'Jermain Taylor - The brutal truth'

Taylor looks beatable, all the top guys at 168 want a piece of Taylor (proably wouldn't mind Hops either), less risk, loads of reward.

 

Holy **** Zak! You're actually admitting it was a close fight. So close that it could have gone either way?
Cause you see, this whole "longstanding tradition" about the champion getting the benefit of the doubt is not an actual rule. No judge is obligated to honor it.
I think that such a "tradition" is incredibly stupid and would leave the door open for even more problems in scoring.
Would you have a problem if a judge said after a fight in a close decision "I thought the challenger won the last round handily, but I gave it to the champ because the fight was so close."
Now, you'll probably say that is a bad example, but is it really? If you insist an unwritten rule should be followed that gives an edge to the champ in close fights, then you are leaving it open to intrepretation by the judges. And that's dangerous in a sport that is already inherently subjective in the way it's judged.
If a judge believes a round is too close to call, I'd much rather see it scored 10-10, instead of it given to the champ by default.

Besides, wouldn't logic then follow that Taylor deserved the decision in the 2nd fight since he was the champ and it was a close fight. Or were we obligated to ignore the longstanding tradition since the first fight was controversial.
And how about all these so called championship bouts in a sport that is littered with title holders. Do all these champions get the nod in close fights. Did you think John Ruiz should have been given the benefit of the doubt in his third fight with Holyfield simply because Ruiz was the champ.
Heh, I'm sure you have a reason why this unwritten rule didn't count in that particular instance.
By advocating that a champ deserves the edge simply because he is the champ is basically advocating unfair judging.

On two of the three judges cards. It easily could have been one of the three. The simple fact that you acknowledge the fight was so close that "benefit of the doubt" might have come into play makes me think your claims that this fight was a definitive win for Hopkins to be very suspect. Everything you said in this post so far indicates you know it was a close fight. And the only defense you have mounted is invoking a longstanding tradition that doesn't actual exist in the rulebook.

Again, you are not providing proof. You are basing your comments on suspicions.
Y'know, the same way people claim with certainty that Holyfield did steroids based on their suspicions, while you demand rock solid proof.

How come when the topic involves Jermain Taylor's supposed gift decisions, you let the burden of proof become so lax?

I'm not saying it isn't possible that you are correct in your suspicions, but simply repeating them over and over like they are fact doesn't make them so. Actual proof is what makes them fact.

Also very close fights, and by no means bad decisions.

As I mentioned before, go through the first Hopkins and Taylor fight and let me know which rounds Lederman gave to Taylor that were most certainly rounds that should have went to Hopkins.
I'm not saying that he is the end all be all, but I'm using him as an example in this case because I happened to score their first fight exactly like he did (writing down my score before I heard what he scored the round - not afterward!)

 

Stop putting money into HBO Zak. Don't ever give money for their PPV's either. You're only adding to their corruption.

 

Good point. The only logical thing to do when faced with such a corrupt organization is to boycott them.
It's a small price to pay for sticking up for one's ideals.