If Meldric Taylor used the Oscar De La hoya tactic

[p4pking]

OK I have a confession.

I had the fight even coming into the 12th round.

There I have said it.

Many of the boxing writers at the time had it the same. The consensus, then, was that the judge that had Taylor way ahead wasn't watching the fight close enough. Over the years, the reality has changed to the point where Taylor was dominating the fight until Chavez landed a lucky punch and a Don King employee stole the fight from poor Meldrick.
I had Chavez up by two going into the 12th, but knew there were very close rounds that could go the other way. I thought the KD would have sealed it for him.

Some of these comments are strait out of the twilight zone

1. LOl about how he could not run, however he could stand there a battle for three more rounds, takes way more energy to box than it does to run, and body punishment will effect someone's boxing before it effects someone's running ability

2. The question was not about his nature as a boxer, it was how his career would have been different

3. No boxer in history did what Oscar did, however if many had boxing history would be rewritten, this is the best example.

1. You are assuming he would've been able to purely run, without having to throw his jab or set traps, feint etc Chavez was a monster and very adapt at cutting the ring off, it would have taken a lot more energy to keep distance and still avoid punishment at that point in the fight for Taylor, yes.

2. You can't really seperate the two, was the point made. He had already taken a crapload of punishment before the championship rounds that likely took a lot out of him. The stoppage was just a footnote to this.

3. No it isn't.

1. I am not assuming anything, I am saying take the De La hoya tactic and implement it in this fight, the samething you saw Oscar do is what Meldric would do, one minute you justify a cowardly act by a boxer, the next you say it is impossible for another boxer to do it, makes no since.


2. We do theoretical props all the time, we do you mean we cannot seperate the two.

3. If it isn't give us an example of what is.

1.Well Spicoli pretty well just said it, but Oscar did that because he was able to. He wasn't badly beaten up and still had his legs, and Trinidad was not pressuring him like Chavez could. When did I justify a cowardly act either? It's sense*, by the way.

2. I mean you can't seperate his nature as a boxer from his career path, if he had been more safety first to begin with he would've been a different guy. He wasn't about to suddenly change his whole approach in the championship rounds of a fight that he'd been brutalized in.

3. I guess it's hard since the above holds very true for any fighter. There are many examples of guys who could have hypothetically won big fights by exchanging less, or "running" for the championship rounds, but they are still who they are and it's anyone's guess whether it would have actually impacted their career, let alone "boxing history".