Talk:Jermain Taylor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJermain Taylor has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 11, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Taylor-Hopkins[edit]

This is to CardsPlayer

I'm not sure where you get off calling someone's edits biased and opinionated.. when anyone in boxing who isn't from Arkansas can agree that the comments were correct. I re-submitted the edits with less of what you might call bias and you still revert. Total BS The changes were based on FACTS. BoxingNut83 15:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your comments. I edited some of the comments to "tone down" the perceived bias, but left the overall form of the edits you made (basically, made the article seem more "encyclopedic"). I think it is a fair compromise. (Cardsplayer4life 23:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Sounds fair. Personally, I thought the 2nd fight's decision was more controversial than the first, but people let it slide as the official decision suggested Hopkins lost the first fight and since he was on his way out.. there wasn't as much of a fuzz made about it. Hopkins didn't have dominantly winning rounds like in the 1st, but I believe his better distributed punch output resulted in what should have been a win. I scored fight 1, 115-114 for Taylor and fight 2, 116-113 for Hopkins. If you're a boxing fan, you know judges will give the nod to the up and coming guy if they can do so.. especially considering Hopkins is a guy who has always been perceived as somewhat of a jerk. BoxingNut83 01:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I pretty much agree with your assessment. I was able to watch the first one, but not the second (although I have since seen the replay, but my perception might have been "tainted" since I knew the outcome in advance). I won't lie and say I am not a Taylor fan (I am), but I tried to give Hopkins the benefit of the doubt, and I thought that the first fight was slightly more controversial because the one judge admitted afterwards that if he had been watching the fight from a different angle, he would have scored the last round differently, whereas in the second fight it was a unanimous decision. I agree with you that Hopkins probably doesn't get much of a break from boxing fans (and the public at large) because of some of the comments he makes, and his perception as a jerk. (Cardsplayer4life 02:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I also thought Hopkins won both fights, I thought he didn't get credit for even many of the early rounds in both fights where Taylor missed a lot of punches, but looked flashier and won the rounds on the cards. Reminds me of Holmes-Spinks II and De La Hoya-Whitaker where the older fighter slows down a bit, still does enough to seemingly deserve the decision, but winds up losing a controversial decision. But I hope the rest of Taylor's career goes better, I think he's a good fighter overall -6/7/06


There is no justification for stating that "most" fans feel the second fight proved Taylor's youth eclipsed Hopkins' experience. I would change my stance if there is any empirical evidence showing that "most" fans feel that way, but otherwise it should stay at "some" fans or be removed entirely.

Olympics[edit]

There is no mention of his Olympic record and career. Could someone who has a good knowledge of him and his career make a section on this please. Thanks in advance.--Quadzilla99 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he won a Bronza Medal on the 2000 Sydney Olympic.(see Boxing at the 2000 Summer Olympics However, I can't write in detail because I can't saw him on the Olympic game. --Watermint 17:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section on his amateur career, including the Olympics. It might be a bit rough, so anyone that wants to add anything else, or clean up what is there, feel free to do so. (Cardsplayer4life 17:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks, Cardplayer4life!! --Watermint 17:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAYLOR U SHOULD WALK OUT TO GHOSTBUSTERS WHEN U FIGHT PAVLIK THAT WOULD BE PRETTY TIGHT

Attention[edit]

Please do not make up things about Taylor's fights. Pavlik clearly beat him and to write something as stupid as "Taylor was out on his feet" when he was clearly on the floor is ignorant. If you're on the floor you're not on your feet. Get it? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.91.203 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was at the fight in the front row right in the same corner the knockout occured and believe it or not I was hoping Taylor would win. Trust me when I say this Jermain was out cold and completly limp. I am just hoping the rematch will prove different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.102.33 (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post fight HBO interview[edit]

You have to wait till 8 or 9 minutes into it. Someone is removing my edits where they apparently are having a problem with the claim Tatlor said himself he thought pavlik was winning. Well here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGsgmnE92nA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have a problem with it, I just wanted a reference. I took the time to find one and add it to the article for you cause I am such a nice guy. ;) Cardsplayer4life 05:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Pavlik II[edit]

I removed the following: "JERMAIN TAYLOR'S NEXT OPPONET Jermain Taylor vs Roy Jones or Felix Trinadad (possibly) one of the two will be Taylor's next opponet come mid june. It looks like it will be Roy Jones Jr at 170." This apart from not being professional looking is missing a citation. A fight between either Roy Jones Jr. or Felix Trinidad against Jermain Taylor is a rumor or in the works, which means that is not finalized and therefore should not be added to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmerc (talk • contribs) 03:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jermain Taylor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Overall this article is pretty good. Solid prose, no dead refs. However I found a few things to fix:

  • For the lead, most of the first paragraph would make a good third paragraph. Split that and modify the first one.
Check it out, I split the first one and put part of it as the third paragraph. Showtime2009 (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd beef up the rationale on why the HBO poster should be in this particular article a bit - why is it important to have it in this article besides the general "provides nonrecreateable info" note? (I'm fine with it, but there are others particularly at FAC that may disagree)
I could remove it if you want, since I know a guy who takes boxing photos and is granting permission for other wikipedia users to use them.
If you can replace it with a free photo of him actively boxing, then that would be a good idea. Poster's fine for the time being though. Wizardman
  • "Taylor continued his winning streak through 2002 and 2003" I assume he fought some people during this time, though there's no mention of anyone or how many matches. If he didn't then it needs rewording.
None of the fights were particularity notable. He was still young and fighting journeyman opponents.
  • "Taylor did not paid the fees to the WBA amid controversy of the organization removing him from their rankings after questions of whether Taylor followed all procedures for the WBA before his rematch with Hopkins." Could we be more specific on the questioning? It's a lil confusing to me as worded.
The WBA questioned whether or not taylor had followed all procedures (I'm not specifically sure what they were) for his title defense against Hopkins. As a result, they removed him from their rankings but re-added them. Regardless they said that the title was still under review and since it wasn't a guarantee that Taylor would still be champion after the fight with Wright, Taylor did not pay the sanctioning fees to the organization which are required to defend their title.
  • "Entering the final round, Taylor was ahead 106–102 on two of the judges' scorecards, while Froch was ahead 106–102 on the other." Who won? Feels like another sentence or two is needed, it just kinda stops.
I moved this earlier in the paragraph. Taylor was winning the fight enterting the last round, but he was TKO'd in that round by Froch. Showtime2009 (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on hold and check back on it in three days. If done then i'll pass it, if not I'll give you a few more days. (I picked the 11th as when I'd like to promote it since it's his birthday) Wizardman 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, and it's now the 11th, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman 15:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jermain Taylor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jermain Taylor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jermain_Taylor&oldid=1205899495"