| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
I can understand there is a body of opinion that if you don't decisively pound a champ, he keeps his title. But still...This was not an outrageous decision that would justify a reversal. Rematch, yes, reversal, no.
"I can understand there is a body of opinion that if you don't decisively pound a champ, he keeps his title".
That old saw doesn't apply anymore. It's one of the old wives tales of boxing. We've seen the reverse happen too often in the last 15 years for that to still be an "unwritten rule".
GorDoom
Agree Gor, but that is largely because of split titles. Were there more Hopkins types, people that everyone could point to as THE man I think you would see that sort of 'honor code' thing re-emerge.
I have to say that in a title fight if it's anyway close, the champ deserves to keep it. It always has been an unwritten rule and I thinks its proper order....There have been examples of it not happening (Leonard V Hagler)...but mostly it does happen....
"That old saw doesn't apply anymore."
Except in Germany, where you have to knock a guy out just to get a draw.
The champ deserves to keep his title if he wins more rounds/scores more points. Judges score round-by-round, so there's no way to just sort of nudge the scales in the champ's favor at the end of the evening. The judges should not just hand the champion every single round that's close -- if a judge thinks Hopkins lost a given round, how does it make sense to give it to him anyway?
I think this nebulous "champ should keep his title if it's close" axiom that people keep citing is some kind of extrapolation from the "champ keeps his title if it's a DRAW" rule.
[[[Except in Germany, where you have to knock a guy out just to get a draw.]]]
Email it to Felix Sturm. He could use a good laugh
What happened to Sturm here is nothing...NOTHING...compared to the stories that guys like Robin reid can tell about fighting Ottke in Germany
I remember a televised riot breaking out at an Axel Schultz fight some years back.
Actually, a good case can be made that dariusz was robbed in that one Aqui.
But, hey, it's a great way of keeping dull, safety-first champs on the throne, alienating new blood and discouraging hungry young contenders, so it's got to be good for the game, right?
I'm with you on that, 'Scribe!
GorDoom
I understand and remember the old unwritten law that the champ keeps it if it's close. I disagree. Whoever wins should get it.
I will see the fight this week soon. What is distrubing is that I keep hearing and reading that the 12th was in fact won by Hopkins and Jerry Roth gave it to Taylor.
Something has to be done with this constant use of Duane Ford, Jerry Roth political hack duo.
Is there no one else in Nevada? What the hell is their hold on the Governor and his appointees there?
The knee jerk reaction that they do a very good job is total bullshit and I am tired of hearing their names along with the belief that only Joe Cortez et al can referee and only these two guys can Judge. It is total bullshit and costly all the time.
Furthermore any man who holds a title has to start fighting when the bell rings, it is always too early to start losing. BHop knows he is 40+ and saves energy, but damn he was doing the same thing when he was younger.
I'll pay along with the rest of the fans to see a real middleweight powerhouse like Graziano, Zale, Tiger if their like comes along again.
Where the hell are the one shot middleweight punchers, is everyone a boring tactician now.
Same in manyother divisions. I just watched the film of
Carlos Hernandez laying out the tough Paoli Rossi, just an fantastic right hand. Then I saw the film thanks to Sal Rappa of Florentino Fernandez whomping the living shit out of Jose Torres.
I'll say it again, they would beat these guys today, they are much stronger, blast away from the opening bell and know how to sell tickets.
To mention Jermain Taylor as an undisputed middlechamp is a bit strange, kudos to him for dethrowing Hopkins at 40 years of age, but you know what I mean I hope.
Sorry for the bad spelling, just mowed the lawn in helacious heat and the paws are a trembling.
I saw a tape of the Jermaine Taylor vs. Bernard
Hopkins bout yesterday. It was very difficult to
give Hopkins any of the first eight rounds because
Taylor was the aggressor in addition to throwing
and landing more punches. At the same time,
Hopkins fought very passively and threw very
few punches. It was less difficult to score the
ninth round in favor of Hopkins, but he certainly
didn't win the round outright.
Yes, I had Hopkins winning the final three rounds
handily, but he paid the price when he didn't do
enough in the first nine rounds. Yes, Hopkins has
a legitimate beef in regards to the judge who
scored the 12th round in favor of Taylor, but
the fact is that an early round is no less
important than one of the last rounds when it
comes to scoring.
- Chuck Johnston
wow, 9 rounds in the hole even 8 rounds is incredible for one judge to score the whole bout for Hopkins, what the hell is going on in Vegas.
Hopkins sounds like he definitely gave it away and has no gripes whatsoever.
I think he thought he could take Taylor out late, but either overestimated his power or underestimated Taylor's defense and stamina.
i have heard the story of the champ keeping his title in a close one for years and have never understood how it works. do these judges have erasers on their pencils?
if a contender wins 7 rounds and the champ wins the other 5 do we go back and snatch away one of the contenders rounds because,after all, it was close? what kind of thinking is that ? in any other sport 1 point is enough for a win.
greg
Greg: I think the point, to me anyways, is that if a round is razor thing, it ought ot be even or for the champ because the contender didn't WIN the round. In other words, the benefit of the doubt, particularly with a 21 title defense guy, should go to the champ.
I think that the champion and challenger should be
treated equally in every way during a bout whether
it comes to scoring by the judges or actions by the
referee. Heck! The champion gets to keep his title
when the decision is a draw.
- Chuck Johnston
I agree with Chuck & Greg. What other sport would have an "unwritten" rule like that? It's complete bullshit. If a round is close NO WAY should it automatically go to the champ.
It's patently unfair.
GorDoom
Chuck and GorDoom
I agree with you guys 100%
Frank B.
i have no problem with even rounds. if a judge cannot decide on a round winner that is fine, call it so. thinking a round even and then handing it to the champ because he has some predetermined right to it just does not sit well with me. it is also counter productive to the quality of the fights given the viewing (paying) public. why would a champion place himself in danger when all he needs to do is stay out of harms way and pose. this fight is a good case in point, bernard spent too much time standing out of range apparently thinking that if he was not getting tagged and not throwing any punches he was safe on the scorecards.
champion or no, a fighter should get in there willing to do anything he has to do to win. safety first posing or avoiding exchanges should NEVER be rewarded.
greg
It's kind of funny that some boxing fans, who generally consider themselves the last of the rugged individualists, enjoying the ultimate individual test of merit, fall back on this old saw, designed to entrench lazy incumbents at the expense of young blood. Ironic.
each time I read this "Hopkins was green" thing it just makes me nuts....not to mention the fact that Hopkins is more than a decade older than with Taylor than when he fought RJJ & if RJJ at 26 had fought this version of BHop not only would it be a washout, he would get more credit for beating a homeless woman with a limp....
The extraordinarily gifted Leonard and Jones Jr., enjoyed a free roam of the talent gene pool upon birth, and strutted their way towards global dominance in various weight class. However, Leonard didn't win the WBC version of the welterweight championship until his 25th contest, and lost a gruelling 15-round decision to Roberto Duran in his 27th bout. Jones, likewise, took 21 pro bouts to pick up the IBF version of the middleweight title against a young, raw, inexperienced Hopkins.
On Saturday night, Jermain Taylor picked up all four major middleweight titles in one satisfying swoop, against the most rounded Hopkins available, in merely his 24th bout. If you can't bring yourself to respect Taylor as the new undisputed middleweight champion, yet, recognise and respect him as one hell of a talent.
All I can say is that I hope Hop doesn't go out like Pernell Whitaker. Man oh man, did I get tired of hearing him bitch about decisions he lost. Coincidentally, Sweet Pea is the guest analyst on FNF tonite, so look for him to weigh in on Taylor-Hopkins.
It could be a Perfect Storm of fistic whining!
The challenger indeed must take the belt from the champ because any draw results in the champ retaining the belt. The "saying" is just a colloquial acknowledgement of what has always been and no more.
There should be more more even rounds. If you have to split a hair to decide the winner than there is no winner. I don't think it matters much in the end since some judging is just pathetic. I've seen fighters with the pulp beat out of them awarded the victories just because they were favored to win. That's where boxing's gambling connections, promoter control and lack of judging standards really shine through.
According to one report, the Taylor-Hopkins card got
350,000 buys. That isn't bad.
- Chuck Johnston
Despite the average fans' (i.e., us) dubiousness in virtually every case, PPVs have been doing pretty darned well this year. I hope that's a healthy sign for the sport in general. PeteLeo.
Is the Hopkins/Taylor replay tonight on HBO?
Posting Permissions
| News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia | Links | Home |
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks