How do you rate Jermain Taylor as a boxer?

[abadger]

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.

[J_CON]

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

[ALT-Assassin]

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.

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.

[KostyaTszyu44]

yeah taylor is a class fighter

good all round skills, just needs to tighten up the D a little

he will end up in the HoF..... and i think that if he ever meets calzaghe in the ring he has an OK chance of beating him

[Zocalo]

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.

[abadger]

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?

[abadger]

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!

[ALT-Assassin]

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?

I can agree with this post and your opinion.I would favor Kessler and Calzaghe over Pavlik and I even think Hopkins may pull out a victory but Pavlik has been an underdog in both of his major fights so I can't count him out.If Taylor can make a dent in the super middleweight division I hope your opinion of him will increase.

[dstew]

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.

[dstew]

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?!