JMM v. Bernard Taylor.

[Rover]

no! YOU BROUGHT IT BACK NOW! i'm not fooled by your imaginary fight thread. you dropped the mcguigan crap into it to get an argument about THAT! if not, why did you mention it?

you lost that argument months ago and youre still sore at getting it wrong is the reason. you can fool some people, rover, but you cant fool em all.

and just to prove i'm right i guarantee you continue to push the heat question in ARGUMENT in this thread - prove me wrong!

Hmmm...let's see here.
I started this thread on 9/23/2012.
The thread where that McGuigan argument began wasn't started until 11/03/2012.
So why would I have created a thread to bring back an argument that hadn't even started in a thread that hadn't even been created?
Chew on that one for a while, halfwit.

And the one who brought this thread back after months was Nile, and his posts had nothing to do with the issue you referenced.
See what happens when you decide to come into a thread regarding a mythical match-up about which you have no comment?
You end up making yourself look like an idiot.
Now, be a good boy and go away.
Shredded, and brilliantly so.
Enjoy.

[misterpunch]

hey arent you happy with yourself!!! theres no rule about not posting a thread that youre merely having a snoop at. i saw it was authored by armchair warrior rover and wondered to myself if the little squirt would mention the idiotic idea that belfast was basking in 100 degree heat in september when BM fought taylor. and guess what? of course you did! now, i dont care whether the other thread came before or after this one, they both contain your braindead statement about the temp in northern ireland in early autumn.

[Rover]

hey arent you happy with yourself!!! theres no rule about not posting a thread that youre merely having a snoop at. i saw it was authored by armchair warrior rover and wondered to myself if the little squirt would mention the idiotic idea that belfast was basking in 100 degree heat in september when BM fought taylor. and guess what? of course you did! now, i dont care whether the other thread came before or after this one, they both contain your braindead statement about the temp in northern ireland in early autumn.

Nice try, dunce, but you just got schooled.
You claimed that I was posting it to bring back an argument...that hadn't even begun.
And you still haven't grasped the difference between OUTSIDE and INSIDE, have you?

[Rover]

i dont believe it! I DO NOT FRIGGIN BELIEVE IT! rover dreams up a thread under the guise of a imaginary match up...to continue his insane idea - disproved time and time again - that taylor fought mcguigan in the fearsome heat of a september in belfast! DO NOT! REPEAT NOT!! let yourself get tricked into yet another waste of time arguing with him on this ridiculous point.

You specifically accused me of having created this to "continue" my "insane idea" "disproved time and time again".
I created this thread *before* that argument ever came up. It was one part of my analysis of this match-up.
I'll go on shredding you as long as you want, nitwit.

[Rover]

no! YOU BROUGHT IT BACK NOW! i'm not fooled by your imaginary fight thread. you dropped the mcguigan crap into it to get an argument about THAT! if not, why did you mention it?

you lost that argument months ago and youre still sore at getting it wrong is the reason. you can fool some people, rover, but you cant fool em all.

and just to prove i'm right i guarantee you continue to push the heat question in ARGUMENT in this thread - prove me wrong!

And you are accusing me of having "brought it back now" when in fact the one who brought this thread back after *months* was another poster who was responding to a post of mine on an issue that had nothing to do with the heat argument that started *weeks* after this thread began and last had been posted in.
You got owned. You made an ass out of yourself, and I'll be delighted to keep doing it as long as you want to keep going, pitiful whiner.

[misterpunch]

youre great at calling people names!

[Rover]

youre great at calling people names!

I love taunting people who make asses out of themselves.

[Rover]

just be a good boy and stick to the thread

You just can't follow your own advice, can you? If you had, none of this would've happened.

[misterpunch]

i reckon even george foreman would be quaking in his boots if he ever got on the wrong side of you rover. what with "dunce!" and "halfwit!" being thrown around. however, lets call it quits and for what its worth JMM wins a comfortable decision over taylor.

[Rover]

i reckon even george foreman would be quaking in his boots if he ever got on the wrong side of you rover. what with "dunce!" and "halfwit!" being thrown around. however, lets call it quits and for what its worth JMM wins a comfortable decision over taylor.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh in my responses; I'm trying to be less fiery, though I have a ways to go in that regard.

[misterpunch]

its all part of the wonderful tapestry of boxrec - good on ya and i will enjoy some of your other imaginary dust ups currently on here

[Nile4000]

If he had fought more top ten people, maybe his career wouldn't have ended up like it did.

He went for the very top dogs. I give him credit for that. He hadn't fought any top 10 people before Pedroza, and he performed very well in that fight. That tells me that fighting more top 10 fighters before another title shot wouldn't have impacted the outcome.

Possibly, but looking at the Pedroza fight, he did run a bit much.And between Pedroza and McGuigan( another fighter I feel he could've beaten under the right circumstances), he didn't really fight anybody, funny he fought Gerald Hayes again.I would have liked Bernard to up it a bit.One of the fastest of his era, only behind Camacho and Davis Jr.

[Rover]

If he had fought more top ten people, maybe his career wouldn't have ended up like it did.

He went for the very top dogs. I give him credit for that. He hadn't fought any top 10 people before Pedroza, and he performed very well in that fight. That tells me that fighting more top 10 fighters before another title shot wouldn't have impacted the outcome.

Possibly, but looking at the Pedroza fight, he did run a bit much.And between Pedroza and McGuigan( another fighter I feel he could've beaten under the right circumstances), he didn't really fight anybody, funny he fought Gerald Hayes again.I would have liked Bernard to up it a bit.One of the fastest of his era, only behind Camacho and Davis Jr.

I don't think fighting, say, another top contender would've impacted the McGuigan fight. He'd already fought the best there was--a fight I thought Pedroza edged. Unfortunately the WBA had laughable mandatories (after Lockridge): Mayor and Lujan. Taylor should've been made a mandatory, considering he was #3 when he and Pedroza fought.

[Nile4000]

^True, but maybe, in a way, Pedroza didn't want to fight Taylor again.They should have, Eusebio should have erased any doubt with Bernard.And made sure the fight wasn't in Charlotte.Probably, Eusebio should've also fought Jackie Beard, but maybe he would've lost that fight

[Rover]

^True, but maybe, in a way, Pedroza didn't want to fight Taylor again.They should have, Eusebio should have erased any doubt with Bernard.And made sure the fight wasn't in Charlotte.Probably, Eusebio should've also fought Jackie Beard, but maybe he would've lost that fight

The WBA should've made Taylor a mandatory instead of Mayor and Lujan. Why Beard?

[Nile4000]

^True, but maybe, in a way, Pedroza didn't want to fight Taylor again.They should have, Eusebio should have erased any doubt with Bernard.And made sure the fight wasn't in Charlotte.Probably, Eusebio should've also fought Jackie Beard, but maybe he would've lost that fight

The WBA should've made Taylor a mandatory instead of Mayor and Lujan. Why Beard?

Beard was a top notch contender( not sure about his ranking in the WBA at the time) and was, for a brief period, a serious threat.Also, I'll admit that Beard-Taylor was one fight I wanted to see at the time.

[Rover]

^True, but maybe, in a way, Pedroza didn't want to fight Taylor again.They should have, Eusebio should have erased any doubt with Bernard.And made sure the fight wasn't in Charlotte.Probably, Eusebio should've also fought Jackie Beard, but maybe he would've lost that fight

The WBA should've made Taylor a mandatory instead of Mayor and Lujan. Why Beard?

Beard was a top notch contender( not sure about his ranking in the WBA at the time) and was, for a brief period, a serious threat.Also, I'll admit that Beard-Taylor was one fight I wanted to see at the time.

Beard lost to later Pedroza title victim Caba. Taylor and Caba were more deserving of a shot than Beard was.

[Nile4000]

Ring actually had Beard rated higher than Taylor for 3 straight years, someone should've given the man a shot.I'm surprised Azumah didn't give Bernard a shot, probably would've won in a tough fight

[Rover]

Ring actually had Beard rated higher than Taylor for 3 straight years, someone should've given the man a shot.I'm surprised Azumah didn't give Bernard a shot, probably would've won in a tough fight

Wasn't that after Pedroza had been defeated? No credible rating could've had Beard over Taylor after Taylor's draw with Pedroza and Beard's loss to Caba.

[Nile4000]

Ring actually had Beard rated higher than Taylor for 3 straight years, someone should've given the man a shot.I'm surprised Azumah didn't give Bernard a shot, probably would've won in a tough fight

Wasn't that after Pedroza had been defeated? No credible rating could've had Beard over Taylor after Taylor's draw with Pedroza and Beard's loss to Caba.

You make a great point concerning Taylor-Pedroza, and Caba-Beard.Here's how Ring Annual ratings have them from 1982-1985.

1982: Jackie Beard #9, Bernard Taylor #10
1983: Jackie Beard #9, Bernard Taylor #10
1984: Jackie Beard #7, Bernard Taylor #8
1985: Jackie Beard #5, Bernard Taylor #8
1986: Bernard Taylor #5.

I have noticed that the Annual Rankings tend to favor certain fighters.Bernard seems to not have been one of their favorites.

[Rover]

Ring actually had Beard rated higher than Taylor for 3 straight years, someone should've given the man a shot.I'm surprised Azumah didn't give Bernard a shot, probably would've won in a tough fight

Wasn't that after Pedroza had been defeated? No credible rating could've had Beard over Taylor after Taylor's draw with Pedroza and Beard's loss to Caba.

You make a great point concerning Taylor-Pedroza, and Caba-Beard.Here's how Ring Annual ratings have them from 1982-1985.

1982: Jackie Beard #9, Bernard Taylor #10
1983: Jackie Beard #9, Bernard Taylor #10
1984: Jackie Beard #7, Bernard Taylor #8
1985: Jackie Beard #5, Bernard Taylor #8
1986: Bernard Taylor #5.

I have noticed that the Annual Rankings tend to favor certain fighters.Bernard seems to not have been one of their favorites.

Were those from the ends of the years? If so, that's absurd. Taylor fought a close fight with Pedroza that was scored a draw. I believe Ring scored for Pedroza, but Beard had just lost to Caba. If the rankings were from the beginning of the year, I could maybe understand Beard's having been higher in 82 but not 83 or 84.

[Nile4000]

^Yeah, those were end of the year rankings.Maybe the fact that Beard had managed to win the NABF title after the Caba loss may have had something to do with it.

[Rover]

^Yeah, those were end of the year rankings.Maybe the fact that Beard had managed to win the NABF title after the Caba loss may have had something to do with it.

I'd think Taylor's result against Pedroza, especially given the Caba loss, would've overcome that.

[Nile4000]

^Yeah, those were end of the year rankings.Maybe the fact that Beard had managed to win the NABF title after the Caba loss may have had something to do with it.

I'd think Taylor's result against Pedroza, especially given the Caba loss, would've overcome that.

In retrospect, probably should have.Those two should have fought some type of eliminator in 1983, and if Taylor had won, another shot at Eusebio.