Taylor vs. Hopkins

:nod



(By the way, I thought it was a draw)

 

I will say taylor did win the first fight between them but he didnt win in convincing fashion Im a firm believer you must beat the champ hands down before you take the mans his belt

 

it was a close fight that Taylor squeeked a win out of. . . the way Hops has been "fighting" lately I dont feel sorry for him one bit - he's nearly impossible to watch, unless you like Clenchin, Headbutting, Holding and Running.

 

well thats the tradition not the reality

 

BHOP all the way:good

 

Look B hops won the fight, the only reason why I say that is because I had my money on J.T. and I thought he lost the fight at the end of the 12 round.

But when you really sit down and watch the fight you could see why the judges gave it J.T.

 

That's what I scored it the first time I saw it.

 

Bottom line: Not many people were bitching about the decision after the fight. If anything, folks were making fun of Hopkins because he did so little the first 8 rounds but he sincerely felt that he won.
Today, people disrespect Taylor for crappy performances against guys such as Ouma and Spinks. Hopkins won against Tarver and Wright. So now we got a bunch of biased nuthuggers who want to believe that Hopkins deserved the win over Taylor. :-(

Hey, I ****in love Hopkins. I wanted him to win, especially the rematch. But he lost against a young hungry lion twice, and it wasn't the judges fault.
I just wish I knew why Taylor's looked mediocre ever since.

 

For the most part, I was on planet ESB.
Yeah, everything Roy says is legit :nut

 

Im going to give a round to a guy who throws punches over someone who does absolutely nothing. I didnt give rounds for Hopkins b/c of his previous wins and b/c hes the champion.

 

True - albeit a bit of an oversimplification of the matter.

The issue, for me, is in the scoring of close rounds. In those, I submit, the champ has to get the benefit of the doubt when the challenger has not wrestled them conclusively from him.

What was problematic for me in that fight is how the judges gave Taylor the benefit of the doubt in ALL the close rounds. If the judges had given just ONE of those close rounds to Hopkins, he would have retained his title via majority draw, which I think would have been fair.

For the record, I had it 7-5 Hopkins. Highway robbery? Hardly. There were at least 5 rounds in that fight that were open to interpretation.

 

I would even disagree with this to the fullest extent. Every single fight in the entire sport of boxing should have the same exact scoring criteria. I mean every single one. That's everything from the guy in his pro debut to the journeyman with 100 losses to the undefeated undisputed champion. Everyone should have to win their rounds. No gifts just because you wore a belt into the ring. There should be no such thing as a benefit of the doubt. If a round is too close to call, it should be scored a draw. If the challenger edges a round, he should get the round. I really don't see any other acceptable way of scoring a fight and no offense but saying that one guy deserves any special consideration for any reason whatsoever seems really idiotic to me.

 

It seems that the actual point I was making seems to have disappeared like flatulence in a hurricane here.

If two combatants are involved in a championship fight and they keep on having close, inconclusive rounds, who do you give them to? The challenger? Even a blind Taylor fan has to admit that Taylor was given the benefit of the doubt in EVERY inconclusive round.

Taylor conclusively won only three rounds that entire fight. He spent the rest of them creating galeforce winds with his fists.