an opinion, which is allowed in a column and not a straight-news report (and even straight reporting in boxing is subjective, based on how you score rounds), then please dictate how so, and I will read it respectfully.

The language used in that article is unnecessary. taylor obviously has the skills to be a champion, and his first 20 fights have prepared him to become what he is today, the undisputed middleweight champion. i think we will see how good taylor really is when he fights different competition. Have you ever seen anyone look impressive against bernard hopkins?? NO, therefore i believe its unnecessary to call taylor an undeserving champion. he did what he did through hard work and dicipline, and was able to beat the current champion, twice. Undeserving? hardly

hahahahaha. ****in hater!

Jermain Taylor, having defeated longtime great Bernard Hopkins on two consecutive occasions, is the undisputed middleweight champion.

He is also unimpressive, underwhelming and undeserving.

He is a champion of circumstance, a hero of happenstance, a man whose career has been advanced by favorable promoting by Lou DiBella and the suits at HBO, as well as by his amiable personality and admirable pedigree.

For his first twenty fights, Taylor preyed on undersized, lesser talented lambs, victims in preparation of his future coronation, a destiny that seemed certainty as time passed, as Hopkins aged and his planned retirement approached.

The 2000 Olympic bronze medalist stepped up his opposition in the summer of 2004, stopping former junior middleweight Raul Marquez – who subsequently retired – and then wrapping up the year with a shutout of William Joppy – who should’ve retired after the beating Hopkins had given him twelve months prior. [details (http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=2556)]

. This is a bad article. Quit finding ways to hate on him.

I can understand why you wrote the article, however it's pretty apparent that you favor Hopkins over Taylor for whatever reason.

What a lot of people don't understand is that (aside from Roy Jones), no one has ever been able to take Hopkins off his gameplan. He has a (boring) style that slows the fight, to which he can dictate the pace. Most fighters don't have the patience to fight with him like that, hence his superb record.

Taylor did everything he could do in the ring, given who he was fighting. Fighters aren't going to average 70-90 punches around versus B-Hop because of his counterpunching ability. Taylor simply worked with what he had, and although it was a pretty boring fight (both were actually), he did enough to win.

No one is going to beat Hopkins decisively simply because of his style. Basing Taylor's ability level off of the Hopkins fight is like comparing Gretzky to Lemieux, it can't be done. Two totally different styles.

Taylor dominated in every fight up until this point, with progressively tougher opponents each time. He passed this test with flying colors, and I honestly don't think there's a middleweight out there right now that can push him harder than B-Hop did. Lacy is a fun fighter to watch, but he'd be giving up over 5 inches of reach. He doesn't have NEARLY the defensive skills of Hopkins and would have a tough time getting inside on Taylor. Winky and Taylor would be about the same as the Hopkins fights, aside from the jab count.

In closing, Taylor IS the best middleweight out there right now, like it or not.

Like I said, Taylor would never look impressive vs Hopkins. No one would. You cannot make the man fight. It's difficult. Taylor beat him the best way he could. The wins are legit and it's in the books. Taylor will look impressive in future fights. He has looked impressive vs anyone not named Hopkins.

No one made a name for themself any better than Taylor with their performances leading up to the Hopkins fight, so no one deserved a shot anymore than he. Additionally, from watching the top 160 lbs guys like Ikeke, Abrahman, Sturm, and so forth...well, Taylor would deafeat them all to be blunt.

totally agree.

this article indirectly puts down hopkins skills too.

jez,and he makes it like eastman was a live contender against hopkins.

i can see how he could slant everything like that. just like i slant things in taylors favor. neither side is off that much.

This article is pure, venomous crap. Did someone lose money on the fight?

Also, if you're going to claim to be a writer, at least get your facts straight:

In need of a clear, decisive win to cement his identity, Taylor’s rematch with Hopkins was twelve rounds more of the same – the same tentative performance, the same mechanical and mental flaws, the same unanimous decision going his way...and:

...while a majority of informed observers filled their cards out in favor of the forty-year-oldWho are these "informed observers"?

This article is pure, venomous crap. Did someone lose money on the fight?

Also, if you're going to claim to be a writer, at least get your facts straight:

and:

=BIGPOPPAPUNK]while a majority of informed observers filled their cards out in favor of the forty-year-oldWho are these "informed observers"?



i agree completely

Unimpressive, sort of.
Underwhelming, definately. Hopkins beat himself. He just didn't seem active enough and didn't throw too many punches in a row. This worked against BHop as it made him look like the less active fighter even tho he landed more jabs and power shots than Taylor and at a higher connect rate.

Jermain Taylor, having defeated longtime great Bernard Hopkins on two consecutive occasions, is the undisputed middleweight champion.

He is also unimpressive, underwhelming and undeserving.

A column is meant to incite debate, so your opinions are just as valid, although I will attempt to answer questions of bias.

I like Taylor's personality plenty, but I cannot be impressd by either fighter, not Taylor, nor Hopkins, after the 24 rounds that they performed. It's easy to make charges of bias when someone has an opinion that you don't agree with, but that is a convenient excuse that avoids the true idea of a column, which is debate, debate, debate.

So, I am unimpressed with Taylor, and feel that his rise to champion is motivated by two controversial decisions (which it is, according to more than 90% of press in the first fight, pretty much everyone but HBO and the state of Arkansas, and a very large split for the sequel), as well as adept promoting that got Taylor the shot, and not other middleweights that I'm attempting to imply may be much, much better than the version of Taylor that we're seeing.

So, since, like I said, columns are meant to incite debate, I will attempt to respond to your opinions respectfully, since, mainly, I'm just cool like that. =)



Well, if Hopkins suddenly grew old over night and look washed up, what does it say about Taylor that he wasn't able to take the fight to Hopkins and truly take the title? Taylor doesn't look good against fighters who force him to go forwards, hasn't done so since stepping up competition against Marquez... he is much, much better as a counterpuncher, and he is an adept counterpuncher, at that. That is why Pat Burns was telling Jermain to use angles, to be out of the immediate range of Bernard's shots and able to hit Hopkins, but it was a strategy that he had difficulty following up on, as Hopkins is a difficult puzzle to solve.



It matters when pointing out that there are other middleweights who may be more deserving, considering that Taylor faced none of them in his path to facing Hopkins. He was moved along with adept promoting, made the heir apparent in the hope that his considerable athletic ability would show through, and that they could make successful pay-per-view shows worth tons and tons of money. Hence why you didn't see Hopkins vs. Felix Sturm (who absolutely won that fight against De La Hoya) or any of the other lesser names at 160 whose mechanics and in-ring ability seem to have much more potential than this version of Taylor.

Mind you, Taylor could finally get that fight against a decent opponent, aside from Hopkins, where he shows the value that plenty have been expecting, including myself, but the point of this article is that, while watching the two fights, I'm thinking, "These are our champions?"



I guess you wouldn't have liked my past columns excoriating Andrew Golota. It's an opinion, my friend, an opinion, and a developed one, at that. Nor do I know what I'd be jealous of... if you read a variety of press reports of the past two fights, we are not impressed with Taylor, and we're waiting to see what he's been purported to be. I've been following Taylor for years, and even though I've written a negative article about him, one which a family member said I was too harsh (but it was still my opinion), I still think Taylor has much more of a future than Golota, at the moment.



If you can show where I used anything that would compromise my integrity, aside from having an opinion, which is allowed in a column and not a straight-news report (and even straight reporting in boxing is subjective, based on how you score rounds), then please dictate how so, and I will read it respectfully.



Well, if it's Taylor's time, he's surely not showing much reason for people to be excited, and even the Arkansan has been down about his performance for two straight fights, for good reason.

It was a harsh article, yes, I can agree with that, but it is founded on an opinion of a writer who has good reason to be unimpressed with someone who is supposed to be the future, but has eked out two controversial decisions, not taking it to the old man like Hatton did to Tszyu, or like so many other fighters have in crossroad matches.

You don't have to like the article, or at least the opinion within, but that's the point, and that means I'm doing my job. And when Taylor shows that it is his time, finally, I'll be on the computer, typing exactly that.

Heck, if you've read my column on a consistent basis, I wrote a column before the first fight stating that Taylor had nothing to lose, win or loss against Hopkins. And it's still true, because his career has not been ruined by two close, close fights against a future Hall-of-Famer, something that has happened to plenty of other challengers who never showed their faces with as much posterity again. But at the same point, it is difficult to coronate him until he shows that he is head and shoulders above the competition that was passed over in favor of these successful promotions, an occurrence that Taylor may still get to.



Pretty much what I've been saying, except for the part about emotion. Emotion indicates bias, something I do not have against Taylor. While I did not score either fight for Taylor, mounting bias charges would insinuate that I do not like Taylor, nor do I want to see him succeed. I like Taylor, an opinion that is allowed, but I do not root for any fighter over another. The closest I can come to wanting to see someone succeed is wanting to see Carlos Maussa on television more, because he makes me laugh.

I appreciate everyone's feedback, and one poster aside, I appreciate the lack of flaming, and hope that the debate remains respectful but becomes more developed.

Thanks!
---David


Very nice post, good to see someone who doesn't have to shout back at people when they insult him.

I agree with much of what you said.

:D Give respect where it's due Scott Steiner. I'm a long time Hopkins fan(favorite fight was Hopkins vs Echols 2)but B-Hop knew what he HAD to do this fight & just didn't do it effectively enough. He had to know that Taylor was watchin' the tapes too & not only picked out what he needed to do against Hopkins but what he needed to do himself. The kid lack stamina the first time & his left jab was almost invisible. U'll see in the 2nd fight the kid was throwin' bombs in the final few rounds & he stopped Hopkins' lead power hooks 'ere time with his re-established jab. Big up Hopkins('ere time)but RESPECT the Kid!!! Who does the kid fight now(Hopkins-Taylor 3 don't make sense right now) I think Winky is the next to step up. Now can ya'll Dig Dat!!! :boxing:

Ideally, he'd win in obvious fashion. But look who he took them away from? A legend who is still GOOD.
A writer who bets on a fight that he's covering would be biased, a compromise of ethics.

I say Taylor is underwhelming because I can count the rounds he won in both fights combined on two hands, because he didn't take the belts, but rather usurped them via controversial decisions.

Taylor will show that he is plenty deserving when he successfully defends against other top notch middleweights. He deserves a fight off, which he will likely take, after facing the top middleweight twice in a row, but afterwards, he must face a Winky Wright or Felix Sturm or Kingsley Ikeke or other top five middleweight.

I just couldn't write something positive about Taylor, considering I thought he lost both fights, looking tentative, underwhelming and with flaws that other, prime middleweights would exploit.

We shall see where Taylor goes from here.

Oh, and the last name's not pronounced that way.

You have a decent point about Hopkins being defensive minded, and it was infuriating to watch Hopkins only throw one punch at a time, but Taylor was similarly defensive minded, never opening up and letting go, really, just waiting, waiting, waiting. It shows intelligence in Taylor, that he still found Hopkins to be dangerous with his counters, but it is not how one takes it to the champion and distances himself from the pack.

There is simply no way you can say Taylor is undeserving. None. He beat the guy who had been the king of the division for as long as anyone ever has, the same guy who was the #1 pound for pound guy in the sport until Taylor beat him. Twice.

You can say Taylor's wins weren't pretty. You can say you thought the fights were close. But to say he is undeserving reeks of ignorance and sour grapes.

Ideally, he'd win in obvious fashion. But look who he took them away from? A legend who is still GOOD.


Also true. Taylor deserves respect, because when it's all said and done he had Taylor SD12 Hopkins and Taylor UD12 Hopkins in the books.

I liked when someone pointed out the way that Hatton took the fight to Tszyu and never let up until he willed a win over Tszyu. It was much more of a gutsy performance than Taylors, but then again Hopkins and Tszyu are two different fighters.

Taylor beat Hopkins twice, who even at this age of 40 is a dangerous bastard, but it's hard for people to stomach the fact that Hopkins of 2/3 years ago would have stopped Taylor...and this form of Hopkins still *arguably* won both fights in about half of the fans/writers/experts/analysts eyes.

Also, I think its unrealistic of the writer of that peice to complain about the fashion that Taylor beat Hopkins. I was telling Bomber, that this match would be a chess match mainly because Hopkins is that kind of fighter. He does not have that killer instinct like a Lacy.

Taylor wasn't going to knock Hopkins out and I knew this. And Hopkins wasn't going to knock Lacy out. It's just not Hopkins style.

So, for the writer to be surprised that the two bouts went 24 rounds, is truly beyond my comprehension.
Also true. Taylor deserves respect, because when it's all said and done he had Taylor SD12 Hopkins and Taylor UD12 Hopkins in the books.

I liked when someone pointed out the way that Hatton took the fight to Tszyu and never let up until he willed a win over Tszyu. It was much more of a gutsy performance than Taylors, but then again Hopkins and Tszyu are two different fighters.

Taylor beat Hopkins twice, who even at this age of 40 is a dangerous bastard, but it's hard for people to stomach the fact that Hopkins of 2/3 years ago would have stopped Taylor...and this form of Hopkins still *arguably* won both fights in about half of the fans/writers/experts/analysts eyes.

Also, I think its unrealistic of the writer of that peice to complain about the fashion that Taylor beat Hopkins. I was telling Bomber, that this match would be a chess match mainly because Hopkins is that kind of fighter. He does not have that killer instinct like a Lacy.

Taylor wasn't going to knock Hopkins out and I knew this. And Hopkins wasn't going to knock Lacy out. It's just not Hopkins style.

So, for the writer to be surprised that the two bouts went 24 rounds, is truly beyond my comprehension.

I assume you meant Taylor here.

I agree with this...I enjoyed both fights and don't see any reason to complain about the fights being tacticall 12 round fights. The second was a bit more sloppy than the first, but both guys were trying to unload bigger punches on each other as well.

Hopkins actually came decently close to getting Jermain in a position to knock him out in the first bout. He also had Taylor rocked in the 10th round of this bout. Hopkins definitely wants to knock people out, he just has a different way of pursuing it.

I respect this dude's opinion/article and he tried keeping it "professional" but its clear to me he's not a fan of Taylor.

And I might be called a hater, but I just don't think Taylor is as solid of a fighter you'd assume he'd have to be by beating Hopkins.

I see Lacy destroying Taylor and Winky boring Taylor.
I assume you meant Taylor here.

I agree with this...I enjoyed both fights and don't see any reason to complain about the fights being tacticall 12 round fights. The second was a bit more sloppy than the first, but both guys were trying to unload bigger punches on each other as well.

Hopkins actually came decently close to getting Jermain in a position to knock him out in the first bout. He also had Taylor rocked in the 10th round of this bout. Hopkins definitely wants to knock people out, he just has a different way of pursuing it.

I respect this dude's opinion/article and he tried keeping it "professional" but its clear to me he's not a fan of Taylor.

And I might be called a hater, but I just don't think Taylor is as solid of a fighter you'd assume he'd have to be by beating Hopkins.

I see Lacy destroying Taylor and Winky boring Taylor.

Taylor is a big middleweight so Lacy wouldn't be that much bigger than him, but I do think for the most part that Lacys physicality would overwhelm Taylor. Lacy can be bothered by a stiff jab though.

I'd make Taylor/Wright a pick'em fight. Taylor might have the length and activity level to outduel Winky, but I dunno.

I still haven't been impressed by anything Taylor has done, but he does have a bright future ahead if he plays his cards correctly (ie stay away from Lacy).

wow, lol, after reading all the responses.. i'da written the article just to get such a rise out of everyone. :p

Who are these "informed observers"?

DLH is quoted as saying he believed Hopkins won by a point, as well as saying Mosely scored it 2 points to Hopkins. Many fans on this site who don't have their heads up their asses and are well informed, and opinionated also believe Hopkins won the fight.

There is simply no way you can say Taylor is undeserving. None.

I believe what he was pointing out is the fact that there are several other middleweights who have been at a higher leverl than Taylor for a good while but never got to fight Hopkins. Taylor was being molded so he could become champion by beating Joppy then having a worthless fight on Hop's undercard to show him off to the world. Granted this was my take on things, perhaps his is different.

on the subject, i feel like other than me and Dirt E, there really aren't many people that thought Hopkins won, sticking up for their opinion here.. being bombarded by Taylor supporters is tough, but im not gonna hold back my opinion.

DLH is quoted as saying he believed Hopkins won by a point, as well as saying Mosely scored it 2 points to Hopkins. Many fans on this site who don't have their heads up their asses and are well informed, and opinionated also believe Hopkins won the fight.



I believe what he was pointing out is the fact that there are several other middleweights who have been at a higher leverl than Taylor for a good while but never got to fight Hopkins. Taylor was being molded so he could become champion by beating Joppy then having a worthless fight on Hop's undercard to show him off to the world. Granted this was my take on things, perhaps his is different.

900 mil, ****. Since your from Wisconsin:

9000000.00 points donated to Dirt E Gomez successfully!

on the subject, i feel like other than me and Dirt E, there really aren't many people that thought Hopkins won, sticking up for their opinion here.. being bombarded by Taylor supporters is tough, but im not gonna hold back my opinion.


I dont care about being bombarded by anyone, I think Hopkins won both fights, just barely. Taylor won, good for him, let's hope he can win convincingly next time he defends the crown.

I dont care about being bombarded by anyone, I think Hopkins won both fights, just barely. Taylor won, good for him, let's hope he can win convincingly next time he defends the crown.

that's all i'm saying as well

900 mil, ****. Since your from Wisconsin:

9000000.00 points donated to Dirt E Gomez successfully!

Heh, thanks. It'll take a while to build it back up, but even if I knew he was going to lose I'd still have bet it all on B-Hop.

Heh, thanks. It'll take a while to build it back up, but even if I knew he was going to lose I'd still have bet it all on B-Hop.


I'm pissed at both of them for claiming they're going to go for knockouts, then proceeding to dance around the ring gazing in each others eyes to 2 love struck clowns. The fight wasnt THAT bad, I'm just bitter I guess. Gonna have to watch it again.

I dont care about being bombarded by anyone, I think Hopkins won both fights, just barely. Taylor won, good for him, let's hope he can win convincingly next time he defends the crown.


Yep same here. I just feel slighted by the whole situation because not once did I see Taylor land any real punches that defined his wins.

I think the best punch he landed in both fights was a "power jab" in the second one hahaha.

I'm pissed at both of them for claiming they're going to go for knockouts, then proceeding to dance around the ring gazing in each others eyes to 2 love struck clowns. The fight wasnt THAT bad, I'm just bitter I guess. Gonna have to watch it again.

I'm with you on this one. I was watching both fights, just hoping somebody was going to try to open something up. I think the largest thing was like a 4 punch combo into the gloves of Hopkins by Taylor. Even if it was only occasional, I wanted to see somebody try to show some enthusiasm that they actually wanted the belt. They were both fighting to try not to lose more than win it seemed.

They probably both believed the judges would be on their side. Taylor because of the previous fight, being the current champ, and judges not wanted to give the belts back to hopkins or rule a draw. Hopkins because he felt he got robbed the first time and didn't think it'd happen twice.

Yep same here. I just feel slighted by the whole situation because not once did I see Taylor land any real punches that defined his wins.

I think the best punch he landed in both fights was a "power jab" in the second one hahaha.


Yeah, the whole "to be the champion you have to BEAT the champion" not just show up and stand up. Didnt Hopkins outland Taylor in powershots by like 35+ punches? I was trying to find the punch stats online.

When you write a column based on facts and opinions, of course it will have the writer's emotion on the page. I thought it was a good article, and despite the fact that it sounds relatively mean in some of the language, it was still true.

Hopkins lost. Deal with it.

Yeah, the whole "to be the champion you have to BEAT the champion" not just show up and stand up. Didnt Hopkins outland Taylor in powershots by like 35+ punches? I was trying to find the punch stats online.


Yeah, they put that one to use in the second fight it seems like.

Hopkins lost. Deal with it.

People are dealing with it, by discussing it.

The fact that people actually brag about predicting this fight is laughable.

Hopkins lost. Deal with it.

Corrales got smoked and uses a couple of pounds as an excuse. Deal with it.

Corrales got smoked and uses a couple of pounds as an excuse. Deal with it.

LMAO!


Anyone got detailed punch stats?

I've kept my responses respectful, and will remain to do so, except for this one, because I want to point something out...

At 5:24 AM EST, TheFairPole called me "one jealous and spiteful, ****sucking loser."

My response, at 8:38 AM EST, was:

"I guess you wouldn't have liked my past columns excoriating Andrew Golota. It's an opinion, my friend, an opinion, and a developed one, at that. Nor do I know what I'd be jealous of... if you read a variety of press reports of the past two fights, we are not impressed with Taylor, and we're waiting to see what he's been purported to be. I've been following Taylor for years, and even though I've written a negative article about him, one which a family member said I was too harsh (but it was still my opinion), I still think Taylor has much more of a future than Golota, at the moment."

Obviously I was being sarcastic, playing on his user name. Well, TheFairPole decided to give me some red karma at 4:13 PM, with the accompanying comment, "When did I ever say anything about Golota? You read too much into nicknames."

Okay, well, if TheFairPole is saying that his nickname has nothing to do with Golota, then I direct you to this link:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1098477#post1098477

In case you don't click on the link, it was from a post from 11/29/05 in the Forums, at 8:32 PM in a thread entitled "user names!"

TheFairPole's quote, to a question about where his user name came from?

"I think mine is pretty obvious... but for those who don't get it, i'll tell ya. Golota used to be my favorite boxer back in the day and he is Polish and I am part Polish. They call him the foul pole so I played on his nickname."

So, there is a decent connection, even if Golota is no longer his favorite boxer. Case closed.

Fairpole is a flamer, pro-European fighter poster. Just ignore his ass.
http://www.photopile.com/photos/mnash_98/boxing/228161.gif
I've kept my responses respectful, and will remain to do so, except for this one, because I want to point something out...

At 5:24 AM EST, TheFairPole called me "one jealous and spiteful, ****sucking loser."

My response, at 8:38 AM EST, was:

"I guess you wouldn't have liked my past columns excoriating Andrew Golota. It's an opinion, my friend, an opinion, and a developed one, at that. Nor do I know what I'd be jealous of... if you read a variety of press reports of the past two fights, we are not impressed with Taylor, and we're waiting to see what he's been purported to be. I've been following Taylor for years, and even though I've written a negative article about him, one which a family member said I was too harsh (but it was still my opinion), I still think Taylor has much more of a future than Golota, at the moment."

Obviously I was being sarcastic, playing on his user name. Well, TheFairPole decided to give me some red karma at 4:13 PM, with the accompanying comment, "When did I ever say anything about Golota? You read too much into nicknames."

Okay, well, if TheFairPole is saying that his nickname has nothing to do with Golota, then I direct you to this link:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1098477#post1098477

In case you don't click on the link, it was from a post from 11/29/05 in the Forums, at 8:32 PM in a thread entitled "user names!"

TheFairPole's quote, to a question about where his user name came from?

"I think mine is pretty obvious... but for those who don't get it, i'll tell ya. Golota used to be my favorite boxer back in the day and he is Polish and I am part Polish. They call him the foul pole so I played on his nickname."

So, there is a decent connection, even if Golota is no longer his favorite boxer. Case closed.

I've kept my responses respectful, and will remain to do so, except for this one, because I want to point something out...

At 5:24 AM EST, TheFairPole called me "one jealous and spiteful, ****sucking loser."

My response, at 8:38 AM EST, was:

"I guess you wouldn't have liked my past columns excoriating Andrew Golota. It's an opinion, my friend, an opinion, and a developed one, at that. Nor do I know what I'd be jealous of... if you read a variety of press reports of the past two fights, we are not impressed with Taylor, and we're waiting to see what he's been purported to be. I've been following Taylor for years, and even though I've written a negative article about him, one which a family member said I was too harsh (but it was still my opinion), I still think Taylor has much more of a future than Golota, at the moment."

Obviously I was being sarcastic, playing on his user name. Well, TheFairPole decided to give me some red karma at 4:13 PM, with the accompanying comment, "When did I ever say anything about Golota? You read too much into nicknames."

Okay, well, if TheFairPole is saying that his nickname has nothing to do with Golota, then I direct you to this link:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1098477#post1098477

In case you don't click on the link, it was from a post from 11/29/05 in the Forums, at 8:32 PM in a thread entitled "user names!"

TheFairPole's quote, to a question about where his user name came from?

"I think mine is pretty obvious... but for those who don't get it, i'll tell ya. Golota used to be my favorite boxer back in the day and he is Polish and I am part Polish. They call him the foul pole so I played on his nickname."

So, there is a decent connection, even if Golota is no longer his favorite boxer. Case closed.

I agree, Taylor won, and deserves credit, but he hasnt TRULY proven himself, other than that he can get outlanded by Hops and win twice. He(neither him or Hops) did anything impressive in either of those fights, so it's understandble as to why the "jury is still out" in regards to Taylor.


I'm a man of peace, but I've got to say it, even though FP is cool with me......

Thats what got me... they had a unanimous decision this time when Hopkins had high connect percentage, per jabs and power punches landed.
:confused:
I agree, Taylor won, and deserves credit, but he hasnt TRULY proven himself, other than that he can get outlanded by Hops and win twice. He(neither him or Hops) did anything impressive in either of those fights, so it's understandble as to why the "jury is still out" in regards to Taylor.


I'm a man of peace, but I've got to say it, even though FP is cool with me......

Thats what got me... they had a unanimous decision this time when Hopkins had high connect percentage, per jabs and power punches landed.
:confused:


I simply CANT find the punch stats, but I'm almost sure that Hops outlanded Taylor by about 35 power shots. My exact words after the 12th:"what a boring fight, no way the judges give this one to Taylor though". LOL.

I knew they were going to give it to Taylor, he landed the harder shots and put his punches together --> looked like he did more.
I simply CANT find the punch stats, but I'm almost sure that Hops outlanded Taylor by about 35 power shots. My exact words after the 12th:"what a boring fight, no way the judges give this one to Taylor though". LOL.

I simply CANT find the punch stats, but I'm almost sure that Hops outlanded Taylor by about 35 power shots. My exact words after the 12th:"what a boring fight, no way the judges give this one to Taylor though". LOL.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54834

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54834

Thanks. So not 35, but 41. Ouch.

Wow cry some more about it, worse the X was after the first fight.

A column is meant to incite debate, so your opinions are just as valid, although I will attempt to answer questions of bias.

I like Taylor's personality plenty, but I cannot be impressd by either fighter, not Taylor, nor Hopkins, after the 24 rounds that they performed. It's easy to make charges of bias when someone has an opinion that you don't agree with, but that is a convenient excuse that avoids the true idea of a column, which is debate, debate, debate.

So, I am unimpressed with Taylor, and feel that his rise to champion is motivated by two controversial decisions (which it is, according to more than 90% of press in the first fight, pretty much everyone but HBO and the state of Arkansas, and a very large split for the sequel), as well as adept promoting that got Taylor the shot, and not other middleweights that I'm attempting to imply may be much, much better than the version of Taylor that we're seeing.

So, since, like I said, columns are meant to incite debate, I will attempt to respond to your opinions respectfully, since, mainly, I'm just cool like that. =)



Well, if Hopkins suddenly grew old over night and look washed up, what does it say about Taylor that he wasn't able to take the fight to Hopkins and truly take the title? Taylor doesn't look good against fighters who force him to go forwards, hasn't done so since stepping up competition against Marquez... he is much, much better as a counterpuncher, and he is an adept counterpuncher, at that. That is why Pat Burns was telling Jermain to use angles, to be out of the immediate range of Bernard's shots and able to hit Hopkins, but it was a strategy that he had difficulty following up on, as Hopkins is a difficult puzzle to solve.



It matters when pointing out that there are other middleweights who may be more deserving, considering that Taylor faced none of them in his path to facing Hopkins. He was moved along with adept promoting, made the heir apparent in the hope that his considerable athletic ability would show through, and that they could make successful pay-per-view shows worth tons and tons of money. Hence why you didn't see Hopkins vs. Felix Sturm (who absolutely won that fight against De La Hoya) or any of the other lesser names at 160 whose mechanics and in-ring ability seem to have much more potential than this version of Taylor.

Mind you, Taylor could finally get that fight against a decent opponent, aside from Hopkins, where he shows the value that plenty have been expecting, including myself, but the point of this article is that, while watching the two fights, I'm thinking, "These are our champions?"


You were mentioning Felix Strum. Again it's not Taylor's fault that a match between him Strum didn't happen. Strum and the rest of the other big names in the division has their eyes on B-hops and his titles and I'm sure they don't want to take on a young undefeated up and coming fighter like Taylor because a loss would destroy their chances of taking a crack at Bhops.

Taylor is undeserving? Then why the hell did Bhops gave him a title shot while there are more deserving challengers in the division? It is because Taylor is the biggest names among them and the biggest crowd drawer. Now after Taylor defeated the champ people will call him undeserving? Yeah what a class act. :D
Learn to show some respect and give credit to whom the credit is due.

Taylor wasn't able to take the fight to Hopkins. In the first fight yeah that's the reason why there was a second fight. And this time it's different because Taylor is the Champ and Bhops is the challenger. Therefore Taylor doesan't have to attack attack attack. This is sweet science remember? So it was Bhops who wasn't able to take the fight to the champ and not the other way around. If Bhops has the skills to do what he said he is going to do he should have done that. After all he promise to finish Taylor off this time, but NO it's all words brother so he lost.

You are unimpressed with Taylor, and feel that his rise to champion is motivated by two controversial decisions? :D Well Bhops can try again for ther third time. I don't see why Bhops won't do that if he really still has it in him. :p

As for Strum and the rest of the big names in the division I'm sure their eyes are now on Taylor so I'm sure Taylor wouldn't have reasons to fight them now. If he doesn't then that's the time you can call the guy undeserving.

Meanwhile give credit where the credit is due. Show some respect to the guy who bust his balls out to get a crack at those titles and delivered.

Okay, some more respectful responses. Again, I ask you, if you do reply back, to keep the same demeanor and resist the temptation to flame.

This is a bad article. Quit finding ways to hate on him.

Thanks for reading. I think it's convenient to call someone a "hater" just because they put together criticism. It's my job to give my opinion in a developed, constructed manner. If I wanted to be a hater, and not a columnist, I'd spend minutes putting together brief message board posts, instead of hours doing a weekly, two thousand word column.

And if you read earlier in the thread, I don't dislike Taylor, I find him rather amiable. I just was rather underwhelmed by both Taylor AND Hopkins, a point that people seem to have glossed over.

The language used in that article is unnecessary. taylor obviously has the skills to be a champion, and his first 20 fights have prepared him to become what he is today, the undisputed middleweight champion. i think we will see how good taylor really is when he fights different competition. Have you ever seen anyone look impressive against bernard hopkins?? NO, therefore i believe its unnecessary to call taylor an undeserving champion. he did what he did through hard work and dicipline, and was able to beat the current champion, twice. Undeserving? hardly

This was a response to my asking PBF to show where I was biased. Although you find the language to be unnecessary, that does not indicated that I have biased, clouded judgment. Another poster or two indicated that I was rooting for Hopkins, but I do not root for or against fighters, as that would compromise my integrity as a journalist. I do absolutely agree with your points that few, if any, have looked impressive against Hopkins. And Taylor has reached his heights through hard work and discipline, a point I do not deny. I assert, however, by calling him undeserving, that there are other middleweights who did not receive favorable promoting. And you say that we will see how good Taylor really is when he fights different competiton... that is exactly my point about what I would like to see, because coming out of these 24 rounds, I have a difficult time being high on him.

I can understand why you wrote the article, however it's pretty apparent that you favor Hopkins over Taylor for whatever reason.

What a lot of people don't understand is that (aside from Roy Jones), no one has ever been able to take Hopkins off his gameplan. He has a (boring) style that slows the fight, to which he can dictate the pace. Most fighters don't have the patience to fight with him like that, hence his superb record.

Taylor did everything he could do in the ring, given who he was fighting. Fighters aren't going to average 70-90 punches around versus B-Hop because of his counterpunching ability. Taylor simply worked with what he had, and although it was a pretty boring fight (both were actually), he did enough to win.

No one is going to beat Hopkins decisively simply because of his style. Basing Taylor's ability level off of the Hopkins fight is like comparing Gretzky to Lemieux, it can't be done. Two totally different styles.

Taylor dominated in every fight up until this point, with progressively tougher opponents each time. He passed this test with flying colors, and I honestly don't think there's a middleweight out there right now that can push him harder than B-Hop did. Lacy is a fun fighter to watch, but he'd be giving up over 5 inches of reach. He doesn't have NEARLY the defensive skills of Hopkins and would have a tough time getting inside on Taylor. Winky and Taylor would be about the same as the Hopkins fights, aside from the jab count.

In closing, Taylor IS the best middleweight out there right now, like it or not.

Ah, this was the poster. As I put it this morning, the only things I favor in boxing are money well spent, entertaining or interesting fights (this one was the latter in its implications, but definitely lacking in the former), and the continued existence of Ricardo Mayorga, Carlos Maussa and Emanuel Augustus to make me laugh.

You make valid points about styles and the way the fight carried on. And Taylor is regarded as the best middleweight out there, I'm just saying that I need to see him step it up beyond this level.

this article indirectly puts down hopkins skills too.

jez,and he makes it like eastman was a live contender against hopkins.

i can see how he could slant everything like that. just like i slant things in taylors favor. neither side is off that much.

I didn't put down Hopkins' skills, I put down the way that he carried out his strategy. Although I scored both fights for Hopkins, it is also his fault in that he left what Max Kellerman so aptly called "swing rounds," close, close rounds that lead to controversy.

As for Eastman, at the time, he was regarded as a legitimate contender for a title shot. It is only through the post-fight revisionist history that we see how poorly he performed against Hopkins, and put him down. At the time, Eastman had all of one loss, a controversial one against William Joppy, and had an eight fight winning streak, albeit against mostly anonymous opposition.

Nowadays? He's back in the pack, having lost to Abraham.

I don't necessarily slant, I'm just pointing out problems with both fighters, with an emphasis on the preordained superstar.

This article is pure, venomous crap. Did someone lose money on the fight?

Also, if you're going to claim to be a writer, at least get your facts straight:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGPOPPAPUMP
In need of a clear, decisive win to cement his identity, Taylor’s rematch with Hopkins was twelve rounds more of the same – the same tentative performance, the same mechanical and mental flaws, the same unanimous decision going his way...
and:

...while a majority of informed observers filled their cards out in favor of the forty-year-oldWho are these "informed observers"?

Journalists shouldn't bet on anything they cover. Silly implication. And you're right, I made an error in referring to the decision, which was split the first time, unanimous the second. As is responsible, and as is my tendency, I will make a correction notice in next week's column.

As for informed observers, at least 75% of journalists ringside for the first fight had it for Hopkins, with varying point discrepancies. This time around, it was closer to an even split.

There is simply no way you can say Taylor is undeserving. None. He beat the guy who had been the king of the division for as long as anyone ever has, the same guy who was the #1 pound for pound guy in the sport until Taylor beat him. Twice.

You can say Taylor's wins weren't pretty. You can say you thought the fights were close. But to say he is undeserving reeks of ignorance and sour grapes.

Again, I'm saying he is undeserving in regards to highly controversial decisions, and an opportunity received because he is American, amiable and easy to market.

And yes, Taylor came out with the victory, but again, he eked out decisions that are nowhere near clear-cut. I just think we disagree on the semantics of my word choices.

So, for the writer to be surprised that the two bouts went 24 rounds, is truly beyond my comprehension.

Never said I was surprised. In fact, I expected it. I just want, if Taylor is to be so highly regarded, for him to have distanced himself through an impressive effort, not scraping by and holding on. You also said in a later post that I'm not a fan of Taylor. I'm not a fan of anyone, or at least not when I need or want to write about them. I've followed Taylor for years, wrote in July that he had a future, took apart Hopkins' strategy after their first fight, and am confronting the labeling of superstardom this time around as suspect or at least premature, until he shows his full potential. It's quite early in his career...

wow, lol, after reading all the responses.. i'da written the article just to get such a rise out of everyone.

Well, despite the large amount of message board readers disagreeing with me, I'm glad to have readers... one reason, of many, why I wouldn't turn this into a flaming war. Your opinions are just as valid as mine, as long as they are explained in a specific, detailed, well-thought-out manner. Similarly, I feel that I should be able to answer unfair implications of bias and prejudice, just because my opinion doesn't jibe with yours.

My father read this article before I sent it in to Rick, and he wrote back that it was a bit harsh. In retrospect, I can agree with him, but I feel that it is my right to criticize, as long as I do it properly, which I maintain I did.

Okay, I really can't afford to keep doing this, with 5000 words due elsewhere by early tomorrow afternoon. I do appreciate everyone's reading the article, and keeping their responses mostly respectful. If you can, please keep your debate to each other from here on out so that I can stop being such a punk procrastinator. =)

Wow cry some more about it, worse the X was after the first fight.


I'm not cryin at all. Neither of them were impressive. They both lied about "going all out" for the "knockout". Stay the **** out of my pm box talking about "I would love to meet you face to face to discuss this
_______"


I havent said **** bad about your hometown boy, aside from he was lackluster, as was Hopkins. I'd be impressed with him, if he would have been impressive. Keep your suggestive e-threats the **** out my pm box.

You said or implied that Taylor didn't win in impressive fashion. I don't know who would win in "impressive" fashion against someone like Hopkins or Winky for that matter. Really, I know Taylor is much stronger, but Hopkins is an extremely smart with a great defense. The point is, Taylor has to land big and I don't/didn't seem him do that to Hopkins.

I just knew that if anyone was to beat Hopkins or Winky it would be a controversial and close fight going the full 12 rounds.

"Impressive" I'm assuming equals knocking Hopkins out. No one is knocking Hopkins out. And neither is Taylor, and his decision wins should not take anything away from his fights or legacy.

It would have been like winning the lottery for almost anyone at to win by TKO/KO against Hopkins. Yes, Hopkins even at the age of 41.

So saying, he didn't win "impressively" isn't realistic given the type of fighter Hopkins.



Never said I was surprised. In fact, I expected it. I just want, if Taylor is to be so highly regarded, for him to have distanced himself through an impressive effort, not scraping by and holding on. You also said in a later post that I'm not a fan of Taylor. I'm not a fan of anyone, or at least not when I need or want to write about them. I've followed Taylor for years, wrote in July that he had a future, took apart Hopkins' strategy after their first fight, and am confronting the labeling of superstardom this time around as suspect or at least premature, until he shows his full potential. It's quite early in his career...

All came from you giving me bad karma just because I posted that I correctly picked Taylor again , even the score by which he would win.What a joke

Yeah, the whole "to be the champion you have to BEAT the champion" not just show up and stand up. Didnt Hopkins outland Taylor in powershots by like 35+ punches? I was trying to find the punch stats online.


I'm a huge Hopkins fan and i'm pissed he lost, but I refuse to take anything away from Taylor. Hopkins knew what happened in the first fight and he had to know he couldn't fight the same fight again. He needed to come out fast, and he didn't. Same result. Maybe credit should be given to Taylor for preventing Hop from fighting a winning game plan. I scored the first fight for Hopkins and the second one as well..but they are far from robberies. Could have gone either way. My man Hop has nobody to blame but himself. If he comes out fast and dominates...he wins. He knew it coming in..and he still couldn't fight that fight.

I'm a huge Hopkins fan and i'm pissed he lost, but I refuse to take anything away from Taylor. Hopkins knew what happened in the first fight and he had to know he couldn't fight the same fight again. He needed to come out fast, and he didn't. Same result. Maybe credit should be given to Taylor for preventing Hop from fighting a winning game plan. I scored the first fight for Hopkins and the second one as well..but they are far from robberies. Could have gone either way. My man Hop has nobody to blame but himself. If he comes out fast and dominates...he wins. He knew it coming in..and he still couldn't fight that fight.


I didnt say Hopkins was robbed. They both robbed us boxing fans. Neither were impressive. I take nothing away from Taylor, however, I'm not impressed with Taylor, like I said, because he wasnt impressive.

Journalists shouldn't bet on anything they cover. Silly implication. And you're right, I made an error in referring to the decision, which was split the first time, unanimous the second. As is responsible, and as is my tendency, I will make a correction notice in next week's column.Not a silly implication at all. Journalists are also supposed to write from an unbiased perspective, which I did not sense at all in your "article". While you piled the crap on Taylor for his lackluster performance, you had very little to say about the snorefest that was Hopkins performance.
You forgot to mention that while Taylor lander few punches, he landed them more in combination, and that they had a more telling effect, with Hopkins being stopped in his tracks several times by a stiff jab. You didn't mention that the vast majority of the "power" shots landed by Hopkins couldn't have bruised Taylor's geriatric grandmother, let alone Taylor.

Hopkins performance in the first fight was more impressive because at least at some point in the fight you could tell it had some effect on Taylor. The most telling point, though, was that it didn't have an effect until the nervous kid had all bu punched himself out early trying to hit Hopkins while he rode his bicycle for 8 rounds straight.

As for informed observers, at least 75% of journalists ringside for the first fight had it for Hopkins, with varying point discrepancies. This time around, it was closer to an even split.And, as you have proven with your own "article" here, journalists are never swayed by their own biases or personal feelings. If you want to claim to be a Journalist, do us all a favor and leave the "Fair & Balanced" schtick to Faux News and report without your heart on your sleeve.

Martin, your basic standpoint is that by having a different opinion than the judges and yourself means he's biased. No, it means it's his opinion. I don't see how this is over the edge or even remotely bias. You're confusing it with opinionated.... seriously.

Opinion would be "Hopkins won"

When you start lacing your words with invective, it's bias.

If it's an "article", as he claims, there is no place for either. What he did was editorialize, not report.

Opinion would be "Hopkins won"

When you start lacing your words with invective, it's bias.

If it's an "article", as he claims, there is no place for either. What he did was editorialize, not report.

You seem to read this article and completely look at it the wrong way. While I see a slightly harsh tone to it, it isn't a bad thing. So he's dissapointed that Taylor didn't show him much and states it as thus... this is wrong? If he personally had standards to which he wished a new champion would live up to, and Taylor falls short of these standards, he can feel free to put it as thus.

I don't think I ever also read a disclaimer on this site that said journalists must remain completely outside of the sport and report only facts. Do you realize how dull, boring, and inane reading only facts would be? Facts, with a dash of opinion blended together (even if there's a little controversy) is a great piece of work.

And opinion with little fact is editorializing, not journalism.

And opinion with little fact is editorializing, not journalism.

You're correct, but this article clearly isn't a case of it. The 2nd, 3rd, and 3rd to last paragraphs are the only things which contain more about opinions based on facts instead of pure facts. But as I said, what can you write about Jermain Taylor that's possible for praise other than urking out decisions against a 40 year old B-Hop?

I'm not cryin at all. Neither of them were impressive. They both lied about "going all out" for the "knockout". Stay the **** out of my pm box talking about "I would love to meet you face to face to discuss this
_______"


I havent said **** bad about your hometown boy, aside from he was lackluster, as was Hopkins. I'd be impressed with him, if he would have been impressive. Keep your suggestive e-threats the **** out my pm box.
Godzhand just in case you didn't read real interviews, aka. non promtion bull**** talk, Taylor never said he was going for a knockout. What he wanted to do he didn't come close but he said..and I quote "I'm just going out there to win all 12 rounds, and if a knockout comes I'll take it." Hopkins is the only one who said he WOULD knock him out.

i don't think peoples give hopkins enough credit. he's made everyone in recent times look bad with his plodding style and gameplan. so i got to give the still anxious mistake ridden taylor acculades for hanging with and defeating the master especialy in first fight where taylor suffered concussion and was still able to hang and win.taylors the only one in recent times that has beaten hopkins fighting hopkins fight.

i think there's a chance that we'll see taylor fight a different fight against other challengers.

taylor will be the biggest and strongest opponent winky has ever faced.

and winky will be 35 next year.

imo winkys ringmanship and slickness will give taylor fits for only so long before he starts steamrolling thru him.i just see winky having a hard time trying to hurt taylor.but he could definitely out slick and out box taylor. especialy if taylors trainer can't get him to stop making the same mistakes like throwing anxious glancing blows and ****ing his right and leaving his left down like in first and second hop fight.maybe its time for taylor to get rid of his hometown trainer and get someone else.

if taylor is good enough to beat hopkins with all his flaws think how good he can be if he fixes his mistakes.awesome at 160.

i don't think peoples give hopkins enough credit. he's made everyone in recent times look bad with his plodding style and gameplan. so i got to give the still anxious mistake ridden taylor acculades for hanging with and defeating the master especialy in first fight where taylor suffered concussion and was still able to hang and win.taylors the only one in recent times that has beaten hopkins fighting hopkins fight.

i think there's a chance that we'll see taylor fight a different fight against other challengers.

taylor will be the biggest and strongest opponent winky has ever faced.

and winky will be 35 next year.

imo winkys ringmanship and slickness will give taylor fits for only so long before he starts steamrolling thru him.i just see winky having a hard time trying to hurt taylor.but he could definitely out slick and out box taylor. especialy if taylors trainer can't get him to stop making the same mistakes like throwing anxious glancing blows and ****ing his right and leaving his left down like in first and second hop fight.maybe its time for taylor to get rid of his hometown trainer and get someone else.

if taylor is good enough to beat hopkins with all his flaws think how good he can be if he fixes his mistakes.awesome at 160.


:D That's right Taylor is ONLY fighter who has beaten Bhops in his own game reason why I can't see why people cannot give respect to the guy, instead we find articles that antagonizes him down to the lowest level. :p

I love this sports and I love anything that's good for it. I don't hate Bhops or any fighter for that matter it's just that I think Taylor accomplished what seems to be impossible and he deserves phrases for having the balls to go for it not insults. ;)

I agree with the article. Hopkins was robbed twice. Taylor's swollen eye and bloody nose are souvenirs of his spanking by the master. The judges should be forced to watch the fight through monitors and watch slow motion replays so they can see that the most impressive combos thrown by Taylor didn't even make contact. Hopkins set the pace and fought more agressively. He wasn't beat by Taylor. He was beat by the judges.

Jermain Taylor, having defeated longtime great Bernard Hopkins on two consecutive occasions, is the undisputed middleweight champion.

He is also unimpressive, underwhelming and undeserving.

He is a champion of circumstance, a hero of happenstance, a man whose career has been advanced by favorable promoting by Lou DiBella and the suits at HBO, as well as by his amiable personality and admirable pedigree.

For his first twenty fights, Taylor preyed on undersized, lesser talented lambs, victims in preparation of his future coronation, a destiny that seemed certainty as time passed, as Hopkins aged and his planned retirement approached.

The 2000 Olympic bronze medalist stepped up his opposition in the summer of 2004, stopping former junior middleweight Raul Marquez – who subsequently retired – and then wrapping up the year with a shutout of William Joppy – who should’ve retired after the beating Hopkins had given him twelve months prior. [details (http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=2556)]


Hmmm, just like the last article you did on this, you sound biased, upset, bitter and totally unprofessional. Hard to take you serious with that in consideration. Can a professional writer PLEASE post a good, FAIR and slightly accurate article on Jermain Taylors HUGE win?? Is that too much to ask? :confused:

I agree with the article. Hopkins was robbed twice. Taylor's swollen eye and bloody nose are souvenirs of his spanking by the master. The judges should be forced to watch the fight through monitors and watch slow motion replays so they can see that the most impressive combos thrown by Taylor didn't even make contact. Hopkins set the pace and fought more agressively. He wasn't beat by Taylor. He was beat by the judges.


:eek: What fight did you watch? :D

Hmmm, just like the last article you did on this, you sound biased, upset, bitter and totally unprofessional. Hard to take you serious with that in consideration. Can a professional writer PLEASE post a good, FAIR and slightly accurate article on Jermain Taylors HUGE win?? Is that too much to ask? :confused:

So you want an article that sings the praises of Jermain Taylor and agrees with you.... what praises are there to give? He urked out wins that could have been given to Hopkins just as easily as Taylor. He did it in an unimpressive fashion that doesn't give people a lot of hope for him in the middleweight division.. especially against Winky. What is fair is saying that he won 2 lackluster fights with 2 lackluster endings at the end of Hopkin's career. If he had shown me something. If he had won a decisive decision... or even managed to hurt B-Hop once or twice I wouldn't be so depressed about it. Instead, we see the end of a great career and the soon to be short lived championship reign of an (in my eyes) undeserving champion.

So you want an article that sings the praises of Jermain Taylor and agrees with you.... what praises are there to give? He urked out wins that could have been given to Hopkins just as easily as Taylor. He did it in an unimpressive fashion that doesn't give people a lot of hope for him in the middleweight division.. especially against Winky. What is fair is saying that he won 2 lackluster fights with 2 lackluster endings at the end of Hopkin's career. If he had shown me something. If he had won a decisive decision... or even managed to hurt B-Hop once or twice I wouldn't be so depressed about it. Instead, we see the end of a great career and the soon to be short lived championship reign of an (in my eyes) undeserving champion.

Not once have I posted I wanted an article that 'agreed with me' and sang taylors praises. What I wouldnt mind reading however, is how a young fighter with alot of skill yet room for improvement managed to do something that nobody else has been able to do in 10 long yr's, and thats beat Bernard Hopkins. Mentioning what this could mean for the division (a new champ that so far has avoided nobody instead of a guy that avoided many) and what it could POSSIBLY mean for the sport in general (some new blood, and someone thats not defense minded and is exciting when not fighting a defensive master) sure wouldnt hurt the article. Pointing out that the score was close is fair, *****ing and crying that he didnt razzle-dazzle the masses, do backflips into the air while winning isnt..oh wait, thats putting words in your mouth (words you never said) which is pretty much the same thing you did when you replied to my post.
And, on a side note, you dont know how short his reign will be, but say you do with total conviction.

Not once have I posted I wanted an article that 'agreed with me' and sang taylors praises. What I wouldnt mind reading however, is how a young fighter with alot of skill yet room for improvement managed to do something that nobody else has been able to do in 10 long yr's, and thats beat Bernard Hopkins. Mentioning what this could mean for the division (a new champ that so far has avoided nobody instead of a guy that avoided many) and what it could POSSIBLY mean for the sport in general (some new blood, and someone thats not defense minded and is exciting when not fighting a defensive master) sure wouldnt hurt the article. Pointing out that the score was close is fair, *****ing and crying that he didnt razzle-dazzle the masses, do backflips into the air while winning isnt..oh wait, thats putting words in your mouth (words you never said) which is pretty much the same thing you did when you replied to my post.
And, on a side note, you dont know how short his reign will be, but say you do with total conviction.
I agree. People shouldn't blame the result on the boring style of fight and vice se versa!

I agree. People shouldn't blame the result on the boring style of fight and vice se versa!

well not only that, there were 2 guys in the ring, and bernard may be alot of things, exciting is not one of them. He is a defensive master...just hitting him is a job. To beat him is an accomplishment (ask any of the guys thats tried in the past 10 yrs) and jermain can and will be more 'entertaining' with other fighters.

well not only that, there were 2 guys in the ring, and bernard may be alot of things, exciting is not one of them. He is a defensive master...just hitting him is a job. To beat him is an accomplishment (ask any of the guys thats tried in the past 10 yrs) and jermain can and will be more 'entertaining' with other fighters.



his most 'entertaining' fight will be with lacy. lef hook gonna knock him out

well not only that, there were 2 guys in the ring, and bernard may be alot of things, exciting is not one of them. He is a defensive master...just hitting him is a job. To beat him is an accomplishment (ask any of the guys thats tried in the past 10 yrs) and jermain can and will be more 'entertaining' with other fighters.


That's the reason why everyone has a problem with Tayor, most feel that he didnt truly "beat" Hopkins. The whole "to win the title, you have to take it", not just survive. Both are to blame for the outcome. Oh well. Have a good night Tracy.

his most 'entertaining' fight will be with lacy. lef hook gonna knock him out

alright now, we've discussed this already!! IF he can get past that jab IF IF IF. Like I told you, I like Lacy too, so this is a rough one for me. :confused:

That's the reason why everyone has a problem with Tayor, most feel that he didnt truly "beat" Hopkins. The whole "to win the title, you have to take it", not just survive. Both are to blame for the outcome. Oh well. Have a good night Tracy.

thanks..I think he did enough to take it. Funny thing is, I tried to apply the same concept to the first Jones-Tarver fight, and got eaten alive!!! I didnt think Roy did enough, plain and simple..but, I think Jermain did. It'll always be a matter of opinion, but constantly refusing to give taylor credit, well,....

alright now, we've discussed this already!! IF he can get past that jab IF IF IF. Like I told you, I like Lacy too, so this is a rough one for me. :confused:


if lacy's smart enough to crowd Taylor, pressure him on the inside, he won't have to worry about no jab, jus setting up the lef hook, or better yet, an uppercut. teddy atlas sez " dat punch, de uppacut iz da most devastating punch "

if lacy's smart enough to crowd Taylor, pressure him on the inside, he won't have to worry about no jab, jus setting up the lef hook, or better yet, an uppercut. teddy atlas sez " dat punch, de uppacut iz da most devastating punch "

But, the jab is the best weapon to keep lacy from crowding him, and jermain is great with his jab. Anyway, much as I'd love to stick around and debate this one with you..I gotta go.
And remember beeatch, I'm on no particular side in that match up..and think not only would it be a pretty even fight, but also a damn good one too! Classix boxer vs. puncher. Take care bud ;)

But, the jab is the best weapon to keep lacy from crowding him, and jermain is great with his jab. Anyway, much as I'd love to stick around and debate this one with you..I gotta go.
And remember beeatch, I'm on no particular side in that match up..and think not only would it be a pretty even fight, but also a damn good one too! Classix boxer vs. puncher. Take care bud ;)

Taylor hasnt shown me a whole lot, I've seen him and Lacy fight at least 5 times each, and I just may bet actual real money on Lacy.

Taylor hasnt shown me a whole lot, I've seen him and Lacy fight at least 5 times each, and I just may bet actual real money on Lacy.



my money is on lacy, he was stepping up when he faced pemberton, and he knocked the sandman the **** out. taylor will give him a little more trouble because he has better skills but once lacy knows he can hit taylor, nature will take its course

my money is on lacy, he was stepping up when he faced pemberton, and he knocked the sandman the **** out. taylor will give him a little more trouble because he has better skills but once lacy knows he can hit taylor, nature will take its course

maybe. Taylor's jab and height may be a problem unless lacy breaks him body down with body shots. Either way, a highly entertaining fight..one I'm a little hesitant to pic a winner of cause both boys bring alot of talent to the ring and their own assortment of specialities. Their styles should match up good enough that we have a great fight on tv for a change. The thing is, jermain would have to move up to super mid. unless they agree on a catch wt. and then the sanctioning bodies might start *****ing and threaten to take his titles....I'm not sure how that works, but I've heard of it being done before. Only the Ring allows champs to fight out of their division without risk of having the belt yanked away, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD. In other words, I cant swear to that! :o

Taylor hasnt shown me a whole lot, I've seen him and Lacy fight at least 5 times each, and I just may bet actual real money on Lacy.

I understand what you mean..I've seen both fight several times too, but I thought jermain looked good and sharp. Sure, he needs improving in some areas but most of them do...I still consider him quite green to tell the truth. Lacy is great, and I like him alot..I do wonder sometimes if he relies on his power a bit too much :confused:

maybe. Taylor's jab and height may be a problem unless lacy breaks him body down with body shots. Either way, a highly entertaining fight..one I'm a little hesitant to pic a winner of cause both boys bring alot of talent to the ring and their own assortment of specialities. Their styles should match up good enough that we have a great fight on tv for a change. The thing is, jermain would have to move up to super mid. unless they agree on a catch wt. and then the sanctioning bodies might start *****ing and threaten to take his titles....I'm not sure how that works, but I've heard of it being done before. Only the Ring allows champs to fight out of their division without risk of having the belt yanked away, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD. In other words, I cant swear to that! :o


jermain will move up to super middle, he won't be able to make weight at 160 for much longer, then it will happen