“Fighting Words” – Jermain Taylor: Undisputed, Undeserving

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

Jermain Taylor, having defeated longtime great Bernard Hopkins on two consecutive occasions, is the undisputed middleweight champion.

He is also unimpressive, underwhelming and undeserving.

He is a champion of circumstance, a hero of happenstance, a man whose career has been advanced by favorable promoting by Lou DiBella and the suits at HBO, as well as by his amiable personality and admirable pedigree.

For his first twenty fights, Taylor preyed on undersized, lesser talented lambs, victims in preparation of his future coronation, a destiny that seemed certainty as time passed, as Hopkins aged and his planned retirement approached.

The 2000 Olympic bronze medalist stepped up his opposition in the summer of 2004, stopping former junior middleweight Raul Marquez – who subsequently retired – and then wrapping up the year with a shutout of William Joppy – who should’ve retired after the beating Hopkins had given him twelve months prior. [details]

[Pac Man Fan 83]

I don't like that article and don't feel that it is fair.

Like it or not, its Taylor's time now. DEAL WITH IT.

[Easy-E]

Jermain Taylor, having defeated longtime great Bernard Hopkins on two consecutive occasions, is the undisputed middleweight champion.

He is also unimpressive, underwhelming and undeserving.

He is a champion of circumstance, a hero of happenstance, a man whose career has been advanced by favorable promoting by Lou DiBella and the suits at HBO, as well as by his amiable personality and admirable pedigree.

For his first twenty fights, Taylor preyed on undersized, lesser talented lambs, victims in preparation of his future coronation, a destiny that seemed certainty as time passed, as Hopkins aged and his planned retirement approached.

The 2000 Olympic bronze medalist stepped up his opposition in the summer of 2004, stopping former junior middleweight Raul Marquez – who subsequently retired – and then wrapping up the year with a shutout of William Joppy – who should’ve retired after the beating Hopkins had given him twelve months prior. [details]

thats one biased article

[Dirt E Gomez]

When you write a column based on facts and opinions, of course it will have the writer's emotion on the page. I thought it was a good article, and despite the fact that it sounds relatively mean in some of the language, it was still true.

[TheFairPole]

That is written by one jealous and spiteful, ****sucking loser.

[dino]

he beat hopkins twice fair n square...whoever was his competition the first 20 matches is irrevelant

[psychopath]

Well it's not Taylor's fault that everybody that he fought suddenly grew old over night and look washed up. Including Hopkins whom he beat twice.

Stop hating, how can the author say that he is undeserving when he sweat and earned what he has now.

[machotime]

When you write a column based on facts and opinions, of course it will have the writer's emotion on the page. I thought it was a good article, and despite the fact that it sounds relatively mean in some of the language, it was still true.

The point is Taylor is the undisputed Champ, Undefeated, and willing to learn. He knows that he is still young in his career and he has alot to learn. What makes him a good champ is the fact that he is professional, unlike BHop the ****** bum who always has excuses and is sooooo unprofessional. Taylor has a good career in front of him, maybe not great but good. Stop trying to discredit his status.

[Super_Lightweight]

hmm

Grease-man must've lost a lot of money on Hopkins.

Taylor is plenty deserving. He beat Hops twice. That's deserving enough. As far as "underwhelming" goes...anyone who expected Taylor to look overwhelming vs the defensive minded Hopkins is an idiot. Taylor did well.

[Mr. David]

A column is meant to incite debate, so your opinions are just as valid, although I will attempt to answer questions of bias.

I like Taylor's personality plenty, but I cannot be impressd by either fighter, not Taylor, nor Hopkins, after the 24 rounds that they performed. It's easy to make charges of bias when someone has an opinion that you don't agree with, but that is a convenient excuse that avoids the true idea of a column, which is debate, debate, debate.

So, I am unimpressed with Taylor, and feel that his rise to champion is motivated by two controversial decisions (which it is, according to more than 90% of press in the first fight, pretty much everyone but HBO and the state of Arkansas, and a very large split for the sequel), as well as adept promoting that got Taylor the shot, and not other middleweights that I'm attempting to imply may be much, much better than the version of Taylor that we're seeing.

So, since, like I said, columns are meant to incite debate, I will attempt to respond to your opinions respectfully, since, mainly, I'm just cool like that. =)

Well it's not Taylor's fault that everybody that he fought suddenly grew old over night and look washed up. Including Hopkins whom he beat twice.

Stop hating, how can the author say that he is undeserving when he sweat and earned what he has now.

Well, if Hopkins suddenly grew old over night and look washed up, what does it say about Taylor that he wasn't able to take the fight to Hopkins and truly take the title? Taylor doesn't look good against fighters who force him to go forwards, hasn't done so since stepping up competition against Marquez... he is much, much better as a counterpuncher, and he is an adept counterpuncher, at that. That is why Pat Burns was telling Jermain to use angles, to be out of the immediate range of Bernard's shots and able to hit Hopkins, but it was a strategy that he had difficulty following up on, as Hopkins is a difficult puzzle to solve.

he beat hopkins twice fair n square...whoever was his competition the first 20 matches is irrevelant

It matters when pointing out that there are other middleweights who may be more deserving, considering that Taylor faced none of them in his path to facing Hopkins. He was moved along with adept promoting, made the heir apparent in the hope that his considerable athletic ability would show through, and that they could make successful pay-per-view shows worth tons and tons of money. Hence why you didn't see Hopkins vs. Felix Sturm (who absolutely won that fight against De La Hoya) or any of the other lesser names at 160 whose mechanics and in-ring ability seem to have much more potential than this version of Taylor.

Mind you, Taylor could finally get that fight against a decent opponent, aside from Hopkins, where he shows the value that plenty have been expecting, including myself, but the point of this article is that, while watching the two fights, I'm thinking, "These are our champions?"

That is written by one jealous and spiteful, ****sucking loser.

I guess you wouldn't have liked my past columns excoriating Andrew Golota. It's an opinion, my friend, an opinion, and a developed one, at that. Nor do I know what I'd be jealous of... if you read a variety of press reports of the past two fights, we are not impressed with Taylor, and we're waiting to see what he's been purported to be. I've been following Taylor for years, and even though I've written a negative article about him, one which a family member said I was too harsh (but it was still my opinion), I still think Taylor has much more of a future than Golota, at the moment.

thats one biased article

If you can show where I used anything that would compromise my integrity, aside from having an opinion, which is allowed in a column and not a straight-news report (and even straight reporting in boxing is subjective, based on how you score rounds), then please dictate how so, and I will read it respectfully.

I don't like that article and don't feel that it is fair.

Like it or not, its Taylor's time now. DEAL WITH IT.

Well, if it's Taylor's time, he's surely not showing much reason for people to be excited, and even the Arkansan has been down about his performance for two straight fights, for good reason.

It was a harsh article, yes, I can agree with that, but it is founded on an opinion of a writer who has good reason to be unimpressed with someone who is supposed to be the future, but has eked out two controversial decisions, not taking it to the old man like Hatton did to Tszyu, or like so many other fighters have in crossroad matches.

You don't have to like the article, or at least the opinion within, but that's the point, and that means I'm doing my job. And when Taylor shows that it is his time, finally, I'll be on the computer, typing exactly that.

Heck, if you've read my column on a consistent basis, I wrote a column before the first fight stating that Taylor had nothing to lose, win or loss against Hopkins. And it's still true, because his career has not been ruined by two close, close fights against a future Hall-of-Famer, something that has happened to plenty of other challengers who never showed their faces with as much posterity again. But at the same point, it is difficult to coronate him until he shows that he is head and shoulders above the competition that was passed over in favor of these successful promotions, an occurrence that Taylor may still get to.

When you write a column based on facts and opinions, of course it will have the writer's emotion on the page. I thought it was a good article, and despite the fact that it sounds relatively mean in some of the language, it was still true.

Pretty much what I've been saying, except for the part about emotion. Emotion indicates bias, something I do not have against Taylor. While I did not score either fight for Taylor, mounting bias charges would insinuate that I do not like Taylor, nor do I want to see him succeed. I like Taylor, an opinion that is allowed, but I do not root for any fighter over another. The closest I can come to wanting to see someone succeed is wanting to see Carlos Maussa on television more, because he makes me laugh.

I appreciate everyone's feedback, and one poster aside, I appreciate the lack of flaming, and hope that the debate remains respectful but becomes more developed.

Thanks!
---David