Roy Jones was an ATG but he was also a cherry picker

[JAB5239]

So you are saying if Taylor didn't get KOed you saw him as the winner of that fight?

Chavez destroyed the man and his career and you think he won the fight?

Where the hell did I say he won the fight? Was he winning the fight? Yes. But Chavez broke him down and stopped him. If he hadn't suffered the damage he did and wasn't stopped it would have went to him. Just like the Whitaker fighter should have gone to Pea. If the fight was not stopped and Taylor survived he would have won the fight, but Chavez would have won the War. This isn't a war though. It's a sport with parameters and rules.

If boxing were scored on accumulative damage I would agree with you. But it's not. It's scored on a frame by frame basis and added up. Saying he did more damage would have been hindsight had it gone to the cards and would have been irrelevant.

[Willie Pep 229]

Where the hell did I say he won the fight? Was he winning the fight? Yes. But Chavez broke him down and stopped him. If he hadn't suffered the damage he did and wasn't stopped it would have went to him. Just like the Whitaker fighter should have gone to Pea. If the fight was not stopped and Taylor survived he would have won the fight, but Chavez would have won the War. This isn't a war though. It's a sport with parameters and rules.

If boxing were scored on accumulative damage I would agree with you. But it's not. It's scored on a frame by frame basis and added up. Saying he did more damage would have been hindsight had it gone to the cards and would have been irrelevant.

I think that's the money line on where we disagree - I think that's the difference between boxing and a prize fight.

[Willie Pep 229]

Where the hell did I say he won the fight? Was he winning the fight? Yes. But Chavez broke him down and stopped him. If he hadn't suffered the damage he did and wasn't stopped it would have went to him. Just like the Whitaker fighter should have gone to Pea. If the fight was not stopped and Taylor survived he would have won the fight, but Chavez would have won the War. This isn't a war though. It's a sport with parameters and rules.

If boxing were scored on accumulative damage I would agree with you. But it's not. It's scored on a frame by frame basis and added up. Saying he did more damage would have been hindsight had it gone to the cards and would have been irrelevant.

I have been thinking more about how we differ on this. . . .

Lopez-Kambosos

If I was the King of Boxing I would have ruled the fight a UD - undecided! I would have said "great job boys, you earned you battle monies enjoy.

Kambosos that first down KD showed us you were there to fight, Lopez you scored the more devastating KD, Kambosos you drew blood. Great fight, heal up, rest up and let's do it again in three months."

You would insist there was a winner. You would have counted rounds, punches, effective punches, ring generalship, ETC. I didn't see a winner or loser that night.

But you would insist there was one and would judge those fighters (and likely change their lives) based on judges using a criteria no one really agrees on.

I didn't see a winner that night, I saw a great fight. The need to say one won and one lost was not only unnecessary but I believe arbitrary.

On the other hand Chavez beat Taylor bad, I saw a winner and loser that night and didn't need the KO to confirm it; Whitaker and Chavez, that was more like Lopez-Kambosos, I didn't see a winner.

P.S. I applied for the position, King of Boxing, but my application was denied on a technicality.

[IronDanHamza]

I have been thinking more about how we differ on this. . . .

Lopez-Kambosos

If I was the King of Boxing I would have ruled the fight a UD - undecided! I would have said "great job boys, you earned you battle monies enjoy.

Kambosos that first down KD showed us you were there to fight, Lopez you scored the more devastating KD, Kambosos you drew blood. Great fight, heal up, rest up and let's do it again in three months."

You would insist there was a winner. You would have counted rounds, punches, effective punches, ring generalship, ETC. I didn't see a winner or loser that night.

But you would insist there was one and would judge those fighters (and likely change their lives) based on judges using a criteria no one really agrees on.

I didn't see a winner that night, I saw a great fight. The need to say one won and one lost was not only unnecessary but I believe arbitrary.

On the other hand Chavez beat Taylor bad, I saw a winner and loser that night and didn't need the KO to confirm it; Whitaker and Chavez, that was more like Lopez-Kambosos, I didn't see a winner.

P.S. I applied for the position, King of Boxing, but my application was denied on a technicality.

So what you're saying is, if the fight had lasted 10 seconds more you think Chavez would have deserved the decision over Taylor?

[Willie Pep 229]

So what you're saying is, if the fight had lasted 10 seconds more you think Chavez would have deserved the decision over Taylor?

Oh yes if a decision needed to be decided, Chavez out fought Taylor decisively. He ruined Taylor.

I would have no problem with returning to 1920s and NWS decisions and no official decisions.

BTW do you know if in the end were the score cards a UD for Taylor or was there a split? I don't remember I guess it didn't matter.

P.S. There was a time when the entire fight was decided by the referee immediately after the fight ended. No counting points or rounds. E.g. Dempsey-Gibbons

[IronDanHamza]

Oh yes if a decision needed to be decided, Chavez out fought Taylor decisively. He ruined Taylor.

I would have no problem with returning to 1920s and NWS decisions and no official decisions.

BTW do you know if in the end were the score cards a UD for Taylor or was there a split? I don't remember I guess it didn't matter.

P.S. There was a time when the entire fight was decided by the referee immediately after the fight ended. No counting points or rounds. E.g. Dempsey-Gibbons

Very wide UD for Taylor, obviously.

[them_apples]

Oh yes if a decision needed to be decided, Chavez out fought Taylor decisively. He ruined Taylor.

I would have no problem with returning to 1920s and NWS decisions and no official decisions.

BTW do you know if in the end were the score cards a UD for Taylor or was there a split? I don't remember I guess it didn't matter.

P.S. There was a time when the entire fight was decided by the referee immediately after the fight ended. No counting points or rounds. E.g. Dempsey-Gibbons

totally agree with this. Would have been a travesty to have someone beat up that bad, and that consistently throughout the fight and get the nod instead. Yeah he was in the fight from a points perspective, but every round he was taking damage. Probably one of the most over hyped "robberies" mostly because they stopped the fight with seconds left. I'm glad they did though, if Chavez lost after beating a dude that bad it would have been an even bigger robbery.

[Willie Pep 229]

Very wide UD for Taylor, obviously.

Just looked it up would have been a SD Taylor.

Boxrec had the following:

Dr. Flip Homansky, who examined Taylor after the fight, said, "Meldrick suffered a facial fracture, he was urinating pure blood, his face was grotesquely swollen...this was a kid who was truly beaten up to the face, the body, and the brain."

Don't you find it hard to call a Taylor a 'winner,' especially when all Chavez looked at the end was tired.

[QueensburyRules]

I have been thinking more about how we differ on this. . . .

Lopez-Kambosos

If I was the King of Boxing I would have ruled the fight a UD - undecided! I would have said "great job boys, you earned you battle monies enjoy.

Kambosos that first down KD showed us you were there to fight, Lopez you scored the more devastating KD, Kambosos you drew blood. Great fight, heal up, rest up and let's do it again in three months."

You would insist there was a winner. You would have counted rounds, punches, effective punches, ring generalship, ETC. I didn't see a winner or loser that night.

But you would insist there was one and would judge those fighters (and likely change their lives) based on judges using a criteria no one really agrees on.

I didn't see a winner that night, I saw a great fight. The need to say one won and one lost was not only unnecessary but I believe arbitrary.

On the other hand Chavez beat Taylor bad, I saw a winner and loser that night and didn't need the KO to confirm it; Whitaker and Chavez, that was more like Lopez-Kambosos, I didn't see a winner.

P.S. I applied for the position, King of Boxing, but my application was denied on a technicality.

- - Dunno, Pep. Kambo an Aussie unknown clearly whooped Feo in his homecoming on a rd by rd basis for an easy 9-3 win, not the official hometown SD result.

[billeau2]

This douche never tried to argue that - that is reductio ad absurdum and not worth a rebuttal - try coming up with a realistic example as I did or has all that make believe wrestling confused you.

'Douche' - lol we're in New Jersey you from?

Hey hey now Pep, your asking that question all wrong: It is "where in Joysiy you from?" And I do believe Anthony is a long islander which should properly be pronounced "longisland." One word! never long island always longisland.