No hate for Jermaine Taylor, but why do people say he was a good fighter?

[ballgamessuck]

That when Taylor lost, it was knockout losses to Kelly Pavlick, Carl Froch, and Arthur Abraham. Look at the career knockout percentages of those three fighters. They are all murderous punchers.

[crold1]

Originally Posted by DoktorSleepless

Taylor completely outclassed Froch for most of the fight.

Not really. The fight was a lot like a Margarito-Cotto or Chavez-Taylor type affair where one guy is landing with speed and the TV guys get all carried away while the other guy just keeps landing thudding, harder, multiplying stuff. You could see Froch really chipping away the whole second half and it was WAY closer than the scores. I had Froch down 1 going into the final round.

[danny711]

Taylor was a good fighter. He beat B hop twice at 160. He had a draw with a great defensive fighter in Winkey. He had Pavlic badly hurt in their first fight. He was the first man to knock down Froch and had he lasted the 12th, he would have won.

He was good. He just needed better D and a bit more chin.

[120]

his style was really ugly but he was effective at the end

[rocco1252]

Taylor was a sh*t fighter, the only thing he had was lunging punches and maybe an ok jab but to say he won the Hopkins fights is just BS because Hopkins was robbed both times. Taylor only got the decisions because people wanted to see a new champ and one that was young and fresh and could be a poster boy. When put in with any fighter that was considered a pressure fighter he got his as* whooped. Hopkins was a big mouth, who didnt care what anyone said and did his own thing his own way in and out of the ring and people didnt like that. Once again I will say Taylor was trash he was just a wanna be poster boy for boxing that people wanted to believe in and never lived up to his hype.

[ballgamessuck]

Originally Posted by ballgamessuck

That when Taylor lost, it was knockout losses to Kelly Pavlick, Carl Froch, and Arthur Abraham. Look at the career knockout percentages of those three fighters. They are all murderous punchers.

Taylors biggest problem over the last few years of his career, and maybe his entire career, was defence. If he wasnt so easy to hit, he would have beaten all three of the men who knocked him out.

[Las Vegas,]

I remember Jim Lampley saying "Jermain Taylor is the fastest, strongest middleweight I've ever seen" and he had that frog in his throat. It was like he REALLY didn't wanna say that.

Taylor was always vastly overrated.

[bojangles1987]

At the very least he fought Hopkins even twice. Only very good fighters could do that.

[Iceta Lives]

Originally Posted by rocco1252

Taylor was a sh*t fighter, the only thing he had was lunging punches and maybe an ok jab but to say he won the Hopkins fights is just BS because Hopkins was robbed both times. Taylor only got the decisions because people wanted to see a new champ and one that was young and fresh and could be a poster boy. When put in with any fighter that was considered a pressure fighter he got his as* whooped. Hopkins was a big mouth, who didnt care what anyone said and did his own thing his own way in and out of the ring and people didnt like that. Once again I will say Taylor was trash he was just a wanna be poster boy for boxing that people wanted to believe in and never lived up to his hype.

I don't hate Taylor and don't think he was a shit fighter. Just think he was ordinary.

[BeenDownB4]

He beat Bhop!!!

He had to be good he beat good and great fighters. If it wasnt for his stamina issues would have clearly beat Pavlik the first fight. Great jab when it was going and good skill set. Footwork wasnt that good but he had potential to be great. Some boxers never be the same after they lose. Before he lost he pretty good. Was a good draw for american and was working on being a big draw.