http://jermaintaylor.com/news.html (c/o Arkansas Gazette) The strategy in the latter stages of the fight will be debated, but there is no question that Taylor was winning the early part of the contest and looked stronger and smoother in the ring than in any fight since his second fight with Bernard Hopkins in December 2005. Many who have followed Taylors career believe that for 10 or 11 rounds, it was the best Jermain Taylor they had seen. It was in my mind I was boxing beautifully. Just keep moving and boxing, and I win the fight. Keep boxing and I can make this fight easy. He came back strong. He came on in the later rounds. Taylor showed enough skill and entertainment value to ensure he will continue to get television deals. It might be some time before he gets another title shot. Knowledgeable observers ringside Saturday night agreed that Taylor is still one of the top boxers in the super middleweight division, despite losing three of his past four fights. Taylor said he didnt think stamina was a problem. I dont think so, he said. I trained my hardest. I put 110percent in. I stayed with it, and he just got it at the end.
Taylor definitely took a psychological hit with the Pavlik losses (especially the 1st.) i think he was at his best in JT-Bhop II (Still had hopkins winning those 2 fights though.)
I agree. This time it was not stamina. In fact he showed good stamina in this fight. He just got caught - that happens. In the Hopkins fights and against Pavlik he did have some stamina problems though. Against Froch he just got caught.
as much as i love taylor...i don't think anyone has even fought the best version of taylor let alone beat the best version. i'm not saying the best version is yet to come either. we may never see the best taylor can/could have been. he has so many bad habits that someone w/ that level of talent shouldnt have or that should have been corrected. whether its holding his left around his waist or all that wasted movement (like boo said, "there aint a damn bug on your forehead so stop swiping it"), or the inability to finish his opponent, to stamina. nevertheless the taylor that fought and lost to both pav and froch was a damn good fighter, still capable of so much despite his bad habits so those wins shouldnt be diminished at all. but i think we can all agree that someone w/ taylor's natural athleticism and talent could have been extremely great, and not just real good.
Yep -- handed Froch his ass for the first 5 rounds, held his own very well for the next few rounds, and faded badly after 8 rounds. Taylor/Hopkins II, and Taylor/Pavlik II are the best performances we've seen from JT.
Yeah Taylor looked good. Froch just wore him down and I think would have worn most opponents down with the shots he was landing and pressure he was applying. People keep applying the terms shot and faded to the Taylor which Froch fought but that's bollocks IMO. Taylor worked damn hard for that fight, came to win and the better man won on the night. It doesn't make Jermain any less of a fighter and I predict he will do the best out of the Americans in the tournament.
Well now aren't you just the bold mother****er! Ya picked JT over two unqualified prospects: BOLD man BOLD!
I was merely illustrating the point that JT isn't shot and is likely to perform better than two fresh prospects. It wasn't a particularly bold statement and it wasn't meant to be. From reading the posts on this board many people seem to think Taylor will do nothing and the two Andres will completely out perform him. I was contesting that view point. I can't see what your problem is with that....mutha ****a.