If you remember them off the top of your head, and general input on both fights. Was it just a case of more money being made with Taylor than with Hopkin's at that point? Were they legit losses? Total screw jobs?
i can't remember the margins but i remember having the first one for taylor and the second for bernard.
Anyone have any ideas why the fights were both scored for Taylor if a number of you feel Hopkin's won at least one of them?
first fight was for taylor defently due to the fact hopkins left it to late but he did give taylor a good beating in the last 2-3 rounds if i remember correctly. the second fight i gave to hopkins was the same scorecard jim watt of SKY SPORTS had in favour of hopkins
How can anyone question this mans's greatness?The extravaganza of industriousness, old school skills, and adaptations! Bernard would give Hagler fits and force him out of the championship picture. 8 rounds Taylor 4 rounds Hopkins
He's just someone who has venom inside him because his hero got beaten by Leonard. 21 years later and he still can't get over it.
I had Taylor by a point in the first fight and had the second fight a draw. Both fights could have gone either way.They weren't screw jobs. Hopkins should have opened up earlier and risked more imo. I don't buy the excuse that he was old and had to conserve energy. I think he could have taken more risk but he wasn't willing to do it. It's baffling that he brought the exact same plan into the second bout though. It was poor strategy on his behalf imo.
Agreed. Hopkins never learned his lesson. He should have gambled more when he fought Taylor the second time.
It's like flipping a quarter twice and getting two heads (or two tails). Nothing the least bit unusual about it.