Oh man, I was dreading a Taylor win but after that it was actually slightly amusing.
I never scored it (will do later) but I think it might roughly have been 6-4-2 even in favour of Taylor. Two reasons why this didn't really bother me:
Taylor won his rounds by landing about 2 jabs.
Hopkins won his rounds by rocking Taylor twice.
Unfortunately the 10 point must system doesn't differentiate. Maybe they could introduce halves? Like 10 - 8 and a half for a round a fighter is hurt bad? Just a random thought - not serious. There was clearly an issue here and it really came to light after the final bell. Don't know if I was the only one, but I thought Taylor fought through a glaze from round 10 onwards, and after the fight, right up till the decision was announced, had the look of a loser.
I think this was the first time someone had taken his shots and hit back stronger, and hurt him - beat him mentally. He has a history of bullying smaller fighters into the corner/ropes and using his size to just overwhelm them. It didn't work tonight - Hopkins ducked his wild right and laughed in his face. I personally find it hilarious when this happens to big bully boys in divisions.
There is a sort of pattern that has emerged between the 3 most recent middleweight greats - each one has ended their streak with a SD decision. Hagler and Hopkins lost, Monzon won his. Yeah, that's right, I rate Hopkins in the all time middleweight list, and as such he's liable to a special ruleset - where as proven, record setting Champion the other guy has to take the title clearly. Look at it the way justice is done in the court system - the important question for the public is not whether justice is done, but whether it is percieved to be done. Taylor quite simply did not make it clear that he was the better fighter than Hopkins.
He nicked the early rounds while Hopkins switched on in the fifth, before coming on very strongly in the closing rounds. Hilarious when you consider it is the 40 year old coming on strongly near the end, with the close rounds that were already in the bank budging it for the young blood. It's usually the exact opposite way around. Hopkins' prediction that the 26 year old would be like the 40 year old, and vice versa, came true. This exposed Taylor, in my opinion.
It exposed him as an unnatural middleweight who cuts from 180 to make weight. You saw the results of this in his endurance; he likely would have been stopped, or at least beaten clearly, over 15 rounds (a distance Hopkins has frequently called for in the past). In the days before prior-day weigh-ins he would not be allowed to compete at middleweight. In this sense, tonight's fight was a farce that doesn't pertain to the rules of the traditional, historic, middleweight championship. To today's rules sure - but judging systems and sanctioning beaurocracy come and go over the years, and once you get into the elite club you get judged by the elite rules, which ironically are pure simple: you lose when there can be no other perception otherwise.
I wouldn't have complained if tonight's fight was a draw, or if Hopkins had won comfortably (by 2 points at the most). The sad thing is, I had a gut feeling he was never going to get the decision if it was close. HBO have invested so heavily in Jermain that it would be a disaster if he had lost in any way. There seems to be some drama over one of the judges scoring the 12th for Taylor. All I'm gonna say is... judging is sometimes, maybe often, about numbers...
Xposed
Your points on scoring are interesting, i heard there were to be experiments on making scoring more open...sometimes a guy can dominate rounds and only win 10-9 leaving the fight open sometimes to the other guy sneaking back in. I think giving 10-8 for a dominant round should be looked at more and also they should look at making sure a knockdown round is not always an automatic 10-8, sometimes the other guy fights back well or the knockdown is a flash one.
-
Manos de Oro
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 12:10
Yeah, I think it's dangerous to stop tweaking the regulations in boxing. Stick to tradition - fair enough - but the ultimate goal from day one has been for results that reflect what actually happened. Majority decisions, majority draws, technical decisions, technical draws, split decisions, three knockdown rules, and various headbutt TKO rules all change from place to place and from time to time. It's for this reason I kinda wish people would start focussing on what goes on in a fight more, rather than sit and pick away over points here and there. Not so long ago it was just binary rounds the scoring went by. That didn't work (best example of why is probably Benitez - Curry), and I don't think the current one is beyond reproach.
At the moment we don't have a ten-point-must, we have at very best a three-point-must. And in fairness you've got to go through a lot of matches to see a 10-7 round.
If there are ten points available they should be used. Otherwise there's no more justification for having ten than there is for having one or two points per round.
Granted this leaves things wide open to interpretation of judges who often seem to be unable to agree on anythng but no point denying the basic principle of the basis that the judges are crap.
If there are ten points available they should be used. Otherwise there's no more justification for having ten than there is for having one or two points per round.
Granted this leaves things wide open to interpretation of judges who often seem to be unable to agree on anythng but no point denying the basic principle of the basis that the judges are crap.