Taylor vs. Hopkins

[BigReg]

Who won Taylor/Hopkins I

[brooklyn1550]

I rewatched it a few weeks back (had it 6-6) Draw

[Imperial1]

I had Hopkins winning 7 rds to 5 ..Not to mention the champ has to be beaten convincingly ..

[thewoo]

I had Hopkins winning 7 rds to 5 ..Not to mention the champ has to be beaten convincingly ..

um no. The criteria for beating a champ is the same as for beating anyone else

1. KO him
2. Win more rounds than he does

Until somone shows me a boxing rule book that says that championship fights have different scoring criteria in favor of the champion I will continue to be dumbfounded by the supidity of the "you have to beat the champ convincingly" argument

[brooklyn1550]

I am fine with 115-113 either way though

[sues2nd]

um no. The criteria for beating a champ is the same as for beating anyone else

1. KO him
2. Win more rounds than he does

Until somone shows me a boxing rule book that says that championship fights have different scoring criteria in favor of the champion I will continue to be dumbfounded by the supidity of the "you have to beat the champ convincingly" argument

Agreed....too many people are caught up in the whole "you have to TAKE the champs title". It isnt about blowing a champion out of the water to get the win....its about winning the fight.

That said, HE DID NOT WIN THE FIGHT!

Hopkins quite honestly won clearly. (and the 2nd one I had a draw)

[Zakman]

I had Hopkins winning 7 rds to 5 ..Not to mention the champ has to be beaten convincingly ..

Absolutely right - on both counts! :yep

[thewoo]

Agreed....too many people are caught up in the whole "you have to TAKE the champs title". It isnt about blowing a champion out of the water to get the win....its about winning the fight.

That said, HE DID NOT WIN THE FIGHT!

Hopkins quite honestly won clearly. (and the 2nd one I had a draw)

Well at least we half agree. I thought Taylor won the first fight clearly. I've said this many times before. Hopkins definatly hurt taylor way more than taylor hurt him. If he would have pressed a little harder he would probably have scored a KO and if I was scoring it as a whole fight, it would go to Bhop. However, he got started too late and I think that Jermain clearly won more rounds than him so judging it rd by rd the way that boxing should be scored it goes to JT.

I thikn that the fact that the issue is so hotly contested and people are so split over it is proof that the fight was closer than hopkins fans care to admit and even if you felt that hopkins won, you should be able to see how somone else may have scored for taylor

[Lance_Uppercut]

I had Hopkins winning 7 rds to 5 ..Not to mention the champ has to be beaten convincingly ..

That's an old wive's tail in boxing. The champ can lose by a single point and it's as legit and correct as a KO or UD.

[Lance_Uppercut]

Until somone shows me a boxing rule book that says that championship fights have different scoring criteria in favor of the champion I will continue to be dumbfounded by the supidity of the "you have to beat the champ convincingly" argument

:deal:thumbsup

It's absurd to think the Champ enters the ring already a couple points up...

[huki]

7-5 Hopkins is the only correct answer. :hat

[BoxingGuru]

popshotkins fought the last 4 rounds. Period. You don't start fighting in round 8 and win fights, so everyone quit whining.

[jonesjrp4p1]

7-5 taylor

[H .]

If Hopkins fought the first 8 rounds, he might've won.

[PBF P4P #1]

7-5 Hop.....Dont even bring up the second fight because if Bernard gets the right decision it never gets there

[Boinko]

um no. The criteria for beating a champ is the same as for beating anyone else

1. KO him
2. Win more rounds than he does

Until somone shows me a boxing rule book that says that championship fights have different scoring criteria in favor of the champion I will continue to be dumbfounded by the supidity of the "you have to beat the champ convincingly" argument

So true. This whole bs about the challenger having to win convincingly is such a load of crap.
We have enough bitching about judging in fights, can you imagine if a judge said after a fight was over "I felt the challenger clearly won the 12th round, but I gave it to the champ because the fight was so close."

Plus, with all the stupid belts floating around, there are so many champs out there that it's foolish to give them all special consideration.

I have a novel idea. How about the fights are scored evenly, with both fighters getting the same fair shake, regardless of who is the champ or not.

[thewoo]

So true. This whole bs about the challenger having to win convincingly is such a load of crap.
We have enough bitching about judging in fights, can you imagine if a judge said after a fight was over "I felt the challenger clearly won the 12th round, but I gave it to the champ because the fight was so close."

Plus, with all the stupid belts floating around, there are so many champs out there that it's foolish to give them all special consideration.

I have a novel idea. How about the fights are scored evenly, with both fighters getting the same fair shake, regardless of who is the champ or not.

Just imagine of such a completly moronic standard applied in other sports.

Ladies and gentleman Jeff Gordon is our regining Nascar champion therefore he will get a 1 lap headstart over all the other racers.

Tiger woods is the chmapion of the last tournament therefore he will start the game at minus 2 strokes and any put that he shoots that lands within 1 inch of the hole will be counted as a good shot in the hole.

I could go on for days with this shit.

[mad_schultz]

5-4 Hopkins with 3 rounds even.
Seen two times.

[carras]

Not to mention the champ has to be beaten convincingly ..

I'm sick of this crazy double standard statement

[Mind Reader]

I thought Hopkins deserved the win in the first fight for sure.

[*BOX_FAN*]

115-113 for Taylor

[PATSYS]

Who won Taylor/Hopkins I Taylor, you can see it in [Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) yourself.

[cuchulain]

...once I saw that B-Hop wasn't stepping it up and basically fighting the exact same fight as the first one, I automatically knew the fucking judges would score the fight in Jermain's favor.

You make the point (why BHOP lost) with your own statement.

[klion22]

Rounds 9-12 were obviously Hopkins big time.

Rounds 1-8 determines the winner. And to be honest, after watching the fight about 7 times, i still come up with different conclusions. A few times, i had it for Taylor 7-5. Other times, Hopkins 7-5. Other times, a draw.

I do think that had Hopkins just been a bit busier, he would've easily won.

[BewareofDawg]

Hopkins won clearly ! Taylor landed NO clean punches you blind chumps . How did he win so many rounds :huh? Oh I forgot you guys give points for missing ! :good Good job ...
Awsome Name :hey

[klion22]

Hopkins won clearly ! Taylor landed NO clean punches you blind chumps . How did he win so many rounds :huh? Oh I forgot you guys give points for missing ! :good Good job ...

I don't see how you can win a round if you seldom throw a punch and the other guy, while not entire effective, is throwing a lot more and is at least trying to make the fight. Do you give those rounds to Hopkins when he just did NOTHING?

Like most people said, if Hopkins had just been busier, it was his fight to win. But it was his fault he did almost nothing for the first 8 rounds. Taylor at least took the fight to Hopkins and tried to win.

[VIP]

It's a myth that Hopkins didn't win any of the early rounds. Hopkins while not throwing many, still landed the cleaner punches, also how else do you score fights? effective aggression? Taylor was ineffective. Ring Generalship? Hopkins was the ring general. And defense? Hopkins was better defensively.

That said, Hopkins has much more love now that he was robbed of his 160 lb titles. People still consider him the champion.

[Illmatic]

:lol:Yup yup, if you stop paying attention to all those big flashy misses by Jermain and paid attention to what was actually landing you'd see that Hopkins was the one true winner in that 1st fight. No doubt about it, case closed.

Too bad for B-Hop though that the the lame blind judges were actually impressed by those wild swings and misses.:patsch:-(

yeah, those four landed punches a round sure were impressive.

7-5 taylor
7-4-1 taylor in rematch

[klion22]

Pffft, atleast he landed. You giving rounds for missed punches now?:roll:

OK, say one boxer throws 75 punches a round but lands maybe 10. And say another boxer throws 20 punches and lands maybe 3. And both land maybe one or two good shots while the rest being touch shots. Who do you give the round too?

I am a huge Hopkins fan myself but i cannot phathom how some of you can give rounds to Hopkins in which he did almost nothing but put his gloves up and move around while Taylor at least made an attempt to take the fight to Hopkins and stay busy. I just cannot see it.

[Unlimited]

I had Hopkins winning 7 rds to 5 ..Not to mention the champ has to be beaten convincingly ..

The reason this is said is because usually the champ has a bigger name and in order for a contender to be assure a victory and not just going off the champs name they say beat the champ down so there wont be any way of them cheating you out of the title

[Asterion]

That's an old wive's tail in boxing. The champ can lose by a single point and it's as legit and correct as a KO or UD.

:nod



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

[box03]

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

[Ramshall1]

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.

[BigReg]

You look at the punch stats ! Hopkins outlanded Taylor by almost double jack ass ! :patsch Both fights !

Punchstats for first fight


TOTAL PUNCHES
Hokins Taylor
Thrown
326 453
Connected
96 86

Punchstats for second fight

FIGHTERS
TOTAL PUNCHES
Taylor Hopkins
Thrown
391 371
Connected
124 130


Thats a 226- 210 punches landed advantage over both fights for Hopkins

[Vantage_West]

I had Hopkins winning 7 rds to 5 ..Not to mention the champ has to be beaten convincingly ..well thats the tradition not the reality

[compukiller]

BHOP all the way:good

[mac]

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.

[Alo2006]

7-5 taylor

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

[BigReg]

The point is you don't give rounds to a newb like Taylor that's not landing punches ..

Taylor outlanded B-Hop in 6 of the rounds, B-Hop outlanded Taylor in 5 rounds, 1 round they both landed the same amount of punches

[H .]

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 fuckin 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.

[H .]

On what planet ? Almost everybody I talked to thought Hopkins got robbed ! Roy Jones thought he got robbed too . In fact he did get robbed because of the judge that gave Taylor the 12th which everyone knows he lost so what are you talking about ?

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

[Illmatic]

Pffft, atleast he landed. You giving rounds for missed punches now?:roll:

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.

[mouse]

um no. The criteria for beating a champ is the same as for beating anyone else

1. KO him
2. Win more rounds than he does

Until somone shows me a boxing rule book that says that championship fights have different scoring criteria in favor of the champion I will continue to be dumbfounded by the supidity of the "you have to beat the champ convincingly" argument

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.

[thewoo]

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.

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.

[mouse]

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.

[Pimp C]

Hopkins won that fight but I felt that Taylor won the second.

[thewoo]

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

Your point is not lost, it's jsut strongly disagreed with. In any fight, championship, eliminator, 4 round pro debut, completly insugnificant free fight in a high school auditorium, the scoring criteria should be the same

If two combatants are involved in a championship fight and they keep on having close, inconclusive rounds, who do you give them to?


In order to answer this question simply remove the word championship. Whatever answer you come up with should be the same answer when you insert the word championship. My answer is if a round is inconclusive, I score it a draw 10-10.

If you think that Taylor lost the fight, that's an opinion that I disagree with but can respect as long as hopkins being the champion is not even mentioned in your argument

[Brighton bomber]

I had it 7-5 Hopkins. Though I can see how some could see it as a draw.

[hitman_hatton1]

taylor won both i thought.

definitely the first fight.

7-5 taylor.

hops cried over serious spilt milk over that. :yep

[hitman_hatton1]

yeah, those four landed punches a round sure were impressive.

7-5 taylor
7-4-1 taylor in rematch

:yep

hops threw away both fights.

the rematch was shocking from hopkins.

especially after all that crap he spouted at the press conferences. :patsch

[Danny Ocean]

I had Hopkins winning 7 rds to 5 ..Not to mention the champ has to be beaten convincingly ..

why?

why cant the champ have to defend it convincingly

bhop is my fave fighter but he either lost or drew this fight

he didnt win 6 rounds and we can only score a fight round by round just because he finished strong and was the champ doesnt mean we can look for reasons to give him a close round

i had taylor 116-112 up live and 115-113 winning when i watched it again

[Danny Ocean]

I don't see what your logic is here. The guy who did nothing was Jermain. What he did in that first fight is the equivalent of hard shadowboxing. The guy hardly landed a thing in the first rounds of that fight.

he threw and landed miore than hopkins in the first 7

how can you score a round to hopkins for not throwing or landing

[Danny Ocean]

Yeah , But Hopkins went on to kick some serious ass while JT's been looking like a chump so I guess the jokes on him !:lol:

not really he beat him 2wice

[Danny Ocean]

Hopkins whooped Taylor's ass in that first fight like a red headed step child.:tong

he didnt even nearly whoop taylors ass

[Amsterdam]

Would you all like to know something hilarious?

If B-hop got the decision, there wouldn't be ANYONE debating that Taylor deserved it, save for a few of the regular clowns. But since the 'official' score went to Taylor, the majority of blind boxing fans bought into it more than they should have.

It's not only the fact that Bernard has 2 black spots on his record due to this incompetent scoring, it's also that we've had to sit through two more years of Jermain Taylor, against light hitting fighters no less, but that's all ending very soon.

[Danny Ocean]

taylor was rocked once by a straight right, listen hopkins didnt win a round until round 7 or maybe 8 the first half of the fight was shit but taylor deserved most of them

bhop wasnt countering with anything

[hitman_hatton1]

taylor was rocked once by a straight right, listen hopkins didnt win a round until round 7 or maybe 8 the first half of the fight was shit but taylor deserved most of them

bhop wasnt countering with anything

taylor was sharper and picking up the points wasn't he. :good

hops was guilty of not letting go.

[hitman_hatton1]

Yeah , But Hopkins went on to kick some serious ass while JT's been looking like a chump so I guess the jokes on him !:lol:

i agree taylor's form has been shite.

but that isn't the debate here. :nono

taylor is getting the paydays out of it to set him up for life.

maybe the joke is on us instead. :yep

[Robbi]

Pavlik will bring the best out in Taylor. He's not a southpaw, like all three of Taylor's last opponents, and he's willing to stand and trade. Pavlik has a very European style, straight up down. Taylor will box aggressively behind the jab, and be positive.

Taylor beat Hopkins. During those close rounds, Taylor was scoring better at long range, although not dominatating the action. Lovely double jabs. Hopkins was simply not throwing enough punches to impress the judges, never mind landing any punches. Credit to Hopkins for closing the show, but you don't win fights by finishing stronger.

[sues2nd]

taylor was rocked once by a straight right, listen hopkins didnt win a round until round 7 or maybe 8 the first half of the fight was shit but taylor deserved most of them

bhop wasnt countering with anything

You do realize that even through the first 6 rounds...Hopkins outlanded Taylor (power shots)....right? I mean, you WERE aware of that fact?

Listen I believe Hopkins won the first (close but CLEAR) and drew the second (and I could see it going Hops way...but not Taylor's)....but they WERE both close fights, as evidence that we are STILL arguing it.

I still to this day cant understand the hatred toward Taylor. The guy has done nothing but act like a champion in AND out of the ring since winning the titles (regardless of if he deserved it or not). I cant help but respect him....weird how others dont?

:huh

[Robbi]

You do realize that even through the first 6 rounds...Hopkins outlanded Taylor....right? I mean, you WERE aware of that fact?

Listen I believe Hopkins won the first (close but CLEAR) and drew the second (and I could see it going Hops way...but not Taylor's)....but they WERE both close fights, as evidence that we are STILL arguing it.

I still to this day cant understand the hatred toward Taylor. The guy has done nothing but act like a champion in AND out of the ring since winning the titles (regardless of if he deserved it or not). I cant help but respect him....weird how others dont?

:huh

Couldn't care about punch stats. I would like to see the punch stats, because one fighter can land a higher percentage but it means nothing.

Example: One fighter lands 20 of 30 shots thrown in a round, and the other lands 30 of 50. The first fighter lands a higher percentage, but clearly doesn't win the round.

Anyway the fight was a close decision for Taylor, 115-113 in my eyes.

Hopkins lost my respect after whining about the decision. He went on about he felt he dominated the fight, which was nonsense. It was nowhere near a Chavez-Whitaker, Holyfield-Lewis I type of decision.

[hitman_hatton1]

No , Hopkins was much sharper and hurt Taylor with his shots . Taylor didn't even land 1 clean punch really !

i meant sharper in terms of speed.

yes hops was kicking arse in the last few rds.

but u don't score just on the last few rds.

i fail to see how people had hops winning more than a couple of the first 9 rds tbh. :huh

[Robbi]

You do realize that even through the first 6 rounds...Hopkins outlanded Taylor (power shots)....right? I mean, you WERE aware of that fact?

Listen I believe Hopkins won the first (close but CLEAR) and drew the second (and I could see it going Hops way...but not Taylor's)....but they WERE both close fights, as evidence that we are STILL arguing it.

I still to this day cant understand the hatred toward Taylor. The guy has done nothing but act like a champion in AND out of the ring since winning the titles (regardless of if he deserved it or not). I cant help but respect him....weird how others dont?

:huh

No Hopkins hater here, as you know. He happens to be one of my favourite fighters. I liked his attitude after he handed Tarver a lesson. It seemed to be no big deal while being interviewed afterwards by Merchant. None of the "I told you so" and reminding everyone he proved the doubters wrong.

[Robbi]

Total Bullshit ! Taylor wasn't landing AT ALL .....

Landing more than Hopkins I'm afraid. Busier as well when the rounds were very close.

[Thread Stealer]

I had it even. I had Hopkins winning the rematch. There were a lot of close rounds, so I didn't have much of a problem with either decision, but Duane Ford giving the 12th round to Taylor in the first fight is a fucking joke.

[Robbi]

I thought it was !

Lewis and Whitaker won most of their rounds clearly. Dominated rounds. That cannot be said about Hopkins over any of the first 8 rounds against Taylor.

[hitman_hatton1]

Lewis and Chavez won most of their rounds clearly. Dominated rounds. That cannot be said about Hopkins over any of the first 8 rounds against Taylor.

something we agree on robbi. :yep

[hitman_hatton1]

I had it even. I had Hopkins winning the rematch. There were a lot of close rounds, so I didn't have much of a problem with either decision, but Duane Ford giving the 12th round to Taylor in the first fight is a fucking joke.

i agree that ford's scoring of rd12 was pants. :yep

[Robbi]

If one fight on Hopkins' record effects his legacy, its the Taylor rematch. A chance to turn the tables and get revenge on a fighter who was the first to beat him for 12 years. Hopkins finished the first fight strongly, and clearly had Taylor shaken on a few occassions. That proved his style was effective while being aggressive against Taylor. The rematch was a dull affair, and I'm not usually one for complaining about tactical fights. Hopkins should have picked up from where he left off, and gambled more during the early rounds of the rematch. That may not be Hopkin's style, but he was asking for trouble yet again with his strategy. I'm not for one moment saying Hopkins should have went all aggressive and wreckless, but more positive power punches should have been bouncing off Taylor's head more often.

[Thread Stealer]

i agree that ford's scoring of rd12 was pants. :yep

Ford's a drunk fool. He also had Foreman behind Moorer before the knockout......BY ONE POINT.

Ford, Eugenia Williams, and Ken Morita are probably the crappiest of the bigger name judges.

[Robbi]

Ford's a drunk fool. He also had Foreman behind Moorer before the knockout......BY ONE POINT.

Ford, Eugenia Williams, and Ken Morita are probably the crappiest of the bigger name judges.

Ken Morita. Some people who post on Eastside could judge a fight better than him. He had Tyson ahead on points against Douglas. Apart from Tyson knocking Douglas down during the 8th, a 10-8 round, and Tyson winning two other rounds at most, closely as well. He was getting a lesson behind the jab and beaten up.

[Robbi]

That doesn't effect his Legacy ! The guy was 41 years old . That fight was the equivalent of Marvin Hagler fighting Roy Jones in 1995 !

It does. He's came back after losing twice to Taylor and beaten Tarver and Wright, thus making the possible revenge against Taylor look worse. So just because he was 41 years old it means nothing. And its nothing like the equivalent of Hagler fighting Jones in 1995. Hagler would be making a comeback if that happened, after 8 years of inactivity.

It effects his legacy that he never won the Taylor rematch.

[Robbi]

It would have looked far more impressive on Hopkins record if he had won the Taylor rematch. He shouldn't have lost the first fight, but if you lose the first fight and have the chance to get revenge in a rematch, make sure you get the "W".

Lewis done it, Holyfield done it, Leonard done it, Ali done it, Robinson done it, Louis done it, Pacquauio done it, and Hopkins' had one chance during his career and he failed.

Don't get me wrong, Hopkins has done enough in his career. 20 defenses of the middleweight title, and stepping up two divisions to beat Tarver.

I'd take Hopkins to beat Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, and Duran at middleweight.

[hitman_hatton1]

It would have looked far more impressive on Hopkins record if he had won the Taylor rematch. He shouldn't have lost the first fight, but if you lose the first fight and have the chance to get revenge in a rematch, make sure you get the "W".

Lewis done it, Holyfield done it, Leonard done it, Ali done it, Robinson done it, Louis done it, Pacquauio done it, and Hopkins' had one chance during his career and he failed.

Don't get me wrong, Hopkins has done enough in his career. 20 defenses of the middleweight title, and stepping up two divisions to beat Tarver.

I'd take Hopkins to beat Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, and Duran at middleweight.

yeah it's a small hit on his legacy.

no doubts.

he didn't find any answers in that rematch.

he just fought the same fight. :patsch

[Rock0052]

That doesn't effect his Legacy ! The guy was 41 years old . That fight was the equivalent of Marvin Hagler fighting Roy Jones in 1995 !

Isn't that a bit of a double standard that every win Hopkins has is amplified because of how old he is, but he gets a free pass for every loss because of it?

[BigReg]

Isn't that a bit of a double standard that every win Hopkins has is amplified because of how old he is, but he gets a free pass for every loss because of it?

No. Old men aren't supposed to be succesful in boxing. Therefore, if they lose, they're only performing as expected. However, if they win, they're exceeding expectations.

[Rock0052]

No. Old men aren't supposed to be succesful in boxing. Therefore, if they lose, they're only performing as expected. However, if they win, they're exceeding expectations.

And I think that's flawed logic. If Hopkins is still good enough to win against top level competition, his losses should get scrutinized as well because he's shown he's still a top-class fighter, even if he's not quite hat he once was. No matter how you scored the Taylor fights, Hopkins made the mistake of fighting the same fight twice and expecting a different outcome. That's a tactical error that he usually doesn't make that has zero to do with age,

[Rock0052]

No .

Whatever you say :lol:

[Shotgun]

Never really got the controversy about that fight, it was close but Hopkins did next to nothing for the first 7 or 8 rounds. He closed it strong but winning the last third of the fight when you did nothing substantial the first two thirds of it leaves very little room for complaint. Hopkins just gave to many rounds away by doing nothing but make faces during the early and middle rounds

[H .]

You where probably high as a kite when you saw the fight freedom rock ! :hippy

:lol: wrong again. you've taken your ignorance to a new level.

[Lacyace]

I have to watch the fight again but the first and only time I seen it, I had Taylor winning.