How do you rate Jermain Taylor as a boxer?

hate is strong here and european bias laugh the fucking out loud Laughing out fucking loud at the typical ignorant American sterotyping. European bias?? Im British not European. Why would I give a fuck about Kessler or Bute? What has Taylor done at 168 to suggest he can beat these guys already? I dont hate Taylor , he's just overrated

Belittle Taylor who's fought champions his past seven fights, by dismissing the quality of his opposition and then questioning his decisions against top opposition, and then belittle Pavlik's boxing skill, who is only "limited" in the fact that he's not got lightening fast hands... he's actually a very good technical boxer, he just looks awkward because of his dimensions... All while saying Hopkins should have gotten the win over Taylor, which is likely meant to credit Calzaghe for his own win over Hopkins, and then going on to hype the typical European names, who if anything have made their own "careers" off knocking out bums. *yawn* I never dismissed the quality of his opposition which has been top quality recently. But for me, he hasnt beat a world class opponent because he lost to both Hopkins and Wright. I said he built up his reputation by KOing Light middleweights which he did before fighting Hopkins. As soon as he stepped up to classy opponents, his power disappeared, he seemed mentally not there and he was getting schooled by better fighters. Pavlik is technially limited, he doesnt do anything fancy. A boxer with Taylor's technical pedigree should be able to outbox him. He improved a lot in the second fight so he deserves credit for that but he still got beat. Im saying Hopkins beat him because thats how I scored it. Several other people did so too. Typical lazy American stereotyping. Why the fuck would I care about "European fighters"?? Im British not Danish or Romanian. We're not all the same. I just think most top supermiddleweights would beat Taylor right now. He has no pedigree at the weight, had no power against top oppents at 160 and is mentally pretty weak. If Pavlik could outbox him and knock him out then Kessler -who is technically superior to Pavlik - would most likely do the same or at least decision him. Froch is a little less clear cut as he hasnt been tested at that level yet but Taylor obviously finds him a threat.

Taylor's problem isn't his talent it's his management. While they've done a terrific job of making Taylor a millionare quickly they've sacraficed his standing as a genuine super star. I suppose Taylor didn't help his own cause by him appearing to believe all the hype his management produced. It was clear after the wins over Hopkins that he became a protected fighter only being matched up against smaller fighters and gaining what at the very least were gifted decisions against the likes of Spinks and Winky Wright. While this was great for his financial security I believe it produced a sense of false superiorty in Taylor. Now they finally stick him in against a legitimate hungry middleweight named Pavlik who could give as well as he took and Taylor folded. There is no doubt that the more gifted athlete that night was Taylor but Pavlik was better prepared and hungrier and most of all used to fighting hard punching middleweights like Miranda. So when Taylor knocked Pavlik down lo and behold he got up. Wait a minute! That wasn't supposed to happen!! What took place after that was a slow grinding dis-mantling of the annointed one and the rest was history. Taylor's arragance was such that he just couldn't believe all the press had been wrong and that somehow Pavlik just got lucky so he demanded a rematch figuring that there is just no way lightning could strike twice and well it did!! Taylor has the makings of a great fighter he just needs to get back to being hungry, work on his cardio and fight some real fights against legitimate fighters.

Taylor >>>> Calzaghe LOL...Taylor has tremendous boxing skills. The fact is that he isnt a KO puncher at 160, and he sometimes gets lured in to these brawls, while he should be outboxing his opponent, with his best weapon, a great left jab. Some say that Taylor is the best "154 Lb Champion" in years, due to the fact that during his middleweight reign, he defended his title against a list of top 154 lb fighters and yet...he still couldn't KO them! (Wright,Ouma,Spinks)..Taylor vs Lacy is a big fight for both of them..Taylor should outbox Lacy, and not slug, and this will be an easy win for Taylor.

I think he's a good boxer, he does have flaws but he showed improvements in the second Pavlik fight, his biggest flaw right now is his stamina/workrate but apart from that, his defense looked better in his last fight and he still has fast hands, has a very good jab and throws good combinations. Whether he ends up in the HOF remains to be seen, it depends on what he does in the next few years.

OK really, last one! Yes, I can see why you might see it as biased, but it isn't. I do give both guys credit for what they've achieved. Taylor ended B-Hops MW reign for christ's sake! That is an excellent pair of victories. I give a little less to Pavlik for beating Taylor twice, since Taylor isn't B-Hop, but still, a very good pair of victories by a guy who previously hadn't been all that heralded. However...I can't very well go into paroxyisms of glee over their skillsets if I really don't think they are that good. It wouldn't be honest. Boxers can still get great wins without even being that good of a boxer, there are any number of factors that feed in and determine the outcome of a match, not least that when two good but flawed boxers like these two meet, or when one of them faces an aging champion who isn't what he was, at least one of them is going to win! Great wins on paper, really nice on the resume, but does it transform the reality of what they are as a boxer, no it doesn't. This brings me to the resume vs skills point you raise. Of course you can't disregard resume entirely, indeed you can have all the talent in the world but if you can't translate that into wins its pretty simple: you ain't that good. See Zab Judah for an example of this. On the other hand, records can be misleading. Take Calzaghe. You won't get any dispute from me that a number of the names on his early and mid career resume are questionable and that he would be better regarded if he had a few better ones. Its true, and it lead to him being regarded in America as some sort of Sven Otkke equivalent. How wrong was that!? If a few of his critics had bothered to look at the skill he brought to the table, it should have been obvious that he was something pretty good. Similarly a resume can make a fighter look better than he is, and I think Taylor is a pretty good example. He beat Hopkins without looking good when Hopkins was too old for MW and needed to move up. (Hopkins was old when Cal beat him too, I know and agree). It lead to him being seen as the golden boy of US boxing, then he lost to Pavlik and wasn't anymore. Larry Merchant even said something like: "Lets hesitate before we acclaim Kelly Pavlik the future of US boxing because not long ago, we thought Jermain Taylor was." What I am saying is this I guess: Resume and wins are important, but in the case of boxers like Pavlik and Taylor, when it is one big win on which the reputation of the fighter really rests, it is risky to accliam that fighter too highly, especially when an inspection of their boxing ability reveals pretty obvious flaws that may well be exploited by future opponents. We have to consider resume and skill together, giving more weight to whichever is the more appropriate. In my opinion, at the elite level, it is more important to look at the skills a fighter posseses when ascertaining his potential in a single fight or in his career, His past wins may have earned him his place at the table, but they say nothing about how well he will do from there. Hope all that makes sense! Ok, I got back from work. Sorry it has been a bit. Pavlik is a fighter that isn't real flashy, but quite technically sound. He can do a lot of things very well but because he is a power puncher he sits on his punches. He finishes very well, his work of Taylor proves this. Pavlik's jab is picture perfect, he doubles it up sometimes. It is a controlling powerful jab. It sets up one of the best 1-2s in the sport. He throws every punch in the book, has nasty upper cuts for finishers. His hook is also quite potent. His right is his obvious money punch with the power to KO fighters on one shot if he hits you on the button. His finishing skills are great. Pavlik has a high work rate, along with nasty power where every punch hurts. Pavlik also has a better D then most people recognize, when he settles down (not like Taylor 1 early) he moves his head just enough to avoid a lot of punches. Though he does get hit, a lot of punches slide off of him. His toughness allows for a break down of opponents. Though he isn't quick when he needs he can avoid a lot of punches. He doesn't look that special, but he is very technically sound. He just isn't very flashy about things, he does get the job done with a workman style attitude similar to Chavez, who was tough as nails with solid power. Both high pressure fighters, break down their opponents, multiple power punches, solid chin(p4p Chavez has a better chin), great finishers, don't look flashy, and under rated D. I hate that Taylor doesn't get credit for fighting a good second fight against a fighter that has the tools to beat everyone. His power allows him to break down his opponents. His jab is demanding.

Lol @ Taylor being more accurate than Hopkins. Punch stats between the two would disagree with you. Taylor had a worse connection rate against Hopkins than Calzaghe did and threw half as much. Taylor is no where near as strong as Kessler and his jap isn't even as good. Good, where to people get these strange ideas from :rofl: Who are you even referring to that said Taylor was more accurate than Hopkins? If you're going to argue a point it would help to clarify who made it, or that it was even made in the first place. But for shits and grins, let's look at it... In Taylor/Hopkins II, Taylor landed 32% to Hopkins 35%. Not far off. Calzaghe landed 33%. Again, hardly a telling disparity. Taylor's accuracy improved drastically by the two Pavlik fights, landing 49% and 39%, respectively. You cannot even try to argue that he is not an accurate puncher. Also, you said that Taylor isn't as accurate is Hopkins and then instead compare his punchstats against Calzaghe... WTF?

taylor is a very good fighter. i mean to beat bhop,2x,and draw with winky? even if you think he lost any of those fights is a matter of opinion, but he was right there with both men. i feel he is very underrated,and while has flaws is given a bad rap.

I personally don't think he is very good to be honest. His problem lies in not being able to specialize in anything. He isn't slick enough to be a great boxer, nor does his defense allow him to outpoint an opponent with just his jab. He isn't aggressive enough to be a pressure fighter. His accuracy and defense aren't good enough for him to really dominate as a boxer puncher that he is supposed to be. I don't know, I just wish he could find something that works for him on the top level, because he does have a lot of ability, but it is just going to waste for the most part IMO.

Lol @ Taylor being more accurate than Hopkins. Punch stats between the two would disagree with you. Taylor had a worse connection rate against Hopkins than Calzaghe did and threw half as much. Taylor is no where near as strong as Kessler and his jap isn't even as good. Good, where to people get these strange ideas from :rofl:

This is a perfect example of you coming across as biased. Two American champions... LINEAR CHAMPIONS no less... have two fantastic fights against one another, and not only do you not give credit to the loser, you don't even give credit to the winner. One of them is undefeated, and the other has two losses against the undefeated guy and an impressive resume over the last three years, including two victories over a 40 year old guy that were no more controversial than Calzaghe's victory over the same guy when he was 43. Am I making sense? I'm seeing a trend of posters from Europe lately saying they don't evaluate a fighter so much on their resume (presumably because most European fighters don't have great resumes) as on their own personal observations of the fighter's skill. You seem to be saying that here, right? But how can you evaluate a fighter's skill if you don't take into account the competition on his resume?! OK really, last one! Yes, I can see why you might see it as biased, but it isn't. I do give both guys credit for what they've achieved. Taylor ended B-Hops MW reign for christ's sake! That is an excellent pair of victories. I give a little less to Pavlik for beating Taylor twice, since Taylor isn't B-Hop, but still, a very good pair of victories by a guy who previously hadn't been all that heralded. However...I can't very well go into paroxyisms of glee over their skillsets if I really don't think they are that good. It wouldn't be honest. Boxers can still get great wins without even being that good of a boxer, there are any number of factors that feed in and determine the outcome of a match, not least that when two good but flawed boxers like these two meet, or when one of them faces an aging champion who isn't what he was, at least one of them is going to win! Great wins on paper, really nice on the resume, but does it transform the reality of what they are as a boxer, no it doesn't. This brings me to the resume vs skills point you raise. Of course you can't disregard resume entirely, indeed you can have all the talent in the world but if you can't translate that into wins its pretty simple: you ain't that good. See Zab Judah for an example of this. On the other hand, records can be misleading. Take Calzaghe. You won't get any dispute from me that a number of the names on his early and mid career resume are questionable and that he would be better regarded if he had a few better ones. Its true, and it lead to him being regarded in America as some sort of Sven Otkke equivalent. How wrong was that!? If a few of his critics had bothered to look at the skill he brought to the table, it should have been obvious that he was something pretty good. Similarly a resume can make a fighter look better than he is, and I think Taylor is a pretty good example. He beat Hopkins without looking good when Hopkins was too old for MW and needed to move up. (Hopkins was old when Cal beat him too, I know and agree). It lead to him being seen as the golden boy of US boxing, then he lost to Pavlik and wasn't anymore. Larry Merchant even said something like: "Lets hesitate before we acclaim Kelly Pavlik the future of US boxing because not long ago, we thought Jermain Taylor was." What I am saying is this I guess: Resume and wins are important, but in the case of boxers like Pavlik and Taylor, when it is one big win on which the reputation of the fighter really rests, it is risky to accliam that fighter too highly, especially when an inspection of their boxing ability reveals pretty obvious flaws that may well be exploited by future opponents. We have to consider resume and skill together, giving more weight to whichever is the more appropriate. In my opinion, at the elite level, it is more important to look at the skills a fighter posseses when ascertaining his potential in a single fight or in his career, His past wins may have earned him his place at the table, but they say nothing about how well he will do from there. Hope all that makes sense!

I respect your opinion but disagree... Taylor stands perhaps one of the best chances of any fighter at 168 to beat Calzaghe. I'm not saying he would win, but he'd give him a better fight than Kessler or BHop did. He's a great counter puncher, like Hopkins, except more active and probably stronger. What would a more active, stronger Hopkins done against Calzaghe? The fight was close enough as it was. And you call Taylor mentally fragile, but go on to say that Kessler would beat him easily... Kessler... did you not see Kessler's mental and psychological collapse against Joe? I actually think Kessler/Taylor would be a great fight that could go either way but would give the edge to Taylor. I mean, Jesus Christ, if Kessler got rocked by Sartison in the first round, imagine what could happen against Taylor. As for Froch, and Taylor being "beaten twice by a slow boxer whose main weapon is power," you're again overlooking the weapon that Pavlik actually BEAT Taylor with... his consistent punch output. Not to mention he is a far more technically sound boxer than Froch, from what I've seen, with better defense. Unless Froch's been hustling us all this time against the crap opposition he's been facing, and has more up his sleeves than those heavy fists. OK this will have to be last post in this thread for now...I am suffering from a SMW overdose.... I cannot agree that Taylor would have much chance against Zaghe, but I do think he would do a marginally better job than Pavlik. Styles make fights and Taylor's is better for fighting Joe than Pavlik's is. I'm not at all convinced by the Taylor counterpunching argument though. He is certainly nowhere near the counterpuncher Hopkins is, and I doubt very much he is stronger than Hopkins either. Hopkins smacked Taylor around pretty good at points in both their fights, but I didn't see it going the other way. Also the Hopkins Joe fought was very big, bigger than SMW Taylor. Throw in Jermain's tendency to gas and Calzaghe's stamina and I would say he has little chance, but would look better in losing than Pavlik would. On Kessler and Taylor, again I didn't see Kessler mentally collapsing at all. He was taking the fight to Calzaghe at every opportunity, there just weren't many of them and it didn't work when there were. The two of them were trading hard shots right up until the final bell, which is not a sign I usually associate with mentally collapsed fighters. I agree Kessler was visibly worried by his inability to hurt calzaghe though. In a hypothetical matchup between Taylor and Kessler, Taylor's best chance is his jab, which may be a little quicker and crisper than Kessler's. Other than that I simply see Kessler as being better at what he does than Taylor is, more disciplined and a harder puncher. I would expect him to box to a decision over Taylor. Finally, Carl Froch against Taylor is by no means certain either way for me. You make a very good point about Pavlik's punch output. I would not be surprised if either guy won, Froch might be hiding any number of weaknesses, but equally I think it possible that he might KO Jermain. I can't argue too strongly about anything where Froch is concerned, because the truth is that no-one really knows how good he will be against top opposition.

I had never seen Pavlik box prior to the Taylor fight, that was the first time I heard about him. I am from the UK and didn't used to follow American boxing that closely. I do now. If I had seen Pavlik box previously I would likely have picked Taylor based on his jab and superior boxing ability. My view would have been more or less as it still is, that Pavlik is slow and one-dimensional, and at that time I wouldn't have expected him to be able to KO Taylor. I would have been wrong. This is a perfect example of you coming across as biased. Two American champions... LINEAR CHAMPIONS no less... have two fantastic fights against one another, and not only do you not give credit to the loser, you don't even give credit to the winner. One of them is undefeated, and the other has two losses against the undefeated guy and an impressive resume over the last three years, including two victories over a 40 year old guy that were no more controversial than Calzaghe's victory over the same guy when he was 43. Am I making sense? I'm seeing a trend of posters from Europe lately saying they don't evaluate a fighter so much on their resume (presumably because most European fighters don't have great resumes) as on their own personal observations of the fighter's skill. You seem to be saying that here, right? But how can you evaluate a fighter's skill if you don't take into account the competition on his resume?!

So, I don't say Taylor is bad, but I really don't think he's that good either. I'd pick Kessler and Zaghe to beat him easily. If Froch proves not to be nursing any hidden weaknesses then I think he would too, since Taylor has already been beaten twice by a slow boxer whose main weapon is power. Like I said, I hope you can see what I'm saying and that I'm not trying to 'discredit' him, just giving my opinion. I respect your opinion but disagree... Taylor stands perhaps one of the best chances of any fighter at 168 to beat Calzaghe. I'm not saying he would win, but he'd give him a better fight than Kessler or BHop did. He's a great counter puncher, like Hopkins, except more active and probably stronger. What would a more active, stronger Hopkins have done against Calzaghe? The fight was close enough as it was. And you call Taylor mentally fragile, but go on to say that Kessler would beat him easily... Kessler... did you not see Kessler's mental and psychological collapse against Joe? I actually think Kessler/Taylor would be a great fight that could go either way but would give the edge to Taylor. I mean, Jesus Christ, if Kessler got rocked by Sartison in the first round, imagine what could happen against Taylor. As for Froch, and Taylor being "beaten twice by a slow boxer whose main weapon is power," you're again overlooking the weapon that Pavlik actually BEAT Taylor with... his consistent punch output. Not to mention he is a far more technically sound boxer than Froch, from what I've seen, with better defense. Unless Froch's been hustling us all this time against the crap opposition he's been facing, and has more up his sleeves than those heavy fists.

What is the point? I can go on a rant and none of them will bother to reply to me like yourself in other threads. Well, next time you have something you want to raise with me then raise it and I'll reply, but that doesn't mean you have to go on a 'rant', just post your thoughts. Please, not right now though, because I'm all Pavlik and Taylored out!

It seems to me that Taylors loss to Pavlik has really lowered your opinion of him.Everyone has someone out there that can beat him.Just look at Margarito-Cotto.Cotto had the speed,combinations,footwork,jab and Marg had the stamina with a decent chin and punch output.Just because the inferior boxer won,my opinion of Cotto hasn't dropped.He met his match and performed very well for most of the fight.Even in defeat Taylor did well in both fights and on some scorecards he won the second fight.If Pavlik is this limited one deminsional slow fighter how can he outjab and out work the superior athlete in Tayor,he may not be as slow or one demensioanl as you suggest.Pavlik should earn some respect for beating the superior pugilist not be critisized for it,nor should Taylor be put down. I do understand what you are saying. Credit should go to Pavlik for beating the technically superior fighter, and it does. Thus far in his career he has managed to transcend his limitations. It doesn't mean that he doesn't have those limitations though, and I just believe that when he meets a better boxer than Taylor then those limitations will be highlighted. As for Taylor, as I've posted before I was never that impressed with him to begin with, I just don't see the athlete/ technical boxer that others do I suppose, and the Pavlik fights showed up some more weaknesses in him too. Of the pair I think Pavlik is actually better, because he has in his workrate and power two genuine weapons that others struggle to cope with, whereas Taylor to me, doesn't have something like this. Both guyshave achieved some good things in their careers, but I can't say that I hold a highly esteemed opinion of them if I don't now can I?

You'll notice its the biased euro posting lengthy and detailed analyses of Taylor's style and opposition while you confine yourself to disparaging remarks about posters you don't agree with. What is the point? I can go on a rant and none of them will bother to reply to me like yourself in other threads.

Taylor is a great boxer with the names on his resume to prove it.

Sometimes you need to lower your expectations of some posters... You'll notice its the biased euro posting lengthy and detailed analyses of Taylor's style and opposition while you confine yourself to disparaging remarks about posters you don't agree with.

Maybe your problem is you compare every boxer to Calzaghe. I would like to know how you rated Pavlik before the Taylor fight and who you picked to win? I had never seen Pavlik box prior to the Taylor fight, that was the first time I heard about him. I am from the UK and didn't used to follow American boxing that closely. I do now. If I had seen Pavlik box previously I would likely have picked Taylor based on his jab and superior boxing ability. My view would have been more or less as it still is, that Pavlik is slow and one-dimensional, and at that time I wouldn't have expected him to be able to KO Taylor. I would have been wrong. As for comapring people to Zaghe, well, we are talking about a SMW, and I also pick Taylor to lose to Kessler and maybe Froch, and he's already lost to Pavlik so thats four boxers in his weight class(es) that I'm comparing him to and think may beat him.