Are Taylors wins over Hopkins underated?

The real question is, is Calzaghe's?

 

If B-HOP fought as smart as he did against Pavlik everytime. He would have beat Taylor, and I still think he won The Calzaghe fight, but its all about keeping that 0. Politics!

 

Not at all. He shouldn't have gotten either of them.

 

it isn't thta they are underrated it is that Taylor then fought on and lost to Pavlik. He beat Hopkins with speed but without much discipline, and that was bad against Pavlik and his power. The wins vs. Hopkins shows that speed can beat Hopkins and that maybe Hopkins knows how to handpick. We have a lot of handpicking now in boxing with Mayweather,Pacman and Hopkins.

 

It's never one win that makes one an ATG. Beating Hopkins didn't make Joe C an ATG. It was a result of his wntire career, mainly his run at 168.

 

i think they underated cause in the mind of any REAL boxing fan he LOST and as such he dont get credit.

 

I don't think that is it. I think it sort of like Barkley against Hearns a little. If a guy beats a great but does not prove that the win was because of being good as much as stylistic, the wins are sort of discounted.

 

Not a good comparison, because Barkley's wins were (obviously) not the least bit debatable while Taylor's are highly disputed.

And they should be. Without the influence of HBO, and Hopkins' unpopularity with the boxing establishment, he wouldn't have got them. Nor should he.

 

overrated, hopkins won both fights.

 

This^

Some say Taylor didn't do enough to win. Well I always thought the same applies to Hopkins.

Side Note: Joe C. an ATG? Says who?

 

Yeah that is about right.

Thing about Taylor was he had off the charts athleticism but just could not put it together with boxing skills. I saw both Hopkins and Taylor live before they fought. Watching Taylor with his explosiveness I figured Hopkins was going to lose. Without superior boxing skills Hopkins would have been destroyed but goes to show boxing is more skill than athleticism