Fight Results We Need to be Honest About

[The_Demon]

Be honest with yourself. That's all I'm saying. If in doing so you still manage to find a way to think Taylor won those fights then so be it.

But then you can go ahead and wonder how on God's Green Earth Taylor got his a$$ kicked by Pavlik and Froch...two good, but definitely not great fighters.

Think about it. Hopkins is still one of the 5 best P4P fighters in the sport. Neither Pavlik nor Froch have ever been that good. But those guys crushed the guy who you believe beat possibly the best middleweight of the last 40 or 50 years...TWICE.

Like I said, be honest with yourself.

its called styles make fights by the way

[Crazylegs77]

All boxing fans like to bit(h about judges and scoring, but when it comes to a popular/hyped young fighter getting the benefit of a bad decision a lot of fans run and hide.

Look, let's be honest. If we all just admit that Jermain Taylor didn't beat Bernard Hopkins or earn a draw with Winky Wright then what has happened to him in his career makes perfect sense.

The same thing with Oscar De la Hoya-Pernell Whitaker. If we're honest with ourselves and admit that Whitaker beat De la Hoya then De la Hoya's later career results make more sense. If we admit Fernando Vargas really lost to Winky Wright the rest of his career makes sense.

I keep reading that Jermain Taylor is the most experienced fighter in the Super 6 AND has wins over Hopkins. If we're honest and admit that he really lost those fights his losses to Pavlik and Froch make a lot more sense. And the fact that he's likely to loss every fight he has in the Super 6 will further cement that.

Its amazing how few fights Taylor actually has and his biggest wins were very close fights with Hopkins then he had a close fight with Winky and Spinks and fought small guys like Ouma so I never understood what all the hoopla was about Taylor.

[-EAGLE-]

Lol...yeah Castillo beat Mayweather the same way Diaz beat Malignaggi...lol

put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Well buddy

That was my opinion; they were robbed you can say what you want but i'm sure you didn't watch any of these fights as close as i did so puth your bull**** in your pipe and smoke it all over again .

[EDD1]

All boxing fans like to bit(h about judges and scoring, but when it comes to a popular/hyped young fighter getting the benefit of a bad decision a lot of fans run and hide.

Look, let's be honest. If we all just admit that Jermain Taylor didn't beat Bernard Hopkins or earn a draw with Winky Wright then what has happened to him in his career makes perfect sense.

The same thing with Oscar De la Hoya-Pernell Whitaker. If we're honest with ourselves and admit that Whitaker beat De la Hoya then De la Hoya's later career results make more sense. If we admit Fernando Vargas really lost to Winky Wright the rest of his career makes sense.

I keep reading that Jermain Taylor is the most experienced fighter in the Super 6 AND has wins over Hopkins. If we're honest and admit that he really lost those fights his losses to Pavlik and Froch make a lot more sense. And the fact that he's likely to loss every fight he has in the Super 6 will further cement that.

I see what you mean but there is a lot of bad reasoning in your argument and too much of an assumtion in your prediction.

[javelin_fangs]

What about Mosely vs Cotto

Ok...I'll give you that if you're saying that's the beginning of the end for Cotto, but that was a toss up type fight...kinda like the first fight between Dawson and Johnson.

I'm talking about fights where a guy was basically handed a decision against a HOF type "boxer" just because he threw more punches and then later proved to be less than stellar in the "boxer" category. Either because they got outboxed by other boxer types or because they couldn't outbox a strong determined fighter for 12 hard rounds.

If you can really beat a Hopkins, a Whitaker, or a Winky there's no excuse for getting thoroughly outboxed by a Sturm or crushed by a Mayorga or a Pavlik or Froch. If you're that great of a boxer those other guys should be easy wins.

[javelin_fangs]

I see what you mean but there is a lot of bad reasoning in your argument and too much of an assumtion in your prediction.

What is the bad reasoning?

If you can outbox those ultimate boxers you should NEVER get beaten and KO'd by the types of sluggers or average boxers that these guys lost to.

[rambov]

Ok...I'll give you that if you're saying that's the beginning of the end for Cotto, but that was a toss up type fight...kinda like the first fight between Dawson and Johnson.

I'm talking about fights where a guy was basically handed a decision against a HOF type "boxer" just because he threw more punches and then later proved to be less than stellar in the "boxer" category. Either because they got outboxed by other boxer types or because they couldn't outbox a strong determined fighter for 12 hard rounds.

If you can really beat a Hopkins, a Whitaker, or a Winky there's no excuse for getting thoroughly outboxed by a Sturm or crushed by a Mayorga or a Pavlik or Froch. If you're that great of a boxer those other guys should be easy wins.

Good point.....but that was at least a draw

[The_Demon]

What is the bad reasoning?

If you can outbox those ultimate boxers you should NEVER get beaten and KO'd by the types of sluggers or average boxers that these guys lost to.

there will always be those who cry robbery at every opportunity and you are clearly one of them
whatever you say wont change the result,so i suggest you let it go mate

[ufirst]

dude you're right & there's no point in arguing with fools... Hopkins & Winky should've won both of those fights because they beat that kid's ass.

[JakeNDaBox]

the things is taylor did beat hopkins

I used to love how whenever HBO would review the judges prior to the decision for a particular fight, if say Duane Ford's name came up, he would be introduced by Lampley as "one of five out of the six judges judges who had Jermain Taylor defeating Bernard Hopkins..."