um no. The criteria for beating a champ is the same as for beating anyone else 1. KO him 2. Win more rounds than he does Until somone shows me a boxing rule book that says that championship fights have different scoring criteria in favor of the champion I will continue to be dumbfounded by the supidity of the "you have to beat the champ convincingly" argument
Agreed....too many people are caught up in the whole "you have to TAKE the champs title". It isnt about blowing a champion out of the water to get the win....its about winning the fight. That said, HE DID NOT WIN THE FIGHT! Hopkins quite honestly won clearly. (and the 2nd one I had a draw)
Well at least we half agree. I thought Taylor won the first fight clearly. I've said this many times before. Hopkins definatly hurt taylor way more than taylor hurt him. If he would have pressed a little harder he would probably have scored a KO and if I was scoring it as a whole fight, it would go to Bhop. However, he got started too late and I think that Jermain clearly won more rounds than him so judging it rd by rd the way that boxing should be scored it goes to JT. I thikn that the fact that the issue is so hotly contested and people are so split over it is proof that the fight was closer than hopkins fans care to admit and even if you felt that hopkins won, you should be able to see how somone else may have scored for taylor
That's an old wive's tail in boxing. The champ can lose by a single point and it's as legit and correct as a KO or UD.
popshotkins fought the last 4 rounds. Period. You don't start fighting in round 8 and win fights, so everyone quit whining.
7-5 Hop.....Dont even bring up the second fight because if Bernard gets the right decision it never gets there
