taylor aint hit hopkins flush one time

[realheavyhands]

"imagination is more important then knowledge"einstien
and i forgot more then u ever learned .. good lord u just a pretender

[ricecrispi]

I dont ever talk **** for grammer, but please, please go back to school. So what your saying is that you are a better judge of a fight then the Judges. If you are why dont you go be one instead of acting like you are one on here. and Anyone that says Hopkins was robbed, only say that cause they are ignorant. Yes it was a close fight. Yes, in my opinion Taylor won. But at no point did either completely dominate the other one. Because guess what? If they did, there would be no argument. No discusion. One would have won by UD not SD.

Judges are not always the most skilled in determining a fight. There is no school for it. There is a lot of personal preference and they make many mistakes and most importantly they can be bought out or forced to favor someone so they can continue you work.

I see a lot of scores judges hand out and there is no way they could even add that score up. They subtract knockdowns wrong, forget how to deduct points incorrectly of forget too, give 9-9 rounds on point deductions for low blows etc., and 10-10 even rounds.

If it's an even round and no one really won it, it should go to the champ, not the guy you like to win, put money on, has been winning the fight etc, or perference in style.

IMHO you have to beat the champ clearly to win. It was that way in the 50's-60's 70's and 80's and the 90's it got murky and now that idea is crap now. I didn't watch the fight, I'll get it about 2-3 days, but from what i hear Taylor didn't really beat Hopkins.

[Pinoy_Texan]

taylor neva hit hopkins with a flush shot the whole fight ..he rolled with all the right hands and the few hooks was high on the head... to a fan u could say hopkins wasnt robbed..but to a schooled boxer or anybody that knows the game taylor lost ..he got beat up a lil bit too..hopkins aint have a scatch

True that Hopkins wasn't hit with a flush shot, but he didn't do anything for the first half of the match and that's what cost him the fight. For the first half Taylor was just being the agressor and judges takes note on that. And unfortunately judges aren't "schooled boxer".

[legend]

I say Taylor won 1 more round than Hopkins, but he only won 1 round out of the last 6 or so, and that one wasn't even convincingly won. How can you give a victory to a guy that lost the entire second half of a fight?
As soon as the fight heated up with some real action Taylor looked outmatched and tired.
I'm not saying Hopkins won, but to say Taylor was a clear cut winner is going too far.

It was a draw.

To say Hopkins deserved the win just because he dominated he last few round would imply that the first seven rounds meant nothing, which in boxing they mean quite alot. Go stick your head in the sand hopkins boy.

[ricecrispi]

True that Hopkins wasn't hit with a flush shot, but he didn't do anything for the first half of the match and that's what cost him the fight. For the first half Taylor was just being the agressor and judges takes note on that. And unfortunately judges aren't "schooled boxer".

This is how i would view it as a judge.
Hopkins is a very low starter so it's easy to take advantage of him early on. This is where Jermain should dominate. Jermain has to be agreesive early and if he isn't effective in his agression, the round has to to go to Hopkins. Jermain's strength is to end the fight early or dominate Hopkins early, not to do very little early on and going into the late rounds with Hopkins and tire out.

I hear a lot people saying the early rounds nothing happened.
Jermain was active but not effective. Hopkins did very little and people award Taylor the round. Why? Because he worked harder and Agressive. Wrong way to score.

Agression and work is pointless if you get nothing done and in my book a losing round because in the end the agressive guy wasn't affective and wasted his energy. He didn't land flush shots and wasted valuable time and energy accomplishing nothing? That plays into Hopkins book, not Taylor's and Taylor got tired from his early round work. If Taylor worked hard and Hopkins seemed uncomfortable or had to work hard to keep Taylor off early on it might be a different scenario.

I don't know till I see it myself but I hope this clarifies some points on how to score the non-Larry Merchant way.

BTW close rounds go to the champ. People have to remember that otherwise ever Joe schmoo would win a close fight. You have to BEAT the champ, to be the champ, not end up in a tie

[RastaSmoker]

Maybe you mean IQ 1.5 considering your piss poor application of the english language?

Oooouuuucccchhhhhh You got owned

[RastaSmoker]

Judges are not always the most skilled in determining a fight. There is no school for it. There is a lot of personal preference and they make many mistakes and most importantly they can be bought out or forced to favor someone so they can continue you work.

I see a lot of scores judges hand out and there is no way they could even add that score up. They subtract knockdowns wrong, forget how to deduct points incorrectly of forget too, give 9-9 rounds on point deductions for low blows etc., and 10-10 even rounds.

If it's an even round and no one really won it, it should go to the champ, not the guy you like to win, put money on, has been winning the fight etc, or perference in style.



IMHO you have to beat the champ clearly to win. It was that way in the 50's-60's 70's and 80's and the 90's it got murky and now that idea is crap now. I didn't watch the fight, I'll get it about 2-3 days, but from what i hear Taylor didn't really beat Hopkins.

Watch the fight before you comment on it. And No it shouldnt just go to the champ it should be a 10-10 round. Done Next round.

[kallsop]

The concept of giving all the close rounds to the champ died with Hagler-Leonard.

Hopkins didn't do enough the first half of the fight. Winning the 12th doesn't change the score in the first 6 rounds.

There is no controversy in the scoring. Hopkins blew it, plain and simple. He proved he is the better fighter, but had a losing strategy. In the rematch, Hopkins can do things differently but Taylor will have learnt a lot. It will be another close fight, same result.

[PanterA]

To say Hopkins deserved the win just because he dominated he last few round would imply that the first seven rounds meant nothing, which in boxing they mean quite alot. Go stick your head in the sand hopkins boy.

My point is that you just can not give the fight to Taylor. The champ always gets the advantage when it's a close fight and he wasn't even close to getting knocked out. Hopkins had Taylor on his heels for the final 4 rounds. Hopkins will get his rematch and hopefully he will show up the entire fight next around.

Oh, and I'm not "a Hopkins Boy". I like both fighters.

[Manny_P]

3 rounds don't mean shyt. Tayler dominated most the fight, give him the win fo pete's sake.