We should really have some sort of code as to how to judge a boxer by.. You can play devil's advocate on any type of situation, whether it be the fact that he lost TWICE to Jermain Taylor, and then JT gets knocked out by Pavlik and loses a decision to him the second time.. and then BHOP puts on a masterclass vs Pavlik.. So anyone could say that because he beat Pavlik, the guy who beat Taylor twice, one by KO, the same guy that beat BHOP that it was just a stylistic difference in Bhop vs JT that was why Bhop lost.. or you could say that Pavlik was tailor-made for Bhop..

Depends on which side of the fence you're coming from..

You can say that DLH was beating Bhop but that Bhop landed a "lucky" shot and KO'd him.. There are plenty of Great boxers who were bailed out by "lucky" punches for a KO later in the fight..

It's a 10-12 round fight, just because you lost X amount of rounds and then landed a "lucky" punch doesn't make the win any less of a win. When talking about legacies and resume's records you look at the win/loss column..

In comparison to the Froch/Taylor fight, JT had it on the cards then got KO'd.. I never said Froch didn't deserve to win, but if we're going to discuss the fight, i felt Froch was beatable and that JT COULD beat him in the future.. but i'm not going to take anything away from Froch for boxing 12 full rounds even though he lost a number of them.

Lay off the haterade!