taylor/spinks=oscar/floyd-how the hell did oscar lose and taylor win

devante · 05-21-2007, 10:29 AM

this fight much like i thought mirrored last weeks mega fight, a larger athletic exp champion w/strength/power adv against a fundamental/quick fisted/mobile technician.

the only way for the champion to win is to est a jab, walk the smaller guy down w/intelligent pressure and then outwork him or stop him w/high volume of punches, using muscling/ mauling intermittently..imposing himself on the smaller guy.

the smaller guy was gonna have to outslick the larger one, use spacing, feints, shoulder rolls and clean/crisp counter shots to score w/quality-not quantity.

in both fights this was the strategy- the diff being oscar/floyd are of a higher caliber and skillset and combined ability

but in both fights only 3 people followed the ******-ocscar/pbf/spinks-taylor moved forward but did move his hands and was clearly outboxed-but one a fight w/limited aggression horrible workrate-no jab

an oscar loss while throwing and landing many more punches per round and in the fight, not to mention oscar was able to frustrate pbf w/his own def, slipping and eff blocking alot of pbf's shots..which is impressive cus pbf is very accurate/sharp puncher who picks his punches for quality.

pbf was praised for a masterful def exhibition-spinks was ran into the ground; while taylor was given credit for nothing.

oscar deerved a draw if taylor got a win-an on a sidenot this is the 3rd fight this week i have seen where a guy w/less accuracy and ring generalship won based on aggression pressure and workrate..

i can see why oscar expected to win-esp considering taylors last 5 wins, the exception being the ouma fight; had him winning based on moving forward and throwing punches.. not sharp or accurate punches. an his workrate was really not all that in any of those fights w/hopkins or wright or spinks

dust4 · 05-21-2007, 01:23 PM

I didn't see the same fight at all because I know more about boxing. Spinks was robbed.

devante · 05-21-2007, 01:59 PM

i agree he was robbed my point was if ur giving taylor the fight u have to give oscar the fight-oscar did more tech/phys/strategically.

oscar won rounds and made almost all of them close, lthrew more punchse, landed more punches and laded cleaner/harder shots against a superior opp.

so how does oscar lose going away; but taylor win, if taylor won oscar should have cus he did better work

DAZEDJELLYLEGS2 · 05-21-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devante

so how does oscar lose going away; but taylor win, if taylor won oscar should have cus he did better work

Shit! Get me the president.

I dont think there is much of a comparison here. Taylor vs Spinks was close. Very close infact. Taylor looked a bag of shite but Spinks didnt look great either. Its probably should have been a draw as the scoring is largely subjective in a fight like this. I totally hate Taylor but you have to look at logically. DLH on the other hand came forward and aside from landing some bodyshots and a little bit of roughing on the ropes was subjected to quick punches the face all night long. Mayweather won that fight and although he did it in his usual boring fashion there isnt really any controversy there. Or not from people who know shit from Shanghai.

Poor comparison. Your using absolutes when there is so much more to it that.

CEROVFC · 05-21-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dust4

I didn't see the same fight at all because I know more about boxing. Spinks was robbed.

From another thread: Of all the overused expressions in boxing, this is up there with "robbery".

DAZEDJELLYLEGS2 · 05-21-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CEROVFC

From another thread: Of all the overused expressions in boxing, this is up there with "robbery".

Aww man, aint it so. Anything even slightly close is 'DAMNATION! Someone sold there soul to Don King for the decision'

Not everyone agrees on close fights.

Jack1985 · 05-21-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAZEDJELLYLEGS2

Shit! Get me the president.

I dont think there is much of a comparison here. Taylor vs Spinks was close. Very close infact. Taylor looked a bag of shite but Spinks didnt look great either. Its probably should have been a draw as the scoring is largely subjective in a fight like this. I totally hate Taylor but you have to look at logically. DLH on the other hand came forward and aside from landing some bodyshots and a little bit of roughing on the ropes was subjected to quick punches the face all night long. Mayweather won that fight and although he did it in his usual boring fashion there isnt really any controversy there. Or not from people who know shit from Shanghai.

Poor comparison. Your using absolutes when there is so much more to it that.

What are you talking about? The comparison was that Taylor was rambling about having to beat the champ, and you have to fight the champ to beat the champ.

Where as in the DLH/PBP fight, DLH was fighting PBP. He was landing shots, to the body and face. You are ignorant to say otherwise, or to try and argue the fact that DLH wasn't hitting with a jab and landing some overhand rights and body shots. Were they pretty? No, because PBP is one of the best defensive fighters. Did he do more than Taylor did in his fight? Yes.

So why is it that you have to fight the champ Taylor to win a decision, but when PBP fights DLH he can do exactly what Spinks was doing and walk away with a decision? Boxing is just so inconsistent with its judges. That is the point.

CEROVFC · 05-21-2007, 03:45 PM

Interesting. My opinion is both Oscar and Floyd did more in their fight than both Taylor and Spinks in theirs.

I have no problem with either verdict and don't quite see the contradiction because while in bizarre theory Oscar did more than Jermaine, Floyd did more than Spinks as well. So it can't be deduced that as a matter of fact Spinks did more than Jermaine.

Jack1985 · 05-21-2007, 04:09 PM

Spinks did do more than Jermaine. Also even though Floyd did more than Spinks, DLH was still doing more than Taylor. So it still holds as a valid comparison showing that the judges are inconsistent with how they judge rounds.

DLH was the aggressor, was landing shots, making Floyd miss, and even though getting counter-punched he was pressing the fight. He was also the champion and the one holding the belt. So for him to lose a decision to Floyd when Taylor wins a decision in a similiar circumstance is just absurd.

DAZEDJELLYLEGS2 · 05-21-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack1985

What are you talking about? The comparison was that Taylor was rambling about having to beat the champ, and you have to fight the champ to beat the champ.

Where as in the DLH/PBP fight, DLH was fighting PBP. He was landing shots, to the body and face. You are ignorant to say otherwise, or to try and argue the fact that DLH wasn't hitting with a jab and landing some overhand rights and body shots. Were they pretty? No, because PBP is one of the best defensive fighters. Did he do more than Taylor did in his fight? Yes.

So why is it that you have to fight the champ Taylor to win a decision, but when PBP fights DLH he can do exactly what Spinks was doing and walk away with a decision? Boxing is just so inconsistent with its judges. That is the point.

That whole 'To beat the champ ya gotta beat the champ' thing refers to doing it convincingly as in not some razor sharp decision. Whether you fight on the retreat, jab the fuck outta his face or smash in within a round it doesnt really matter or it shouldnt anyways. When a fighter says 'He ran all night! Gotta beat the champ etc etc etc' it usually means he just got outboxed and was swiping at shadows.

That saying really gets abused these days. Used in the above context it basically means unless you stand and trade your going to lose regardless of how much you land.