“Fighting Words” – Jermain Taylor: Undisputed, Undeserving

[Mr. David]

Okay, some more respectful responses. Again, I ask you, if you do reply back, to keep the same demeanor and resist the temptation to flame.

This is a bad article. Quit finding ways to hate on him.

Thanks for reading. I think it's convenient to call someone a "hater" just because they put together criticism. It's my job to give my opinion in a developed, constructed manner. If I wanted to be a hater, and not a columnist, I'd spend minutes putting together brief message board posts, instead of hours doing a weekly, two thousand word column.

And if you read earlier in the thread, I don't dislike Taylor, I find him rather amiable. I just was rather underwhelmed by both Taylor AND Hopkins, a point that people seem to have glossed over.

The language used in that article is unnecessary. taylor obviously has the skills to be a champion, and his first 20 fights have prepared him to become what he is today, the undisputed middleweight champion. i think we will see how good taylor really is when he fights different competition. Have you ever seen anyone look impressive against bernard hopkins?? NO, therefore i believe its unnecessary to call taylor an undeserving champion. he did what he did through hard work and dicipline, and was able to beat the current champion, twice. Undeserving? hardly

This was a response to my asking PBF to show where I was biased. Although you find the language to be unnecessary, that does not indicated that I have biased, clouded judgment. Another poster or two indicated that I was rooting for Hopkins, but I do not root for or against fighters, as that would compromise my integrity as a journalist. I do absolutely agree with your points that few, if any, have looked impressive against Hopkins. And Taylor has reached his heights through hard work and discipline, a point I do not deny. I assert, however, by calling him undeserving, that there are other middleweights who did not receive favorable promoting. And you say that we will see how good Taylor really is when he fights different competiton... that is exactly my point about what I would like to see, because coming out of these 24 rounds, I have a difficult time being high on him.

I can understand why you wrote the article, however it's pretty apparent that you favor Hopkins over Taylor for whatever reason.

What a lot of people don't understand is that (aside from Roy Jones), no one has ever been able to take Hopkins off his gameplan. He has a (boring) style that slows the fight, to which he can dictate the pace. Most fighters don't have the patience to fight with him like that, hence his superb record.

Taylor did everything he could do in the ring, given who he was fighting. Fighters aren't going to average 70-90 punches around versus B-Hop because of his counterpunching ability. Taylor simply worked with what he had, and although it was a pretty boring fight (both were actually), he did enough to win.

No one is going to beat Hopkins decisively simply because of his style. Basing Taylor's ability level off of the Hopkins fight is like comparing Gretzky to Lemieux, it can't be done. Two totally different styles.

Taylor dominated in every fight up until this point, with progressively tougher opponents each time. He passed this test with flying colors, and I honestly don't think there's a middleweight out there right now that can push him harder than B-Hop did. Lacy is a fun fighter to watch, but he'd be giving up over 5 inches of reach. He doesn't have NEARLY the defensive skills of Hopkins and would have a tough time getting inside on Taylor. Winky and Taylor would be about the same as the Hopkins fights, aside from the jab count.

In closing, Taylor IS the best middleweight out there right now, like it or not.

Ah, this was the poster. As I put it this morning, the only things I favor in boxing are money well spent, entertaining or interesting fights (this one was the latter in its implications, but definitely lacking in the former), and the continued existence of Ricardo Mayorga, Carlos Maussa and Emanuel Augustus to make me laugh.

You make valid points about styles and the way the fight carried on. And Taylor is regarded as the best middleweight out there, I'm just saying that I need to see him step it up beyond this level.

this article indirectly puts down hopkins skills too.

jez,and he makes it like eastman was a live contender against hopkins.

i can see how he could slant everything like that. just like i slant things in taylors favor. neither side is off that much.

I didn't put down Hopkins' skills, I put down the way that he carried out his strategy. Although I scored both fights for Hopkins, it is also his fault in that he left what Max Kellerman so aptly called "swing rounds," close, close rounds that lead to controversy.

As for Eastman, at the time, he was regarded as a legitimate contender for a title shot. It is only through the post-fight revisionist history that we see how poorly he performed against Hopkins, and put him down. At the time, Eastman had all of one loss, a controversial one against William Joppy, and had an eight fight winning streak, albeit against mostly anonymous opposition.

Nowadays? He's back in the pack, having lost to Abraham.

I don't necessarily slant, I'm just pointing out problems with both fighters, with an emphasis on the preordained superstar.

This article is pure, venomous crap. Did someone lose money on the fight?

Also, if you're going to claim to be a writer, at least get your facts straight:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGPOPPAPUMP
In need of a clear, decisive win to cement his identity, Taylor’s rematch with Hopkins was twelve rounds more of the same – the same tentative performance, the same mechanical and mental flaws, the same unanimous decision going his way...
and:

...while a majority of informed observers filled their cards out in favor of the forty-year-old

Who are these "informed observers"?

Journalists shouldn't bet on anything they cover. Silly implication. And you're right, I made an error in referring to the decision, which was split the first time, unanimous the second. As is responsible, and as is my tendency, I will make a correction notice in next week's column.

As for informed observers, at least 75% of journalists ringside for the first fight had it for Hopkins, with varying point discrepancies. This time around, it was closer to an even split.

There is simply no way you can say Taylor is undeserving. None. He beat the guy who had been the king of the division for as long as anyone ever has, the same guy who was the #1 pound for pound guy in the sport until Taylor beat him. Twice.

You can say Taylor's wins weren't pretty. You can say you thought the fights were close. But to say he is undeserving reeks of ignorance and sour g****s.

Again, I'm saying he is undeserving in regards to highly controversial decisions, and an opportunity received because he is American, amiable and easy to market.

And yes, Taylor came out with the victory, but again, he eked out decisions that are nowhere near clear-cut. I just think we disagree on the semantics of my word choices.

So, for the writer to be surprised that the two bouts went 24 rounds, is truly beyond my comprehension.

Never said I was surprised. In fact, I expected it. I just want, if Taylor is to be so highly regarded, for him to have distanced himself through an impressive effort, not scraping by and holding on. You also said in a later post that I'm not a fan of Taylor. I'm not a fan of anyone, or at least not when I need or want to write about them. I've followed Taylor for years, wrote in July that he had a future, took apart Hopkins' strategy after their first fight, and am confronting the labeling of superstardom this time around as suspect or at least premature, until he shows his full potential. It's quite early in his career...

wow, lol, after reading all the responses.. i'da written the article just to get such a rise out of everyone.

Well, despite the large amount of message board readers disagreeing with me, I'm glad to have readers... one reason, of many, why I wouldn't turn this into a flaming war. Your opinions are just as valid as mine, as long as they are explained in a specific, detailed, well-thought-out manner. Similarly, I feel that I should be able to answer unfair implications of bias and prejudice, just because my opinion doesn't jibe with yours.

My father read this article before I sent it in to Rick, and he wrote back that it was a bit harsh. In retrospect, I can agree with him, but I feel that it is my right to criticize, as long as I do it properly, which I maintain I did.

Okay, I really can't afford to keep doing this, with 5000 words due elsewhere by early tomorrow afternoon. I do appreciate everyone's reading the article, and keeping their responses mostly respectful. If you can, please keep your debate to each other from here on out so that I can stop being such a punk procrastinator. =)

[MetalVomit]

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

I'm not cryin at all. Neither of them were impressive. They both lied about "going all out" for the "knockout". Stay the **** out of my pm box talking about "I would love to meet you face to face to discuss this
_______"


I havent said **** bad about your hometown boy, aside from he was lackluster, as was Hopkins. I'd be impressed with him, if he would have been impressive. Keep your suggestive e-threats the **** out my pm box.

[BLOODSHED]

You said or implied that Taylor didn't win in impressive fashion. I don't know who would win in "impressive" fashion against someone like Hopkins or Winky for that matter. Really, I know Taylor is much stronger, but Hopkins is an extremely smart with a great defense. The point is, Taylor has to land big and I don't/didn't seem him do that to Hopkins.

I just knew that if anyone was to beat Hopkins or Winky it would be a controversial and close fight going the full 12 rounds.

"Impressive" I'm assuming equals knocking Hopkins out. No one is knocking Hopkins out. And neither is Taylor, and his decision wins should not take anything away from his fights or legacy.

It would have been like winning the lottery for almost anyone at to win by TKO/KO against Hopkins. Yes, Hopkins even at the age of 41.

So saying, he didn't win "impressively" isn't realistic given the type of fighter Hopkins.

Never said I was surprised. In fact, I expected it. I just want, if Taylor is to be so highly regarded, for him to have distanced himself through an impressive effort, not scraping by and holding on. You also said in a later post that I'm not a fan of Taylor. I'm not a fan of anyone, or at least not when I need or want to write about them. I've followed Taylor for years, wrote in July that he had a future, took apart Hopkins' strategy after their first fight, and am confronting the labeling of superstardom this time around as suspect or at least premature, until he shows his full potential. It's quite early in his career...

[kevvy1979]

All came from you giving me bad karma just because I posted that I correctly picked Taylor again , even the score by which he would win.What a joke

[marvdave]

Yeah, the whole "to be the champion you have to BEAT the champion" not just show up and stand up. Didnt Hopkins outland Taylor in powershots by like 35+ punches? I was trying to find the punch stats online.

I'm a huge Hopkins fan and i'm pissed he lost, but I refuse to take anything away from Taylor. Hopkins knew what happened in the first fight and he had to know he couldn't fight the same fight again. He needed to come out fast, and he didn't. Same result. Maybe credit should be given to Taylor for preventing Hop from fighting a winning game plan. I scored the first fight for Hopkins and the second one as well..but they are far from robberies. Could have gone either way. My man Hop has nobody to blame but himself. If he comes out fast and dominates...he wins. He knew it coming in..and he still couldn't fight that fight.

[MetalVomit]

I'm a huge Hopkins fan and i'm pissed he lost, but I refuse to take anything away from Taylor. Hopkins knew what happened in the first fight and he had to know he couldn't fight the same fight again. He needed to come out fast, and he didn't. Same result. Maybe credit should be given to Taylor for preventing Hop from fighting a winning game plan. I scored the first fight for Hopkins and the second one as well..but they are far from robberies. Could have gone either way. My man Hop has nobody to blame but himself. If he comes out fast and dominates...he wins. He knew it coming in..and he still couldn't fight that fight.

I didnt say Hopkins was robbed. They both robbed us boxing fans. Neither were impressive. I take nothing away from Taylor, however, I'm not impressed with Taylor, like I said, because he wasnt impressive.

[vB Martin]

Journalists shouldn't bet on anything they cover. Silly implication. And you're right, I made an error in referring to the decision, which was split the first time, unanimous the second. As is responsible, and as is my tendency, I will make a correction notice in next week's column.

Not a silly implication at all. Journalists are also supposed to write from an unbiased perspective, which I did not sense at all in your "article". While you piled the crap on Taylor for his lackluster performance, you had very little to say about the snorefest that was Hopkins performance.
You forgot to mention that while Taylor lander few punches, he landed them more in combination, and that they had a more telling effect, with Hopkins being stopped in his tracks several times by a stiff jab. You didn't mention that the vast majority of the "power" shots landed by Hopkins couldn't have bruised Taylor's geriatric grandmother, let alone Taylor.

Hopkins performance in the first fight was more impressive because at least at some point in the fight you could tell it had some effect on Taylor. The most telling point, though, was that it didn't have an effect until the nervous kid had all bu punched himself out early trying to hit Hopkins while he rode his bicycle for 8 rounds straight.

As for informed observers, at least 75% of journalists ringside for the first fight had it for Hopkins, with varying point discrepancies. This time around, it was closer to an even split.

And, as you have proven with your own "article" here, journalists are never swayed by their own biases or personal feelings. If you want to claim to be a Journalist, do us all a favor and leave the "Fair & Balanced" schtick to Faux News and report without your heart on your sleeve.

[Dirt E Gomez]

Martin, your basic standpoint is that by having a different opinion than the judges and yourself means he's biased. No, it means it's his opinion. I don't see how this is over the edge or even remotely bias. You're confusing it with opinionated.... seriously.

[vB Martin]

Opinion would be "Hopkins won"

When you start lacing your words with invective, it's bias.

If it's an "article", as he claims, there is no place for either. What he did was editorialize, not report.

[Dirt E Gomez]

Opinion would be "Hopkins won"

When you start lacing your words with invective, it's bias.

If it's an "article", as he claims, there is no place for either. What he did was editorialize, not report.

You seem to read this article and completely look at it the wrong way. While I see a slightly harsh tone to it, it isn't a bad thing. So he's dissapointed that Taylor didn't show him much and states it as thus... this is wrong? If he personally had standards to which he wished a new champion would live up to, and Taylor falls short of these standards, he can feel free to put it as thus.

I don't think I ever also read a disclaimer on this site that said journalists must remain completely outside of the sport and report only facts. Do you realize how dull, boring, and inane reading only facts would be? Facts, with a dash of opinion blended together (even if there's a little controversy) is a great piece of work.