Taylor vs. Hopkins

So true. This whole bs about the challenger having to win convincingly is such a load of crap.
We have enough bitching about judging in fights, can you imagine if a judge said after a fight was over "I felt the challenger clearly won the 12th round, but I gave it to the champ because the fight was so close."

Plus, with all the stupid belts floating around, there are so many champs out there that it's foolish to give them all special consideration.

I have a novel idea. How about the fights are scored evenly, with both fighters getting the same fair shake, regardless of who is the champ or not.

 

Just imagine of such a completly moronic standard applied in other sports.

Ladies and gentleman Jeff Gordon is our regining Nascar champion therefore he will get a 1 lap headstart over all the other racers.

Tiger woods is the chmapion of the last tournament therefore he will start the game at minus 2 strokes and any put that he shoots that lands within 1 inch of the hole will be counted as a good shot in the hole.

I could go on for days with this ****.

 

5-4 Hopkins with 3 rounds even.
Seen two times.

 

I'm sick of this crazy double standard statement

 

I thought Hopkins deserved the win in the first fight for sure.

 

115-113 for Taylor

 

Taylor, you can see it in www.boxrec.com yourself.

 

You make the point (why BHOP lost) with your own statement.

 

Rounds 9-12 were obviously Hopkins big time.

Rounds 1-8 determines the winner. And to be honest, after watching the fight about 7 times, i still come up with different conclusions. A few times, i had it for Taylor 7-5. Other times, Hopkins 7-5. Other times, a draw.

I do think that had Hopkins just been a bit busier, he would've easily won.

 

Awsome Name :hey

 

I don't see how you can win a round if you seldom throw a punch and the other guy, while not entire effective, is throwing a lot more and is at least trying to make the fight. Do you give those rounds to Hopkins when he just did NOTHING?

Like most people said, if Hopkins had just been busier, it was his fight to win. But it was his fault he did almost nothing for the first 8 rounds. Taylor at least took the fight to Hopkins and tried to win.

 

It's a myth that Hopkins didn't win any of the early rounds. Hopkins while not throwing many, still landed the cleaner punches, also how else do you score fights? effective aggression? Taylor was ineffective. Ring Generalship? Hopkins was the ring general. And defense? Hopkins was better defensively.

That said, Hopkins has much more love now that he was robbed of his 160 lb titles. People still consider him the champion.

 

yeah, those four landed punches a round sure were impressive.

7-5 taylor
7-4-1 taylor in rematch

 

OK, say one boxer throws 75 punches a round but lands maybe 10. And say another boxer throws 20 punches and lands maybe 3. And both land maybe one or two good shots while the rest being touch shots. Who do you give the round too?

I am a huge Hopkins fan myself but i cannot phathom how some of you can give rounds to Hopkins in which he did almost nothing but put his gloves up and move around while Taylor at least made an attempt to take the fight to Hopkins and stay busy. I just cannot see it.

 

The reason this is said is because usually the champ has a bigger name and in order for a contender to be assure a victory and not just going off the champs name they say beat the champ down so there wont be any way of them cheating you out of the title