Comments on the Taylor-Hopkins II fight

glahn · Post by **glahn** » 04 Dec 2005, 17:53

For me it was a carbon copy of the first fight. Hopkins won his rounds much more decisively than Taylor won his, but Taylor won more and that's why he got the decision. There isn't enough subtlety in the scoring to account for round dominance without giving a 10-8, and obviously none of the rounds last night were even close to that. So, I had Taylor winning narrowly based purely on rounds won, but overall I think Hopkins deserved at least a draw.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 04 Dec 2005, 20:00

Where does it say you cannot have drawn rounds in world boxing?

The scoring is down to the local commission and their guidelines. The officials of course have to be approved by the sanctioniong bodies, but there is nothing which outlaws 10-10 rounds, they are within the rulings.

However, they are actively discouraged by most commissions. I talked to a senior Nevada judge who told me that guys who score even rounds don't get much work as it is unpopular.

However, this is a political matter, not a matter of rulings.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 04 Dec 2005, 20:13

If Taylor scores even 5 more jabs shouldn't it be his round instead of been even? It is said there are no drawn rounds in Las Vegas.

Owain · Post by **Owain** » 04 Dec 2005, 21:27

I had it 116 - 114 in favour of Taylor.
It was a close fight and several rounds were difficult to score so wouldn't argue with a draw. For me, Hopkins just didn't do enough. I would have loved Hopkins to have won but scoring the fight fairly - he didn't.

ALI · Post by **ALI** » 05 Dec 2005, 06:53

That was the worst title fight in the history of our sport, in excitement terms it was right up there with watching paint dry. Thats all i have to say on the matter.... both were losers on the night!

In Hopkins favour though, he is 40+ now, but whats Taylors excuse!

numpty · Post by **numpty** » 05 Dec 2005, 06:56

What a load of rubbish, I was like Freiheit, struggling to keep my eyes open! It was a crap fight, I was more interested at watching PBF in the crowd, he looked as pissed off and bored as me in my living room! For the record, I had Hopkins winning by 1 round but it was by no means a robery! I dont think there will be a third, they probably wouldn't sell out my local bingo hall for that fight!

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 05 Dec 2005, 08:21

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:If Taylor scores even 5 more jabs shouldn't it be his round instead of been even? It is said there are no drawn rounds in Las Vegas.

What if he lands 1 more jab? Does that win the round?

What if you cannot accurately count the punches, which punches were harder, and is it all just about shots landed? If so let compubox judge fights.

What about ring generalship? What about defence?

There are very few 10-10 rounds in Vegas, that's true, but not none, but it is because the Nevada state commission doesn;t like them.

My arguement is, that if you find yourself struggling to pick who won a round, then it should be a 10-10.

johnswan1 · Post by **johnswan1** » 05 Dec 2005, 08:53

Exactly, I mentioned on here before that I am definitely in favour of more even rounds unless there is a CLEAR winner. If judges are made to choose a winner of each round, a dominant round with a clear winner should score 10-8 (which is not outside of the rules). I'm not saying this should be used all the time but in fights like this where little happens, a big round should be worth more than some of the earlier ones which could have gone either way.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 05 Dec 2005, 08:55

You will find that many judges agree, but none of them wants to be the one who stands out like a sore thumb, because quite simply they won't be employed for the big fights....

THEBUTCH · Post by **THEBUTCH** » 05 Dec 2005, 09:18

I had Taylor a two point winner. The right man won IMO.

Yes, it was a crap fight but now Taylor has got Hopkins out of the way the middleweight division can come alive again. A match against Ronald Wright is a mouthwatering prospect. Hopkins proved a sour sport AGAIN and this poster won't miss his dull fights one little bit.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 05 Dec 2005, 09:31

Hopkins was more concerned with losing a close one and keeping his dignity, than going all out and risking getting battered senseless. He's been fighting this way for a long time.

Let's see if Talor fights Wright, my guess is he doesn't. He's already talking about facing the winner of Vargas v Mosley ...what the fornicate!!

Mosley started at fornicating lightweight for fucks sake~! He's 4-5 years removed from his prime, and has no business at middleweight.

Vargas is shot to fornicate, and suffers from an overactive Thyroid, he looked like dogshit in his last fight.

What business does either of those guys have fighting for the middleweight title?

johnswan1 · Post by **johnswan1** » 05 Dec 2005, 09:36

THEBUTCH wrote:I had Taylor a two point winner. The right man won IMO.

Yes, it was a crap fight but now Taylor has got Hopkins out of the way the middleweight division can come alive again. A match against Ronald Wright is a mouthwatering prospect. Hopkins proved a sour sport AGAIN and this poster won't miss his dull fights one little bit.

I wouldn't call it a mouthwatering prospect. Winky beats him easily IMO by a very wide margin. Taylor shouldn't go near him if he can help it. I also think Lacy stops him in the mid to late rounds. A Taylor-Lacy fight would be far more mouthwatering than a match up with Winky.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 05 Dec 2005, 11:22

I agree Winky would beat Taylor, i have been impressed with Taylor up to the Hopkins bout but i would back Wright to beat him fairly conclusively.

As to the scoring of even rounds, i don't see the problem. How can the commission not give jobs to judges if they score even rounds? It's ridiculous, scoring even rounds is part of their jobs, if they score a round to a fighter who didn't win the round just to please the commission then they are not doing their job correctly.

states · Post by **states** » 05 Dec 2005, 11:26

Count me on the 'Winky beats Taylor bandwagon' as well. Although I've thought that for a while. I'm not convinced that Taylor is that great. What I think he has demonstrated is that Hopkins was there for the taking for a few years, he just doesn't have the legs anymore. Understandable at 40, obviously.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 05 Dec 2005, 13:00

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:If Taylor scores even 5 more jabs shouldn't it be his round instead of been even? It is said there are no drawn rounds in Las Vegas.
What if he lands 1 more jab? Does that win the round?

What if you cannot accurately count the punches, which punches were harder, and is it all just about shots landed? If so let compubox judge fights.

What about ring generalship? What about defence?

There are very few 10-10 rounds in Vegas, that's true, but not none, but it is because the Nevada state commission doesn;t like them.

My arguement is, that if you find yourself struggling to pick who won a round, then it should be a 10-10.

I find it easy to give Taylor the first 5rounds though. What exactly (other than defense) did Hopkins do better in the first 5? He was outlanded and out countered. To actually give Hopkins a win you have to turn 3 of those rounds to draws - or give him 1 of them which is complete bollox because he didn't won 1 of the 7 rounds I mentioned.

Taylor definately won BUT gave a Ruiz like performance which is why everyone has a problem with the win - he jabbed and grabbed his way to victory. At least he hurt Bhops more than he was hurt this time though - which wasn't the case last time when he won more decisively by winning the first 8-9rounds.

BTW the only reason Hopkins won any rounds was because of taylor fading not because Hopkins waited to turn it on.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 05 Dec 2005, 13:12

I'm not speaking specifically about this fight, I haven't even seen it yet, and am not that inclined to listening to descriptions of it.

I am making a point about how boxing scoring seems to have been dumbed down to the point where all that seems to count is shots thrown and landed.

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 06 Dec 2005, 10:19

IMO, B-Hop was robbed - he won the fight & should have got the decision. I hope there's a 3rd fight. Hopkins needs to turn the fight into a war, not a chess match.

Taylor may well indeed be stronger than Hopkins, but he not as sharp and does not hit as hard. At times, Taylor's footwork was bad.

Hopkins should forget this homecoming bout in January, fight Taylor again. If he wins that, then fight Tarver, then retire win/lose. If Hopkins beat Tarver for LHW title, that would be some achievement!

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 06 Dec 2005, 10:23

Look, Hopkins has had two fights to turn this into a war, and hasn't managed either time, it's just not in his nature at age 40 to fight all out for a KO.

HBO will have no interest in this fight whatsoever, and neither has anyone else after two stinkers.

Hopkins has zero chance of beating Tarver, Tarver is bigger and stronger and has better technique than Taylor, and Bernard doesn't fight at a pace to make him struggle.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 06 Dec 2005, 10:53

A third fight?!? Only way you'd make money there would be to let em in free and charge em to get out!

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 06 Dec 2005, 11:38

No way to a third fight are you crazy? Nobody of sound mind would pay to see that. Anynway isn't Hopkins retiring before he is 41 which is on the 15th January? He is supposedly having a farewell fight in Philadelphia before then.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 06 Dec 2005, 11:49

I wouldn't be surprised to see Taylor look better against Wright, could be a very nice fight, I hope it happens.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 06 Dec 2005, 12:00

Winky throws more shots, so it would be more interesting from that perspective. Taylor perversely may look better losing to Winky than he did winning against Nard.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 06 Dec 2005, 12:14

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I'm not speaking specifically about this fight, I haven't even seen it yet, and am not that inclined to listening to descriptions of it.

I am making a point about how boxing scoring seems to have been dumbed down to the point where all that seems to count is shots thrown and landed.

I certainly think there is more to scoring than number of shots thrown. Obviously you need to compare like for like shots and get some balance to decide a rounds winner.

BTW Winky will have a far harder time winning a decision against a faster, bigger boxer than a smaller counter puncher like Trinidad or the small Mosley. Hopkins had allot of advantages against Taylor that Winky won't have - power, better defense IMO, better technique. I think Taylor would be a different animal against Winky.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 06 Dec 2005, 12:18

Winky is good but the Trinidad and Mosley wins flatter him a bit, he got both of them at the right time although that's not his fault of course. People are saying Winky beats Taylor easily I really don't think that is the case. Taylor is a big middleweight and Winky has only beaten Tito at 160 so far. Let's see how he looks at the weekend against Soliman.

RobD · Post by **RobD** » 06 Dec 2005, 13:03

Bernard was being interviwed on a local Philly station this morning. He mentioned the only fight he would really consider was one with Roy Jones. Other then that he just wants to get more involved helping out young fighters.