Taylor vs Lacy

eagle eye

I just thought I'd start a thread on this fight as I noticed that almost everybody is going for Taylor to win over the distance. I think people are overestimating Jermaine Taylor a lot, and Lacy still has only one defeat and thats to the great JC.

I think Lacy is the best out there now of the younger fighters. Taylor could not handle the power of the Great White Hype and I think that poses big questions about his being able to go the distance against left hook.

Just interested to know why everyone fancies Taylor so much.

cowzerp

Taylor is a slick operater and good enough to make any boxer look silly, but i think the poll results is more to do with Lacy than Taylor, Lacy is a very average boxer and is just out of his depth in this fight, Taylor is coming off 2 losses and is still 1/6 on in the bookies! that says it all.

Lacy was unknown this side of the pond till Calzaghe bigged him up so much to try to justify his lack of big fights..

nacho libre

it was the American pundits who bigged Lacy up. Anyway, Taylor is the more skillfull fight and should be able to avoid Lacy's biggest punches. Also, it's worth noting the difference in Lacy since his shoulder injury up to this point.

mickoo

nacho libre wrote: »

Also, it's worth noting the difference in Lacy since his shoulder injury up to this point.

A you sure you dont mean the differece between him since he stepped up in standard? :rolleyes:


He's just a poor fighter.

nacho libre

mickoo wrote: »

A you sure you dont mean the differece between him since he stepped up in standard? :rolleyes:


He's just a poor fighter.

No that wasn't what i was referring to. I saw that he wasn't as good as the Americans made him out to when he fought Calzaghe.

cowzerp

nacho libre wrote: »

No that wasn't what i was referring to. I saw that he wasn't as good as the Americans made him out to when he fought Calzaghe.

I agree,they where selling a fight.
but Calzaghe still to this day talks about lacy as if it was some great feat! its laughable, and shows up his insecurities about his record.

megadodge

Lacy was the betting favourite boths sides of the Atlantic for the Calzaghe fight and was picked by the majority of well-respected experts to win a tight one. They are the facts. You can't fool that many knowledgable people if you're a "poor boxer".

While I thought he was slightly overrated at the time, his 4 knockdowns stoppage defeat of the iron-chinned Robin Reid (who only lost a disputed split to Calzaghe) had me thinking he'd beat Joe, but Cal would put up a good fight. I was very, very wrong.

It wasn't the fact that Calzaghe beat him that's always being publicised, it's the way he did it. It was supposed to be a close, tough fight versus a favoured opponent, yet it was an annihilation !! It was also the sort of a beating that very few boxers recover from. I couldn't believe his corner didn't stop it and save him for another day.

Paul, you claim Calzaghe bigs Lacy up to claim credit for himself, yet you are guilty of the exact same in reverse where you downgrade every opponent Calzaghe ever fought in order to diminish his achievments. Crazy claims about Kessler's stamina are the latest stunt. It's very transparent and really lets you down in my eyes.

cowzerp

megadodge wrote: »

Paul, you claim Calzaghe bigs Lacy up to claim credit for himself, yet you are guilty of the exact same in reverse where you downgrade every opponent Calzaghe ever fought in order to diminish his achievments. Crazy claims about Kessler's stamina are the latest stunt. It's very transparent and really lets you down in my eyes.

Mega, your a little too worried on my opinion on joe tbh, Kessler is decent, not anything too spectacular-nice technically and average strenght and as i've said before has potential to be better!

Who has he fought that was in there peak thats worth talking about? Lacy? dont make me laugh, Kessler? thats debateable, Hopkins? was old and looked it, even though he won in my eyes, and now onto RJJ who is definetly years past his best but still might win.

I'd still like to see Joe fight Pavlik or even Taylor someone who is a genuine challenge.

jayroyal

cowzerp wrote: »

Mega, your a little too worried on my opinion on joe tbh, Kessler is decent, not anything too spectacular-nice technically and average strenght and as i've said before has potential to be better!

Who has he fought that was in there peak thats worth talking about? Lacy? dont make me laugh, Kessler? thats debateable, Hopkins? was old and looked it, even though he won in my eyes, and now onto RJJ who is definetly years past his best but still might win.

I'd still like to see Joe fight Pavlik or even Taylor someone who is a genuine challenge.

I'm going to go with a lacy ko win and that sets up the prefect fight with kelly pavlik.Let a abraham face kessler , both winners face eachother and i'm going for kessler as the winner of the lot.

walshb

Mega, gotta' agree with Paul on the Kessler issue.

I saw nothing great at all. Very one dimensional and predictable.

And it didn't take Cal to show me this.
I can only imagine Kess' in against a peak Jones or Toney.
Wiped out he would be!

As for Lacy? What a waste of space he is.

Yes, the US first started the hype, but it was after he lost to Cal that the UK
went into overdrive on how amazing the win was against such a talented foe:rolleyes:

Cal beat a man who had nothing to offer, absolute nothing and the manner he beat him
has little to do with it. He couldn't even force the TKO/KO because he landed more slaps
than actual punches

Big Ears

Since Lacy tore his rotator cuff in the 2nd round of his 2nd fight with Tsypko he hasn't been the same. Other people put Lacy's decline down to the beating he took from Calzaghe, or that he was just always crap.

But that wouldn't explain how he fought so well in those first two rounds with Tsypko, rocking him jabs(boxing well) and looking like he was about to take him out in the next 2 rounds.

He's had surgery on the shoulder, but doesn't really look the same and now his punch resistance is starting to fade too(probably from taking so many punches in 3 of his last 4 fights).

Lacy wasn't the Super-Middleweight Tyson like many claimed before the Calzaghe fight, but neither was he as poor as fighter as you see today. He was a pretty decent Super-Middleweight champion who could hit like a mule.

Nowdays Taylor will be far too good for him, even at his best I'd favour Taylor but at least back then Lacy would've had a small chance.
Taylor beats Lacy, Froch beats Pascal and hopefully both winning fighters get a real test after that against each other.

Taylor late stoppage.

cowzerp

Big Ears wrote: »

He's had surgery on the shoulder, but doesn't really look the same and now his punch resistance is starting to fade too(probably from taking so many punches in 3 of his last 4 fights)..

The surgery could affect performance no doubt, but punch resistance will not go due to taking a beating, it will go if stamina levels suffer, this can happen due to lack of training or just general ageing, these are not factors that should affect lacy, he just moved up a level and is not able for it. taylor is a clean puncher and could ko him due to this..

eagle eye

The thing is that Lacy has only one defeat to date. I know he was not impressive in his last couple of outings since JC destroyed him.
Taylor has two losses to Pavlik back to back to get over. He looked very poor in the second fight. I don't rate Pavlik personally, another great white hype imo.
We seen Taylor beat Hopkins and it was very crafty with a lot of spoiling. Thats the only way he can fight from what I've seen of him. Its been shown that he does not like to take big shots and even though Lacy has not shown much in his last couple he still has that power somewhere inside him.

For Taylor this is just another fight, the first on the comeback trail if you like. For Lacy this is a chance to put his name back in the big picture and if he is hungry enough for it, I think he can go after Taylor and catch him.

Of course if Taylor gets to fight the way he wants to there will be only one winner but I think there were a lot of weaknesses exposed in his two fights with Kessler.

nacho libre

cowzerp wrote: »

Mega, your a little too worried on my opinion on joe tbh, Kessler is decent, not anything too spectacular-nice technically and average strenght and as i've said before has potential to be better!

Who has he fought that was in there peak thats worth talking about? Lacy? dont make me laugh, Kessler? thats debateable, Hopkins? was old and looked it, even though he won in my eyes, and now onto RJJ who is definetly years past his best but still might win.

I'd still like to see Joe fight Pavlik or even Taylor someone who is a genuine challenge.

yet Hopkins didn't look old against Pavlik. Having seen the demolition job Hopkins did on on Pavlik, i'm inclined to agree with Frank Warren for once. Calzaghe should have fought Pavlik as he would have outclassed him as well. Of course that would probably have led to a reassessment of Pavlik's ability.

Kessler is a good fighter. He was causing Calzaghe's problem up until the fifth round when Calzaghe showed his class by figuring him out and outboxing Kessler pretty much until the final bell. Kessler will beat Taylor, Froch and Pavlik if he ever faces them. Apparently he's going to be at the fight this weekend trying to stake his claim for a rematch with Calzaghe!

cowzerp

nacho libre wrote: »

yet Hopkins didn't look old against Pavlik. Having seen the demolition job Hopkins did on on Pavlik, i'm inclined to agree with Frank Warren for once. Calzaghe should have fought Pavlik as he would have outclassed him as well. Of course that would probably have led to a reassessment of Pavlik's ability.

1, Hopkins was great against Pavlik, put on a master class.
2, Pavlik was poor and is a middle weight which has to be remembered!
3, Hopkins was old and fought like an old man v joe.

Point 1 and 2 go together, i think Hopkins turned back the clock and shocked Pavlik who looked very average v B hop, but this could be looked at in loads of ways, eg, Pavlik is brutal etc.. i dont think so though!

point 3 is valid, against Joe-Hopkins was much more negative and looked old in the ring, and against Pavlik he took the fight to him and fought like a prime Hopkins, if he fought against joe like that he would of won even more clearly than he should have anyway.

and as far as re assessing fighters abilities, thats an on going thing and is meant to be done, otherwise we'd just say X is the best and not change our mind when there beaten by Y and Z etc easily..

nacho libre

cowzerp wrote: »

1, Hopkins was great against Pavlik, put on a master class.
2, Pavlik was poor and is a middle weight which has to be remembered!
3, Hopkins was old and fought like an old man v joe.

Point 1 and 2 go together, i think Hopkins turned back the clock and shocked Pavlik who looked very average v B hop, but this could be looked at in loads of ways, eg, Pavlik is brutal etc.. i dont think so though!

point 3 is valid, against Joe-Hopkins was much more negative and looked old in the ring, and against Pavlik he took the fight to him and fought like a prime Hopkins, if he fought against joe like that he would of won even more clearly than he should have anyway.

and as far as re assessing fighters abilities, thats an on going thing and is meant to be done, otherwise we'd just say X is the best and not change our mind when there beaten by Y and Z etc easily..

Pavlik wasn't poor against Hopkins, he was made to look poor- there is a difference. Hopkins admitted that he felt Pavlik during the fight had the power to knock him out with his right hand but Hopkins used his skill to avoid his danger punch and was able to control the pace of the fight because of his superior boxing skill hence his stamina wasn't questioned. He looked old against Calzaghe because of Calzaghe's phenomenal workrate which Hopkins couldn't cope with which eventually led to him feigning a low blow to buy some recuperation time.
Hopkins won the early rounds of their fight but Calzaghe out worked him thereafter and was the deserved winner imo. As the saying goes styles make fights so if Hopkins has fought more adventurously, like he did against Pavlik, it would have been playing into Calzaghe's hand and the win for Calzaghe would been even more convincing.
you're right that assessement of boxers is on going but my point is to downgrade a fighter's ability that you previously thought highly of because he loses to a figher you don't like is flawed. I mean i've always admired Hopkins yet the fact he lost twice to Taylor doesn't mean Hopkins was overrated. Afterall, very few boxers remain undefeated - and in some cases they sometimes lose to people you'd never expect them to.