gilgamesh wrote:He was a beaten man, but the fight was over. He wouldn't have taken any more punishment, and he should've gotten his decision victory that he deserved.
Such is Boxing though. Sometimes the way it's supposed to go, and the way it goes are two different things.
I get your point. But boxing is a set of rules where you have to be coherent and able to defend yourself for 12 x 3 minute rounds to complete a victory. Taylor was neither coherent or able to defend himself for the last few seconds of the bout.
By the letter of the law the ref was correct to stop the fight when a fighter is not capable of answering a simple question. He is not there to evaluate how long is left in a fight and whether or not a fighter will take another meaningfull blow.
gilgamesh wrote:He was a beaten man, but the fight was over. He wouldn't have taken any more punishment, and he should've gotten his decision victory that he deserved.
Such is Boxing though. Sometimes the way it's supposed to go, and the way it goes are two different things.
I get your point. But boxing is a set of rules where you have to be coherent and able to defend yourself for 12 x 3 minute rounds to complete a victory. Taylor was neither coherent or able to defend himself for the last few seconds of the bout.
By the letter of the law the ref was correct to stop the fight when a fighter is not capable of answering a simple question. He is not there to evaluate how long is left in a fight and whether or not a fighter will take another meaningfull blow.
What do you know if taylor able to defend himself or not. He certainly wouldve been able to defend hjmself for the last 5 secondes of the fight. He got knocked down and stood up, he was ready to continue. You dont just take somebody out of the fight because of 1 knock down.
gilgamesh wrote:He was a beaten man, but the fight was over. He wouldn't have taken any more punishment, and he should've gotten his decision victory that he deserved.
Such is Boxing though. Sometimes the way it's supposed to go, and the way it goes are two different things.
I get your point. But boxing is a set of rules where you have to be coherent and able to defend yourself for 12 x 3 minute rounds to complete a victory. Taylor was neither coherent or able to defend himself for the last few seconds of the bout.
By the letter of the law the ref was correct to stop the fight when a fighter is not capable of answering a simple question. He is not there to evaluate how long is left in a fight and whether or not a fighter will take another meaningfull blow.
What do you know if taylor able to defend himself or not. He certainly wouldve been able to defend hjmself for the last 5 secondes of the fight. He got knocked down and stood up, he was ready to continue. You dont just take somebody out of the fight because of 1 knock down.
I'll say it again Jip then I'm done... This time real slow.
If Taylor was able to defend himself when Mr Steele asked him the questions "are you ok?" "do you want to continue?" He would of said "Yes" the fact of the matter is he stood there with a blank expression and didn't respond period.
This cannot be debated.
I think your trying to make the point he wouldn't have had to defend himself because there was only 6 seconds left in the bout and he was ahead on two judges cards.
That's an entirely different debate.
He couldn't answer a question my two year old daughter could. He certainly wasn't in a position to defend himself if Chavez had been allowed to continue and landed a free shot.
Kilsby wrote:
I get your point. But boxing is a set of rules where you have to be coherent and able to defend yourself for 12 x 3 minute rounds to complete a victory. Taylor was neither coherent or able to defend himself for the last few seconds of the bout.
By the letter of the law the ref was correct to stop the fight when a fighter is not capable of answering a simple question. He is not there to evaluate how long is left in a fight and whether or not a fighter will take another meaningfull blow.
What do you know if taylor able to defend himself or not. He certainly wouldve been able to defend hjmself for the last 5 secondes of the fight. He got knocked down and stood up, he was ready to continue. You dont just take somebody out of the fight because of 1 knock down.
I'll say it again Jip then I'm done... This time real slow.
If Taylor was able to defend himself when Mr Steele asked him the questions "are you ok?" "do you want to continue?" He would of said "Yes" the fact of the matter is he stood there with a blank expression and didn't respond period.
This cannot be debated.
I think your trying to make the point he wouldn't have had to defend himself because there was only 6 seconds left in the bout and he was ahead on two judges cards.
That's an entirely different debate.
He couldn't answer a question my two year old daughter could. He certainly wasn't in a position to defend himself if Chavez had been allowed to continue and landed a free shot.
Sometimes one shot is all it takes.
It was loud. He may not have heard him.
Also a lot of boxer dont say "i am good" in the seconde after the question from the ref after the knock down.
Some even say nothing.
Steele didnt let taylor time to answer. He rushed taylor so he could wave ot off as quickly as possible.
gilgamesh wrote:In all seriousness let me tell you why "The Eye Test" is a sh*tty way to rate fighters using one example. There could be more, but I don't need them.
You ever hear of Donald Curry? Well in the 80's everyone was singing the praises of Donald Curry. "He's the next Sugar Ray Leonard" and so forth...and yes, he did look quite spectacular. Watch his fight with Milton McCrory, and you can see where all the excitement came from, but he wound up getting knocked out by Lloyd Honeyghan and Mike McCallum in his prime, and would go on to suffer 4 more losses, and never recapture his former glory. He wasn't the next "Sugar Ray Leonard" after all, but..."The Eye Test" said he was. Reality said he wasn't.
I aggree with you. The eye test aint perfect.
But is record vs record and choosing the boxer withe better record over the boxer with the worse record better?
Donaire fought montiel, darchinyan had around 35 fights and koing opponents, fought rigo who had like 12 fights and got schooled by him. I predicted a rigo win bevause my eyes told me rigo a more complet boxer, rscird couldnt fool me. Glowacki kod huck had like 27 fights fought usyk who had like 10 fights and got schooled. De la hoya, fought much better opponents in chavez, pernell and tito, faced mosley who previously had 0 big name opponents who won?
All i am trying to say is that neither record comparison or eye test are perfect tactics to determin who the better boxer is, but an expert eye should be able better to rank a boxer, than just going by the record.
t
Don't you LOOK better against poorer competition?
This exists in every sport.
Guys who look like gods on one level, the sure thing.
Then they step ... and things don't work out.
Every sport.
In 4 weeks you guys will see why a guy with a 9-1 record and a guy with a 17-0 record are considered better boxer than current guys with 49-1. You will see why how litle the amount of fights on a record has to do with the quality level of a boxer. It has often occured in the past but some of you dont know the past of boxing or simply dont have the expertise to talk deep about boxing. Be happy that they will fight. Talents like this are rarly born.
Everybidy was so focused on records with many fights. Everybody was so focusedon achievemants. Now finaly you focus on actauly who boxes the best in the ring and all of the sudden loma is mentioned as a potential goat hahaha....and thats why i call most if you guys non experts cause yall know sh;&t about boxing. An expert didnt need no rigondeaux fight to know that loma was a better boxer than most all time greats.
Everybody laughed at my eye test saying loma was superior to most atg and now you hypocritys have a 10-1 boxer as a potential greatest boxer of all time.
