“Fighting Words” – Jermain Taylor: Undisputed, Undeserving

[Mr. David]

A brief aside...

I've kept my responses respectful, and will remain to do so, except for this one, because I want to point something out...

At 5:24 AM EST, TheFairPole called me "one jealous and spiteful, ****sucking loser."

My response, at 8:38 AM EST, was:

"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."

Obviously I was being sarcastic, playing on his user name. Well, TheFairPole decided to give me some red karma at 4:13 PM, with the accompanying comment, "When did I ever say anything about Golota? You read too much into nicknames."

Okay, well, if TheFairPole is saying that his nickname has nothing to do with Golota, then I direct you to this link:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...77#post1098477

In case you don't click on the link, it was from a post from 11/29/05 in the Forums, at 8:32 PM in a thread entitled "user names!"

TheFairPole's quote, to a question about where his user name came from?

"I think mine is pretty obvious... but for those who don't get it, i'll tell ya. Golota used to be my favorite boxer back in the day and he is Polish and I am part Polish. They call him the foul pole so I played on his nickname."

So, there is a decent connection, even if Golota is no longer his favorite boxer. Case closed.

[BLOODSHED]

Fairpole is a flamer, pro-European fighter poster. Just ignore his ass.

I've kept my responses respectful, and will remain to do so, except for this one, because I want to point something out...

At 5:24 AM EST, TheFairPole called me "one jealous and spiteful, ****sucking loser."

My response, at 8:38 AM EST, was:

"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."

Obviously I was being sarcastic, playing on his user name. Well, TheFairPole decided to give me some red karma at 4:13 PM, with the accompanying comment, "When did I ever say anything about Golota? You read too much into nicknames."

Okay, well, if TheFairPole is saying that his nickname has nothing to do with Golota, then I direct you to this link:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...77#post1098477

In case you don't click on the link, it was from a post from 11/29/05 in the Forums, at 8:32 PM in a thread entitled "user names!"

TheFairPole's quote, to a question about where his user name came from?

"I think mine is pretty obvious... but for those who don't get it, i'll tell ya. Golota used to be my favorite boxer back in the day and he is Polish and I am part Polish. They call him the foul pole so I played on his nickname."

So, there is a decent connection, even if Golota is no longer his favorite boxer. Case closed.

[MetalVomit]

I've kept my responses respectful, and will remain to do so, except for this one, because I want to point something out...

At 5:24 AM EST, TheFairPole called me "one jealous and spiteful, ****sucking loser."

My response, at 8:38 AM EST, was:

"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."

Obviously I was being sarcastic, playing on his user name. Well, TheFairPole decided to give me some red karma at 4:13 PM, with the accompanying comment, "When did I ever say anything about Golota? You read too much into nicknames."

Okay, well, if TheFairPole is saying that his nickname has nothing to do with Golota, then I direct you to this link:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...77#post1098477

In case you don't click on the link, it was from a post from 11/29/05 in the Forums, at 8:32 PM in a thread entitled "user names!"

TheFairPole's quote, to a question about where his user name came from?

"I think mine is pretty obvious... but for those who don't get it, i'll tell ya. Golota used to be my favorite boxer back in the day and he is Polish and I am part Polish. They call him the foul pole so I played on his nickname."

So, there is a decent connection, even if Golota is no longer his favorite boxer. Case closed.

I agree, Taylor won, and deserves credit, but he hasnt TRULY proven himself, other than that he can get outlanded by Hops and win twice. He(neither him or Hops) did anything impressive in either of those fights, so it's understandble as to why the "jury is still out" in regards to Taylor.


I'm a man of peace, but I've got to say it, even though FP is cool with me......

[BLOODSHED]

Thats what got me... they had a unanimous decision this time when Hopkins had high connect percentage, per jabs and power punches landed.

I agree, Taylor won, and deserves credit, but he hasnt TRULY proven himself, other than that he can get outlanded by Hops and win twice. He(neither him or Hops) did anything impressive in either of those fights, so it's understandble as to why the "jury is still out" in regards to Taylor.


I'm a man of peace, but I've got to say it, even though FP is cool with me......

[MetalVomit]

Thats what got me... they had a unanimous decision this time when Hopkins had high connect percentage, per jabs and power punches landed.

I simply CANT find the punch stats, but I'm almost sure that Hops outlanded Taylor by about 35 power shots. My exact words after the 12th:"what a boring fight, no way the judges give this one to Taylor though". LOL.

[BLOODSHED]

I knew they were going to give it to Taylor, he landed the harder shots and put his punches together --> looked like he did more.

I simply CANT find the punch stats, but I'm almost sure that Hops outlanded Taylor by about 35 power shots. My exact words after the 12th:"what a boring fight, no way the judges give this one to Taylor though". LOL.

[Dirt E Gomez]

I simply CANT find the punch stats, but I'm almost sure that Hops outlanded Taylor by about 35 power shots. My exact words after the 12th:"what a boring fight, no way the judges give this one to Taylor though". LOL.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=54834

[MetalVomit]

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=54834

Thanks. So not 35, but 41. Ouch.

[kevvy1979]

Wow cry some more about it, worse the X was after the first fight.

[psychopath]

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, 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.



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?"

You were mentioning Felix Strum. Again it's not Taylor's fault that a match between him Strum didn't happen. Strum and the rest of the other big names in the division has their eyes on B-hops and his titles and I'm sure they don't want to take on a young undefeated up and coming fighter like Taylor because a loss would destroy their chances of taking a crack at Bhops.

Taylor is undeserving? Then why the hell did Bhops gave him a title shot while there are more deserving challengers in the division? It is because Taylor is the biggest names among them and the biggest crowd drawer. Now after Taylor defeated the champ people will call him undeserving? Yeah what a class act.
Learn to show some respect and give credit to whom the credit is due.

Taylor wasn't able to take the fight to Hopkins. In the first fight yeah that's the reason why there was a second fight. And this time it's different because Taylor is the Champ and Bhops is the challenger. Therefore Taylor doesan't have to attack attack attack. This is sweet science remember? So it was Bhops who wasn't able to take the fight to the champ and not the other way around. If Bhops has the skills to do what he said he is going to do he should have done that. After all he promise to finish Taylor off this time, but NO it's all words brother so he lost.

You are unimpressed with Taylor, and feel that his rise to champion is motivated by two controversial decisions? Well Bhops can try again for ther third time. I don't see why Bhops won't do that if he really still has it in him.

As for Strum and the rest of the big names in the division I'm sure their eyes are now on Taylor so I'm sure Taylor wouldn't have reasons to fight them now. If he doesn't then that's the time you can call the guy undeserving.

Meanwhile give credit where the credit is due. Show some respect to the guy who bust his balls out to get a crack at those titles and delivered.