taylor aint hit hopkins flush one time

This is how i would view it as a judge. Hopkins is a very low starter so it's easy to take advantage of him early on. This is where Jermain should dominate. Jermain has to be agreesive early and if he isn't effective in his agression, the round has to to go to Hopkins. Jermain's strength is to end the fight early or dominate Hopkins early, not to do very little early on and going into the late rounds with Hopkins and tire out. I hear a lot people saying the early rounds nothing happened. Jermain was active but not effective. Hopkins did very little and people award Taylor the round. Why? Because he worked harder and Agressive. Wrong way to score. Agression and work is pointless if you get nothing done and in my book a losing round because in the end the agressive guy wasn't affective and wasted his energy. He didn't land flush shots and wasted valuable time and energy accomplishing nothing? That plays into Hopkins book, not Taylor's and Taylor got tired from his early round work. If Taylor worked hard and Hopkins seemed uncomfortable or had to work hard to keep Taylor off early on it might be a different scenario. I don't know till I see it myself but I hope this clarifies some points on how to score the non-Larry Merchant way. BTW close rounds go to the champ. People have to remember that otherwise ever Joe schmoo would win a close fight. You have to BEAT the champ, to be the champ, not end up in a tie I believe in the challenger having to take the title away from the champ but what you have laid out here is some pretty shaddy shit. If Nard knew these rules before hand I dont think he would have ever engaged Taylor, he would have ran around tying every round and on your card he would have pitched a shutout. I had zero rooting interest in this fight and simply wanted to see a great fight. I saw a good fight in which I gave to Taylor by the smallest of margins, I am completely open to the fact that I could be wrong and I look forward to watching it again... But... A boxing champion should not recieve "diplomatic immunity" so to speak in the ring and in a wierd way this is what you are suggesting.

There is 10-10 rounds if they are even. You get a 9-9 round if the fighter who won lost a point. Thank you, thats what i thought

There is no 10-10 round tie, SON . It's a 9-9 tie round. Learn something about boxing scoring before you comment on it Rasta. No next round, I finished it and U down for the count..... :boxing: BTW I haven't seen it but Im saying judges make tons of mistake just like you did. wow u must be dumb, its not a 9-9 round, it IS a 10-10 round, if its a tie.

i think he did shake hopkins in the first few rounds but hopkins did considerably more damage in the last rounds, if hopkins had started doing the work a round earlier we would have seen a different outcome maybe even a stoppage.

This is how i would view it as a judge. Hopkins is a very low starter so it's easy to take advantage of him early on. This is where Jermain should dominate. Jermain has to be agreesive early and if he isn't effective in his agression, the round has to to go to Hopkins. Jermain's strength is to end the fight early or dominate Hopkins early, not to do very little early on and going into the late rounds with Hopkins and tire out. I hear a lot people saying the early rounds nothing happened. Jermain was active but not effective. Hopkins did very little and people award Taylor the round. Why? Because he worked harder and Agressive. Wrong way to score. Agression and work is pointless if you get nothing done and in my book a losing round because in the end the agressive guy wasn't affective and wasted his energy. He didn't land flush shots and wasted valuable time and energy accomplishing nothing? That plays into Hopkins book, not Taylor's and Taylor got tired from his early round work. If Taylor worked hard and Hopkins seemed uncomfortable or had to work hard to keep Taylor off early on it might be a different scenario. I don't know till I see it myself but I hope this clarifies some points on how to score the non-Larry Merchant way. BTW close rounds go to the champ. People have to remember that otherwise ever Joe schmoo would win a close fight. You have to BEAT the champ, to be the champ, not end up in a tie Well they also said that State of Nevada usually scores the round for the more aggressive guy.

i thoguht the whole point of the 10 POINT MUST system is to stop judges from giving 10-10 rounds and every round has to be a 10-9

What I don't understand is how one of the judges gave the 12th to Taylor. Had that judge gave the round to Hopkins which he should've because he dominated the entire round the fight would've been called a draw.

hmm Taylor's jab was effective at times, and he did catch Hopkins flush. What fight were you watching? If you wanted to say something truthful, you should have said Taylor's punches didn't do much harm to Bernard. That was true enough. Even rounds are scored 10-10. Don't be a smartass when you don't even know what you're talking about. Here's why Hopkins lost folks. First half of the fight, Hopkins averaged about 18 punches a round.

There is 10-10 rounds if they are even. You get a 9-9 round if the fighter who won lost a point.

my bad 9-9 then. But why not 10-10 if neither fighter lost the round.

There is no 10-10 round tie, SON . It's a 9-9 tie round. Learn something about boxing scoring before you comment on it Rasta. No next round, I finished it and U down for the count..... :boxing: BTW I haven't seen it but Im saying judges make tons of mistake just like you did. FYI, it is a 10-10 round when the round is scored as even.

Watch the fight before you comment on it. And No it shouldnt just go to the champ it should be a 10-10 round. Done Next round. There is no 10-10 round tie, SON . It's a 9-9 tie round. Learn something about boxing scoring before you comment on it Rasta. No next round, I finished it and U down for the count..... :boxing: BTW I haven't seen it but Im saying judges make tons of mistake just like you did.

The first half of the fight was mostly Taylor's, but some of those rounds (the first for instance) were too close too call. I think Hopkins EXPOSED the ineffectiveness of Taylor's jab in the first half, and showed the world he (Taylor) just wasn't fast enough to catch him flush. Unfortunately, Hopkins just wasn't agressive enough in some of those early rounds. The last few rounds were very exciting, Taylor was definetely in trouble (almost out on his feet at one point). I guess one could argue Hopkins did more damage in 3 or 4 rounds, than Taylor did in 6 or 7, therefore Hopkins should have won, or the fight should have been a draw at worst.

3 rounds don't mean shyt. Tayler dominated most the fight, give him the win fo pete's sake.

To say Hopkins deserved the win just because he dominated he last few round would imply that the first seven rounds meant nothing, which in boxing they mean quite alot. Go stick your head in the sand hopkins boy. My point is that you just can not give the fight to Taylor. The champ always gets the advantage when it's a close fight and he wasn't even close to getting knocked out. Hopkins had Taylor on his heels for the final 4 rounds. Hopkins will get his rematch and hopefully he will show up the entire fight next around. Oh, and I'm not "a Hopkins Boy". I like both fighters. :boxing:

The concept of giving all the close rounds to the champ died with Hagler-Leonard. Hopkins didn't do enough the first half of the fight. Winning the 12th doesn't change the score in the first 6 rounds. There is no controversy in the scoring. Hopkins blew it, plain and simple. He proved he is the better fighter, but had a losing strategy. In the rematch, Hopkins can do things differently but Taylor will have learnt a lot. It will be another close fight, same result.

Judges are not always the most skilled in determining a fight. There is no school for it. There is a lot of personal preference and they make many mistakes and most importantly they can be bought out or forced to favor someone so they can continue you work. I see a lot of scores judges hand out and there is no way they could even add that score up. They subtract knockdowns wrong, forget how to deduct points incorrectly of forget too, give 9-9 rounds on point deductions for low blows etc., and 10-10 even rounds. If it's an even round and no one really won it, it should go to the champ, not the guy you like to win, put money on, has been winning the fight etc, or perference in style. IMHO you have to beat the champ clearly to win. It was that way in the 50's-60's 70's and 80's and the 90's it got murky and now that idea is crap now. I didn't watch the fight, I'll get it about 2-3 days, but from what i hear Taylor didn't really beat Hopkins. Watch the fight before you comment on it. And No it shouldnt just go to the champ it should be a 10-10 round. Done Next round.

Maybe you mean IQ 1.5 considering your piss poor application of the english language? Oooouuuucccchhhhhh You got owned

True that Hopkins wasn't hit with a flush shot, but he didn't do anything for the first half of the match and that's what cost him the fight. For the first half Taylor was just being the agressor and judges takes note on that. And unfortunately judges aren't "schooled boxer". This is how i would view it as a judge. Hopkins is a very low starter so it's easy to take advantage of him early on. This is where Jermain should dominate. Jermain has to be agreesive early and if he isn't effective in his agression, the round has to to go to Hopkins. Jermain's strength is to end the fight early or dominate Hopkins early, not to do very little early on and going into the late rounds with Hopkins and tire out. I hear a lot people saying the early rounds nothing happened. Jermain was active but not effective. Hopkins did very little and people award Taylor the round. Why? Because he worked harder and Agressive. Wrong way to score. Agression and work is pointless if you get nothing done and in my book a losing round because in the end the agressive guy wasn't affective and wasted his energy. He didn't land flush shots and wasted valuable time and energy accomplishing nothing? That plays into Hopkins book, not Taylor's and Taylor got tired from his early round work. If Taylor worked hard and Hopkins seemed uncomfortable or had to work hard to keep Taylor off early on it might be a different scenario. I don't know till I see it myself but I hope this clarifies some points on how to score the non-Larry Merchant way. BTW close rounds go to the champ. People have to remember that otherwise ever Joe schmoo would win a close fight. You have to BEAT the champ, to be the champ, not end up in a tie

I say Taylor won 1 more round than Hopkins, but he only won 1 round out of the last 6 or so, and that one wasn't even convincingly won. How can you give a victory to a guy that lost the entire second half of a fight? As soon as the fight heated up with some real action Taylor looked outmatched and tired. I'm not saying Hopkins won, but to say Taylor was a clear cut winner is going too far. It was a draw. :boxing: To say Hopkins deserved the win just because he dominated he last few round would imply that the first seven rounds meant nothing, which in boxing they mean quite alot. Go stick your head in the sand hopkins boy.