More than a year ago, I told Bernard Hopkins that he "might be wise to call it quits before taking on the dangerous [Jermain] Taylor." Apparently the Executioner doesn't read FlynnFiles. Tonight, the 40-year-old Hopkins lost in a split decision to the youthful Taylor, 115-113 (Taylor), 115-113 (Taylor), 116-112 (Hopkins). Unfortunately, since my cable company now bans PPV fights for non-digital cable subscribers (and since I refuse to give in to their blackmail scheme), I didn't see the fight on television. Next Saturday night, HBO rebroadcasts the fight. Hopkins was the most dominant middleweight since Marvin Hagler, so there's no shame in his game--especially at 40. Congratulations to the pride of Arkansas, Jermain Hopkins, the new middleweight champion.
Too close IMO to take away the champs title.
I am unfamiliar with boxing but is it actually possible to allow a champion to keep their belt, even when they lost the title match if it is decided the match was "too close" ?
No - if your question was fueled by my comment, I just meant that I felt the fight was too close for Hopkins, the champ, to lose, and thus lose the title.
Ben-T,
the championship must always go to the boxer judged the winner of the fight no matter how close. The desired standard for judging a championship fight is that a clear decision is necessary for a championship to change hands. Boxing judges often fail to meet said standard as in the Hopkins-Taylor fight.
Ben, basically the traditional mindset among boxing fans is that a challenger has to take the champion's belt. It's sort of like, the tie goes to the runner (I don't even know if that's in the baseball rulebook). In other words, the benefit of the doubt is given by custom but not by rule to the champion. When Ray Leonard decisioned Marvin Hagler, a lot of people, especially Hagler, thought that Leonard didn't do enough to take Hagler's title--particularly because Hagler chased Leonard around the ring. Perhaps this is a case of history repeating itself, but most accounts depict the challenger as the aggressor this time around (except in the later rounds when the lethargic Hopkins woke up). Obviously, I have to see the fight to judge if those depictions are accurate.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarifications everyone.
Dan,
I remember that fight and I too was pizzed that the decision went against Marvelous Marvin in a title defense match.
Hagler was the best “boxer” (read: not dancer) that night. But, Marvin was the po’ boy from Brockton and Sugar Ray was the cute darling of the boxing world so, naturally, the media (and not the sport) wins.
Was a bunch of B.S.
Anyway, my contention is that unless the title challenger knocks the Champ down or out, the Champ keeps the belt.
Agree with you about digital cable: I too am a stubborn b’stard when it comes to giving in to these vultures.
I am also looking forward to seeing the replay of this fight. There will definitely be a rematch. Oscar De La Hoya promoted the fight and has a rematch written in their contracts.
A tentative rematch date was mid October but it will be pushed back as Taylor has a good size cut on the top of his head from an unintentional butt and needs more time to heal.
I caught the rebroadcast on HBO, and scored it 115-113 for Taylor. This was a hard fight to score, as evidenced by the differences between the three official judges, Harold Lederman, and my scorecard--none matched up. Although my final tally was the same as Lederman's and two judges' scorecards, the rounds we gave each fighter differed. B-Hop is a cagey veteran (I'm so glad that the Executioner nickname is now secondary), but he's 40. He will be even older when they rematch in October. Taylor will be even wiser.
