Classic fights revisit edition 3: Bernard Hopkins vs Jermaine Taylor 1

Added to my list mate.

 

Cheers mate.

 

@JohnThomas1 couldn't sleep, so I got some coffee and scored this. As follows:

Bernard Hopkins vs Jermaine Taylor 1

Hopkins : Taylor

1: 9 - 10
2: 9 - 10
3: 10 - 9
4: 10 - 9
5: 10 - 9
6: 9 - 10

57 - 57

7: 9 - 10
8: 9 - 10
9: 10 - 9
10: 10 - 9
11: 10 - 9
12: 10 - 9

58 - 56

TOTAL: 115 - 113 HOPKINS

I usually favour the cleaner, more effective puncher, and there was no difference here. I thought the commentators were a bit dismissive of Hopkins defence and counters, though both were grazing and deflecting a lot. A good bout to test the scoring muscles.

 

Thanks mate, appreciate it!!!!!!!!!

 

1. Taylor
2. Taylor
3. Taylor
4. Taylor
5. Hopkins
6. Taylor
7. Taylor
8. Taylor
9. Hopkins
10. Hopkins
11. Hopkins
12. Hopkins

115-113 Taylor

I don't see how you can win a fight throwing 18 punches a round which is what Hopkins was averaging for the first 8 rounds.

This fight kind of reminds me of Lomachenko vs Lopez with Hopkins and Lomachenko both having a very low output in the first half of the fight but leaving it too late in the end to comeback.

I do normally favour clean effective punching over workrate but Hopkins wasn't do enough of the clean punching. Like I said I don't see how you can win a championship fight throwing only throwing 18 punches a round for most of the fight.

I can see a case for Hopkins getting a draw maybe but I don't see Hopkins winning 7 rounds in this fight he simply got outworked and outhustled by the younger man who had him on the defensive for too long.

 

115-114 Taylor was my card.

 

Not responding to Your scorecard, but this particular point, for clarity.
There's no bonus for throwing punches that don't land. If anything, it can count towards "defence", which is one of the criteria, but for Hopkins.

 

Name another championship fight in history where a fighter has averaged 18 punches thrown for 75 percent of the fight and won a decision.

Yes defence is a criteria for scoring but it's pretty hard to score decision for someone that doesn't throw punches I don't care how good his defense is.

And despite Hopkins having a good defense Taylor was still landing more punches than Hopkins in most of the rounds until the last 3 or 4 rounds.

 

We only differed on two rounds - and only round 7 was one where I'd have an issue with (I'll rewatch it later, maybe I missed some of Taylor's work), so there's not much here to argue about. I moreso wanted to respond to the general idea that there is an output that is too low to win a round. I don't believe there is. Well unless it's 0.

Well, that one is easy. Devin Haney vs Jose Ramirez.
..and if You specifically want a championship fight - Canelo vs William Scull. Canelo averaged barely over 15... and that's not for 75% of a fight, but it's entirity.

 

Taylor was throwing twice as many punches and landing more punches in every round apart from last few rounds that's not the same as the fights mentioned above.

Output is not always a deciding factor no but it is when a fighter is throwing so little and landing so little.

But we normally don't agree on scoring as I remember it from Pacquiao/Bradley, Hatton/Collazo. So we'll just have to put it down to having a different criteria for scoring

 

By a Split Newspaper Decision ).

 

Gonna be honest mate, I've got no desire to watch this one again