How do you rate Jermain Taylor as a boxer?

[abadger]

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.

[abadger]

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!

[RichCCFC]

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

[Fox McCloud]

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.

[MELLY-MEL...]

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.

[dstew]

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

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 ****s 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?

[poeticlsykuac]

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.

[Silencers]

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.

[PrettyBoyFloyd7]

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.

[bluemax]

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[ who Taylor ducked]. 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.