Fight Results We Need to be Honest About

[The_Demon]

I'm not even making mention of that in this case - in the 2 aforementioned fights, Taylor simply outboxed his opponent on both occasions. Where style comes into it is subjective, but surely anyone with a brain can see how well he did in those fights until he gassed out.

ye but against froch and pavlik he was fighting guys who bring it 2 ya non-stop and try and break you down,thats why JT lost,doesnt mean hes not a better boxer than both those guys
whereas hopkins isnt a pressure fighter
the pavlik-taylor-hopkins trinagle is similar too the cotto-mosley-marg triangle imo

[2501]

Lol...nice to see you back to getting involved in everything I say about Mayweather again.

I'm talking about a very specific situation. I wouldn't have expected you to have picked up upon anything that involves nuance or subtleties.

I'm talking about three situations where an up and coming "face of boxing" type fighter supposedly beat a Hall of Fame calibre boxer in highly technical fights. That, in and of itself, means they would have had to have outboxed those great boxers. If you're that great of a boxer you don't get outboxed during your prime. You don't get KO'd in fights that you're outboxing a limited slugger. It doesn't happen throughout the history of boxing.

If we're honest and admit that Taylor didn't outbox Hopkins then it makes sense that he proved to be a disappointing fighter.

Even if we thought Castillo beat Mayweather, that had a little two way action down the stretch and Castillo was a hall of famer. But answer me this, how did you have that fight scored through five rounds? Also, remember Castillo was deducted a points. That's 6 points Mayweather's way right there. Castillo probably won 4 (maybe 5 of the last 7 rounds, but that's just not enough).

dude, stfu, stop trying to act intelligent. you've been sonned on this forum way to many times for you to be talking like you've been through puberty.

And for your ****** ass information, I had Floyd winning that fight. But you won't understand why I responded with what I did and there's a reason for that. Go find yourself a girlfriend. Floyd already has a baby mama.

[JakeNDaBox]

I'll be honest - when I scored De La Hoya-Sturm, I was robbing Sturm blind on purpose because I can't stand the protected Bozzie twat.

Everyone knows Oskie did lose that match, but it was soooooooooo much fun seeing him get a robbery over someone for a change. :laff2:

For a change?

Of the fights he actually lost, he deserved to lose:
Mosley (first fight)
Hopkins
Mayweather
Pacquiao

That leaves Trinidad, and Shane RE as the lone two fights where you can legitimately argue he got robbed.

He got the benefit of the doubt against Sturm, Whitaker and Quartey, three fights you can easily score against Oscar.

[Kevin Jesus]

There are a lot of close fights out there who i call robbery when i first see them. Then i actually score them with an unbiased point of view and i get real close scores, even draws.

Malignaggi-diaz, I thought Paulie won that fight the first time. After watching it again but this time scoring the rounds in an unbiased manner...I had it 114-114.

Marquez-Pacquiao II, I thought Marquez was robbed the first time I saw it. When i re-watched it with unbiased scoring i had it 114-113 Marquez, and i was guilty of even having a winner for that fight because it was too close to call.

Collazo-Berto, Both me and my friend thought Collazo was robbed when we saw it live. I re-watched the fight, scoring every round carefully and actually had Berto winning close, but clearly(I can't find the paper i scored it on).


It's pretty fun. Just try watching the fight while scoring each round to the fighter you actually thought won it, instead of giving every close rounds to the fighter you want to win the fight.


Mayweather beat Castillo in a close fight, but the judges scores make it seem like a robbery.


One more, I thought Hopkins beat Calzaghe the first time i watched it, and i said that he was robbed. Re-watched it and I couldn't call myself a boxing fan if i say Hopkins won, i scored the fight for Calzaghe, honestly and unbiasedly.

[masta]

Holyfield beat Valuev
de la Hoya beat Trinidad

[EDD1]

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.

It may also be said that the lack of ability of those boxers to defeat taylor is a qualification for the misfortunes of their careers after the Taylor fight; that would be just as unreasonable and unfair for me to say.

[P.WILL]

my scorecards for the fights TS mentions

De La Hoya 114-113 Whitaker

Taylor 115-113 Wright

Taylor 116-115 Hopkins I

Hopkins 116-115 Taylor II

Wright 116-114 Vargas

i also have a blog on my profile of scorecards i saved or remembered if anyone wants to see

[javelin_fangs]

Froch was outboxed, though. And the second Pavlik fight could only realistically have been 115-113 either way, or preferably a draw (which I had). In the latter, he did indeed outbox Pavlik most of the time.

If you get KTFO in a fight then you didn't outbox your opponent. If you outbox a Bernard Hopkins then you don't fight a 115-113 fight with a Kelly Pavlik.

Show me one guy who outboxed Ray Robinson and then got outboxed by a less talented boxer than Ray Robinson. This stuff doesn't happen.

Styles do make fights, but they make fights in a logical fashion. All-time great boxers don't get outboxed by mediocre boxers who then go on to get outboxed by even more marginal boxers. That's what the whole concept of styles make fights means.

It's when another fighter's style runs counter to an otherwise comparable matchup where you can't predict. For example, Ali was a head hunting boxer-puncher type (emphasis on boxer). Frazier was a strong willed slugger with great in fighting skills. Foreman was a tall and powerful power puncher who didn't really have much defense.

If you just look at their first fights with each other Frazier beat Ali, Foreman beat Frazier and Ali beat Foreman. That doesn't necessarily make sense until you look at the style. Fraizer got around Ali's jab enough to out fight Ali on the inside. That makes sense because Ali's arms were longer and on the inside Frazier just outworked him.

Go to Foreman-Frazier. When Foreman caught Frazier on the outside it wasn't with a jab. It was possibly the heaviest right hand in heavyweight history from a huge Foreman, especially compared to Frazier. The style matchup was between two big punchers so the bigger one with the longer arms won.

Then Ali-Foreman; I know a lot of people think Foreman landed so many hard shots in that fight, but that's one of those Roger Mayweather ("most people don't know **** about boxing") problems. Watch Ali block punches and land clean one-twos and one-threes and uppercuts when Foreman stands up. There's two ways you can break a dude down. Let him throw and miss hard or break his body down. Ali was a head hunter so he let Foreman throw hard and miss.

If you look at the styles in those fights the results all make sense. Now, look at the fights I'm referring to. The style and the results don't make sense. But if you account for bad judging then it makes sense again. But you people don't want to admit that it does. Doesn't surprise me, but whatever.

[The_Demon]

If you get KTFO in a fight then you didn't outbox your opponent. If you outbox a Bernard Hopkins then you don't fight a 115-113 fight with a Kelly Pavlik.

Show me one guy who outboxed Ray Robinson and then got outboxed by a less talented boxer than Ray Robinson. This stuff doesn't happen.

Styles do make fights, but they make fights in a logical fashion. All-time great boxers don't get outboxed by mediocre boxers who then go on to get outboxed by even more marginal boxers. That's what the whole concept of styles make fights means.

It's when another fighter's style runs counter to an otherwise comparable matchup where you can't predict. For example, Ali was a head hunting boxer-puncher type (emphasis on boxer). Frazier was a strong willed slugger with great in fighting skills. Foreman was a tall and powerful power puncher who didn't really have much defense.

If you just look at their first fights with each other Frazier beat Ali, Foreman beat Frazier and Ali beat Foreman. That doesn't necessarily make sense until you look at the style. Fraizer got around Ali's jab enough to out fight Ali on the inside. That makes sense because Ali's arms were longer and on the inside Frazier just outworked him.

Go to Foreman-Frazier. When Foreman caught Frazier on the outside it wasn't with a jab. It was possibly the heaviest right hand in heavyweight history from a huge Foreman, especially compared to Frazier. The style matchup was between two big punchers so the bigger one with the longer arms won.

Then Ali-Foreman; I know a lot of people think Foreman landed so many hard shots in that fight, but that's one of those Roger Mayweather ("most people don't know **** about boxing") problems. Watch Ali block punches and land clean one-twos and one-threes and uppercuts when Foreman stands up. There's two ways you can break a dude down. Let him throw and miss hard or break his body down. Ali was a head hunter so he let Foreman throw hard and miss.

If you look at the styles in those fights the results all make sense. Now, look at the fights I'm referring to. The style and the results don't make sense. But if you account for bad judging then it makes sense again. But you people don't want to admit that it does. Doesn't surprise me, but whatever.

haha you have just proved how ****** you really are

[javelin_fangs]

It may also be said that the lack of ability of those boxers to defeat taylor is a qualification for the misfortunes of their careers after the Taylor fight; that would be just as unreasonable and unfair for me to say.

Ok then let me ask you this question; do you consider Taylor a hall of fame calibre boxer?

I'll answer my own question too; It really seems like if he were a hall of famer it'd be based entirely on the Hopkins "wins," being an American and HBO's support. He's really not that good.