Jermain Taylor's Moment of Truth is tonight!!!

Nope, it was just a loss. The 'moment of truth', whatever the **** that is, isn't defined by a loss when you've already beaten one of the top MW's ever. And twice. You're just acting incredibly childish compukiller.

 

You really think Spinks beat him? That says it all about you.atsch


blah blah blah... who cares what you believe, because ther are probably just as many who think the opposite. You'll never know anything until you realize you don't know everything.

 

And two other apparently had Taylor winning. I'm a little rusty with my math, but that's twice as many as had Spinks up by that RIDICULOUS margin.

 

Many on ESB?!?! Dude...this board jumped the shark years ago. There aren't the quality of posters who actually KNEW what they were posting anymore. Talking **** or trying to be funny has replaced talking about actual boxing. I used to come and at least read some good ****. Now it's just painful for what passes as a fan of boxing.:-(

 

Exactly. Right on all counts. It is continually amazing to me that there are any serious boxing fans who would suggest that he "beat" Hopkins. At best, he squeaked out two HIGHLY DISPUTED decisions, and then topped that off by getting a very questionable draw against Wright.

How any of this qualifies as "beating ATGs" is beyond me. Those decisions were ridiculous, and most boxing fans know it - which is why they are so glad Pavlik disposed of this fraud.:happy

 

On the one hand you say:

and then you say:

You have called them gift decisions in other posts.

One part of your post is contradicting another part of the same post.

If you concede that he squeaked out a HIGHLY disputed decision, then the decisions can be neither 'gifts' or ridiculous.

The fact is, both Taylor - Hopkins fights were very close (Five of the six possible cards read 115-113 for Taylor. You could argue that he won either or both fights 115-113 (as I do). You could argue that both were 114-114 (and I wouldn't have a problem with that) or you could argue that Bernard won ONE or BOTH fights by 115-113 (Not how I saw it, but I could live with that result too). None of these results would constitute a 'gift' decision or a ridiculous outcome.

At worst, you would have to concede that Jermain fought two vey close fights with an ATG and future HOFer.

And at best, you could claim he beat an ATG and a HOFer, twice.

Both fights were close and bound to be controversial, but neither result was a gift.


You laud Pavlik's efforts (and rightly so, he showed excellent spirit in getting up and winning by stoppage), but remember he was almost KO'd.

You questioned Jermain's jaw during the BHop fights (when he was never in any where near as much trouble, but have NO question about Pavlik's chin, even though he was in FAR MORE trouble against Jermain than Jermain ever was against BHop.

A double standard is at work here.

Neither Kelly nor Jermain have poor chins. Pavlik demonstrated the better chin, but neither one is weak.

You questioned Jermain's power against tricky, slick fighters but no credit once again for his demonstrated power against a strong-chinned Pavlik. (He could have been KO'd in two. The ref was not particularly quick to begin the count that almost produced a different result.)

Had Jermain been a little less tense and excited, and a little more experienced in finishing, he would have stopped Kelly in the second.

All credit to Pavlik for the recovery, and the stoppage was unquestionably good, but you're being more than a little unfair to Taylor here.

 

tilt. :yep