What the hell is up with all these articles hating on Taylor?

[RastaSmoker]

You want an unbiased post, here goes.


Taylor won both fights in the record book.
Hopkins lost both fights in the record book.
They are both better fighters then any poster here that says they arent any good. MODS included.
Hopkins looked unimpresive.
Taylor looked unimpressive.
Yes they were close fights.
Taylor is the new Champ.
Bernard is not.



Look point given. Unbiased, fair, and balanced

[Imira]

I was rooting for Hopkins, but boxing really needed Taylor to win.

Taylor just defeated Hopkins twice in a row. No matter what anyone says, there's no spin to change that fact.

Hopkins is now in Taylor's past. I'm waiting to see if Taylor can retain the undisputed title and prove that he's a worthy successor to the crown. Any fighter can win a title, but it's what a fighter does with it that makes him a champion.

[Dirt E Gomez]

yea, it's silly. Taylor beat Hopkins twice OFFICIALLY now. Give him his due.

What dues? For urking out 2 controversial decisions from a 40 year old b-hop and looking hardly impressive in doing so? The only dues Taylor should be given is that he seems like he's a nice guy and he managed to get both decisions, regardless of my personal opinion of who won. So you're right, here are the dues, "Taylor, you're a nice guy who is undefeated with 2 controversial decisions over B-hop. Cong****."

[Dirt E Gomez]

You want an unbiased post, here goes.


Taylor won both fights in the record book.
Hopkins lost both fights in the record book.
They are both better fighters then any poster here that says they arent any good. MODS included.
Hopkins looked unimpresive.
Taylor looked unimpressive.
Yes they were close fights.
Taylor is the new Champ.
Bernard is not.



Look point given. Unbiased, fair, and balanced

You're right... but entertaining to read? **** no. No website in the world would put that on their front page, and deservedly so. There is more to boxing the facts, and the basic ones at that.

[Manny_P]

What dues? For urking out 2 controversial decisions from a 40 year old b-hop and looking hardly impressive in doing so? The only dues Taylor should be given is that he seems like he's a nice guy and he managed to get both decisions, regardless of my personal opinion of who won. So you're right, here are the dues, "Taylor, you're a nice guy who is undefeated with 2 controversial decisions over B-hop. Cong****."

why you keep sayin "2 controversial" wins fo Taylor? So you scored the 2nd fight fo Hopkins aswell?

If you gonna diss somebody you should be dissin Hop. Hop promised YOU that he'd KO Taylor and he dint. He did almost the exact the same thing he did in the first fight. He dint GET the early rounds. neitha like he promised to START early.


if you win twice in a row, it's really hard to hate on the guy.

[MickyHatton]

Your points are definitely valid but it doesn't explain why boxing writers who are supposedly boxing fans on a boxing website are badmouthing this fight so much.

I know what your saying and yes they should know better, however I think they expected so much more from two great middleweights, they expected a skillfull fight yes but with more desire to win from both boxers, perhaps instead of worrying more about losing the fight!

[RastaSmoker]

You're right... but entertaining to read? **** no. No website in the world would put that on their front page, and deservedly so. There is more to boxing the facts, and the basic ones at that.

im not implying that this should be a cover story or even a report. What i am saying though is that it is very easy not to spin an article in one fighters favor. All you do is tell the story the way it happened.

[Dirt E Gomez]

why you keep sayin "2 controversial" wins fo Taylor? So you scored the 2nd fight fo Hopkins aswell?

If you gonna diss somebody you should be dissin Hop. Hop promised YOU that he'd KO Taylor and he dint. He did almost the exact the same thing he did in the first fight. He dint GET the early rounds. neitha like he promised to START early.


if you win twice in a row, it's really hard to hate on the guy.

I scored the first fight as a draw the first time I watched it, and the 2nd time and on I scored it for hopkins. The second fight I also scored a draw, but on 2nd watching I gave an additional round to Hop. I don't see how it's not controversial. If anybody thinks they were clear decisions for either fight then they're a delusional nut hugger of either fighter.

As for prefight comments, I could give a **** less. He said he was going to KO him, I took that with a grain of salt. Did I want him to KO Taylor? Yeah. Did I expect it? No, and anybody who believed he'd be some ultra agressive bull and T/KO Taylor in mid rounds was crazy. And I'm not hating on Taylor, I'm merely dissapointed with him. He's won twice. It's a fact. It's not something open to debate. But as to the way he went about getting the decision, and actually earning it; I can debate.

[STEELHEAD]

what are you talking about? Hopkins is a tough fighta. It's very hard fo anybody to dominate Hopkins.

hopkins controlling style has dominated and made everyone look bad .

its a testiment to how strong the mistake ridden taylor is for being able to beat hop even with all his flaws. his youth,size and strenghth did it not his boxing skills.

the tainted tongue of the nard ******** lickers will always be jabbering out there ass about taylor.

[RastaSmoker]

this fight reminds me of this clip.

You know what happens when two fainting goats get around each other, they scare each other into submission


http://webworksltd.com/webpub/goats/....html.flat.mov