Katie's first defense tonight: on Sky Sports Action and Mix from 1800 hrs.

SteelyDanJalapeno

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Not seen many of her Pro do fights. What is going on, is it the lack of competition it is she just not progressing?
Or is this an off night?

Explain? She just retained the belt at a headline, what else literally could she have done?

titan18

I wonder does she know who the other champions are.

SuperSean11

Katie V Amir Khan in Croke park after christmas

Clareman

We are being a bit harsh on her, she scored 97 points by 2 judges which means she won 8 rounds, the other had her at 98 which means she only lost 1 round in that judge's eyes

normanoffside

walshb wrote: »

Am I off thinking that there is some real vulnerability about Katie?

Lacking physicality, strength and ruggedness?

Yeah I definitely think so. It's not a good trait to like a tear up when you can't punch and she always gets drawn into a fight.

Berserker

McCaskill was right about the score cards and about the length of the rounds. Three minute rounds would have suited her. Bellew right about the ref.

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Not seen many of her Pro do fights. What is going on, is it the lack of competition it is she just not progressing?
Or is this an off night?

Not an off night. She wasn't 100% against Sanchez.

Ash.J.Williams

Katie was Savage tonight... Mccaskill had a plan

backspin.

Very ungracious from McCaskel never bothered to acknowledge the winner after the fight.

Clareman

SuperSean11 wrote: »

Katie V Amir Khan in Croke park after christmas

Katie vs McGregor in Croke Park on paddy's day, after the hurling and football

You heard it here first

Too Tough To Die

She's had a lot of fights this year to be fair to her. Could probably do with a rest.

pistolpetes11

RoryMac wrote: »

Think Eddie Hearn was one of the judges!

Cards a lot more comfortable than the fight but Katie deserved the win even though it wasn't a great performance

She said it was her toughest fight yet , the rough and tumble of it made it very very messy and I don't think she has ever come across that before ,

Ref was poor and could of cracked down on some of the rough play from Mc , especially since he was happy to deduct the point for holding , made even worse by Mc constantly dipping her head down into Katie

Bellerstring

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

Not sure what fight your watching

Like McCaskill said in the interview, no way was that as one sided as the score suggests.
McCaskill was definitely the stronger fighter.
Fair play to Taylor however.

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

Am I off thinking that there is some real vulnerability about Katie?

Lacking physicality, strength and ruggedness?

McCaskill very sluggish and ponderous...lucky for Katie..

Funnily enough I was just thinking today of 'that' fight she had with Queen Underwood at the World's, and how Taylor looking so much stronger now then back then, wouldn't struggle like that anymore.

McCaskill was 2 1/2 lbs inside the limit... she's clearly not a big Lightweight, so it really is worrying how physically tough Katie found it in there. Yes she fought the wrong fight and didn't use her ability in large parts, but you'd hope physically she'd have enough to get the better of that type of fought anyway.

I have to agree with what a poster mentioned earlier about Chantelle Cameron being a dangerous opponent for her. Katie would need to box a hell of a lot better than that to beat Cameron !

Amazingfun

backspin. wrote: »

Very ungracious from McCaskel never bothered to acknowledge the winner after the fight.

This. Very whiny!

Congrats Katie you BEAST :-)

AnneFrank

Clareman wrote: »

We are being a bit harsh on her, she scored 97 points by 2 judges which means she won 8 rounds, the other had her at 98 which means she only lost 1 round in that judge's eyes

Totally agree, it was a tough fight, she was very in the face

Berserker

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

She's had a lot of fights this year to be fair to her. Could probably do with a rest.

Was thinking that too. She's been fighting every few weeks. Think she'll take a well earned rest.

wotzgoingon

That ref was a b*ll*cks. It was a hard fight to box as that American made it very difficult holding grabbing clashing heads etc... and the ref said nothing to her.

ctrl-alt-delete

It wasn't the easiest fight for Taylor, or the best fight to watch but I think it was comfortable enough for her.

She took the best McCaskill had to offer with that shot, and was fairly aware straight after to duck under another.

I think that the 2 minute rounds are a bit short too.

normanoffside

Clareman wrote: »

We are being a bit harsh on her, she scored 97 points by 2 judges which means she won 8 rounds, the other had her at 98 which means she only lost 1 round in that judge's eyes

Just because she is docked a point doesn't mean she loses the round 10-8.
I'd have given her that round.

It's more likely that that judge scored the deduction round 9-9 and her had her losing an earlier one 10-9 IMO

Clareman

normanoffside wrote: »

Just because she is docked a point doesn't mean she loses the round 10-8.
I'd have given her that round.

It's more likely that that judge scored the deduction round 9-9 and her had her losing an earlier one 10-9 IMO

I think it was 98-91 and 97-92x2 which I think means she lost 2 and 1 rounds, Taylor is working off a possible total of 99 points against 100 for get opponent, or am I missing something??

carltonleon

walshb wrote: »

Am I off thinking that there is some real vulnerability about Katie?

Lacking physicality, strength and ruggedness?

McCaskill very sluggish and ponderous...lucky for Katie..

To my untrained eye Katie was a bit more careful in that fight. She was not rushing in and getting hit quite as much as she has in her previous fights were she just rushed in. Defo a learning curve and I think that fight will bring her on.

J Mysterio

Thought Katie fought a terrible fight, played into McCaskill's hands. Very naive. Felt like they didnt do their homework. Felt the scorecards were not fair to McCaskill. Katie could have lost this. Ref was awful.

normanoffside

Clareman wrote: »

I think it was 98-91 and 97-92x2 which I think means she lost 2 and 1 rounds, Taylor is working off a possible total of 99 points against 100 for get opponent, or am I missing something??

I think it was the 7th?
So say the judges score the round 10-9 to Taylor but the ref deducts a point, that makes it 9-9.
Of course if the judge had already scored the round 10-9 to McCaskill then the point deduction makes it 10-8.
I’d say in the case of the 98-91 Judge, it’s more likely that he scored one of the earlier (more dominant) rounds to McCaskill 10-9 and the 7th 9-9 with the other 8 rounds 10-9 to Taylor which adds up to 98-91.

kerplun k

Bellerstring wrote: »

Like McCaskill said in the interview, no way was that as one sided as the score suggests.
McCaskill was definitely the stronger fighter.
Fair play to Taylor however.

It was.
Katie boxed. McCaskill Didn’t.
It was obvious what McCaskill was trying to do. She knew she couldn’t outbox her so she tried to frustrate her by shortening the distance and brawling, and to her credit she did frustrate Katie, along with everyone else watching, but she showed nothing to deserve a win, or even a rematch for that matter. Fair play to Katie, she kept her cool and picked her apart. Taylor was cool, composed and showed real class.

Clareman

normanoffside wrote: »

I think it was the 7th?
So say the judges score the round 10-9 to Taylor but the ref deducts a point, that makes it 9-9.
Of course if the judge had already scored the round 10-9 to McCaskill then the point deduction makes it 10-8.
I’d say in the case of the 98-91 Judge, it’s more likely that he scored one of the earlier (more dominant) rounds to McCaskill 10-9 and the 7th 9-9 with the other 8 rounds 10-9 to Taylor which adds up to 98-91.

Ahhh right, I wouldn't know enough about boxing to be able to call the exact rounds that were won but I think Taylor was on top for the first 4/5 rounds, then dropped off for 2/3 and then dominated again

wotzgoingon

kerplun k wrote: »

It was.
Katie boxed. McCaskill Didn’t.
It was obvious what McCaskill was trying to do. She knew she couldn’t outbox her so she tried to frustrate her by shortening the distance and brawling, and to her credit she did frustrate Katie, along with everyone else watching, but she showed nothing to deserve a win, or even a rematch for that matter. Fair play to Katie, she kept her cool and picked her apart. Taylor was cool, composed and showed real class.

Well said. I couldn't put the words together myself.

Katie can box and box well it just depends on the opponent if they want to box.

selectamatic

walshb wrote: »

Am I off thinking that there is some real vulnerability about Katie?

Lacking physicality, strength and ruggedness?

McCaskill very sluggish and ponderous...lucky for Katie..

Imo its down to a lack of power coincidentally enough as the bucks here are always onto you about your love of power :P

Having enough of it to create an air of doubt is a great asset to have in the pro ranks though.

She just finds it so hard to discourage her opponents from coming at her. I really thought her near abandonment of the very good body work seen in the Sanchez fight was an odd move tonight especially as Katie seems to be able to sit down on her body punches with greater ease than firing up top and normally they're her go to discouragement shot.

normanoffside wrote: »

Yeah I definitely think so. It's not a good trait to like a tear up when you can't punch and she always gets drawn into a fight.

I get the same feeling watching conlon against good opposition but we've not seen good opposition since he turned pro. However thats completely understandable given he's only starting out.

I do feel Katie has a solid chin though.

Anyone see better angles of Katie getting "wobbled" I felt she stumble on McCaskills lead left foot on first viewing but I was watching a dodgy stream.

Patty O Furniture

Here's the match now on youtube, if anyone didn't see it:

Mantis Toboggan

Opponent was tough And awkward and done well, especially for a part timer and dragged Katie into a dog fight.

Katie will find it tough to keep defending her title without a jab, power and a lack of body shots. She's very open when coming forward at times and was lucky not to have got caught a few more times tonight.

boxer.fan

Can anyone give me a rundown of Ross Enamait. I haven’t seen him in many corners. I’m not saying he is a bad coach, I just don’t know anything about him?

lab man

selectamatic wrote:

Anyone see better angles of Katie getting "wobbled" I felt she stumble on McCaskills lead left foot on first viewing but I was watching a dodgy stream.

That's what I thought too

Patty O Furniture

Is this true that McCaskill still has her day job as a financial banker & trains later on in the day & just sees this as a hobby, as she heard about Katie by two irish guys in a gym, is the story going!

walshb

backspin. wrote: »

Very ungracious from McCaskel never bothered to acknowledge the winner after the fight.

Nothing likable about that woman.

walshb

I think part of Katie's "problem" appears to be repetitiveness. She seems to have the same moves and angles and modes of attack pretty much all the time. There's something a bit predictable, and you could easily see her getting timed and hit heavy.

Her attacks and punching techniques following the same pattern all the time, and with the same explosive type speed and effort, but lacking accuracy and heaviness.

Mixing it up and stepping it down every so often and using feints more and digging the body better and planting the feet to deliver 1-2 shots as opposed to those pitter patter speedy flurries, that mostly hit arms and air, as well as tiring you a little more....

She is what she is, and at this stage of her career it's not likely that she will change too much, but a few little tweaks and changes could happen?

wotzgoingon

Nice video but why have a full time job? Why not put your full effort into boxing as with boxing you only have a short career and you would be more mentally and physically able if you just stuck to boxing and then when you retire from boxing go work in the bank.

h7nlrp2v0g5u48

walshb wrote: »

Nothing likable about that woman.

I agree all mouth and no boxing skills. Katie did a job on her. She seems like a nasty piece of work. Not a patch on our Katie.

walshb

natashaob6 wrote: »

I agree all mouth and no boxing skills. Katie did a job on her. She seems like a nasty piece of work. Not a patch on our Katie.

Through the build up, and to the fight and post fight just something unlikable about her..

kerplun k

pac_man wrote: »

"Our Katie" . What did her opponent do that was so out of line?

I think folks were just sick of listening to her bullsh*t. She was all talk and did nothing to back it up. That stuff really grates on people.

walshb

kerplun k wrote: »

I think folks were just sick of listening to her bullsh*t. She was all talk and did nothing to back it up. That stuff really grates on people.

And she was a right sore loser!

kerplun k

pac_man wrote: »

What did she say?

She basically talked her way into the fight. You can read about it in the following piece.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/boxing/jessica-mccaskill-went-to-bizarre-lengths-in-goading-katie-taylor-into-title-fight-and-this-could-be-just-the-start-36404793.html

Then afterwards, rather than admit she was out of her depth, she suggested the judges got the decision wrong and just stopped short of saying she should have won, and then outrageously claimed she should have taken the decision out of the judges hands by knocking her out, as if that was an option.

Nothing against her myself, I thought she was great craic, and done well to generate some hype for the fight, but if you can’t back it up it means nothing and the trash talk just becomes a bit annoying.

h7nlrp2v0g5u48

pac_man wrote: »

"Our Katie" . What did her opponent do that was so out of line?

I used the term our Katie because I feel she is a great ambassador not just women's boxing but also for our country. Especially the way she conducts herself weather she wins or looses a fight. If you saw the fight i think you know what her opponent did or didn't say. The other OP mentioned it in another post so I won't go into that again except to say that I found her disrespectful to her opponent and failed to except she was out fought by the skill and boxing techniques of Katie Taylor. That's just my opinion.

walshb

pac_man wrote: »

What did she say? Your "Nothing likable about that woman" comment smacks of ignorance.

You took my comment a little too literally...

I was meaning more regarding everything about the fight...

Pre, present and post..

Came across the whole journey as an asshole IMO..

Nothing to do with ignorance on my part. Maybe a little to do with presumptuousness on your part...

I don’t even know if that’s a word, or the right word.

Joe_ Public

If McCaskill riled people up, then she did her job well and performed her role. People talk about the low profile of women’s boxing and the lack of interest and now complain when a fighter is actually doing something to enhance it. It might not be particularly noble, but like what was said above, that’s how the wheels of boxing spin. Brian Peters says as much in that article. They need a lot more where that came from.

kerplun k

pac_man wrote: »

She calls someone out and couldn't back it up. It happens all the time in boxing. If it really grates on you then you are watching the wrong sport.

I don't think she contests the result of the fight, a question was posed in that the scorecards don't reflect how the fight went. She felt like others, that the scorecards were wide.

I don’t have a problem with the way she called Taylor out, as I said in my last post I found it quite entertaining, but she didn’t do anything to back it up, and then when she was outclassed, rather than congratulate Taylor, she said the following

“I I thought it was closer. I definitely rocked her, But I shouldn't have left it to the judges. I thought Katie wanted to fight. Katie ran a lot and potshotted, I thought beforehand that she wanted a fight in the middle of the ring."

You can’t deny these comments are a bit ungracious. Basically she was a sore loser,

There was also some unsavory comments from her corner

“We came all the way over here, she don't want to fight, she's f**king, she's a princess, knock her out. Let's go."

It was poor form to blame everyone else and not acknowledge Taylor’s performance. She wasn’t good enough, but rather than take responsibility and admit she was second best she continued to ridicule Taylor and blame everyone else but herself.

walshb

And still an asshole...conflation isn’t needed.

Her being an asshole generated more interest in a fight that didn’t have much interest to begin with...

kerplun k

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If McCaskill riled people up, then she did her job well and performed her role. People talk about the low profile of women’s boxing and the lack of interest and now complain when a fighter is actually doing something to enhance it. It might not be particularly noble, but like what was said above, that’s how the wheels of boxing spin. Brian Peters says as much in that article. They need a lot more where that came from.

It’s a good point, women’s boxing needs more people like McCaskill, her pre fight stuff was great, but I think people felt she was a little ungracious in defeat, especially after all the trash talk.

normanoffside

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Nice video but why have a full time job? Why not put your full effort into boxing as with boxing you only have a short career and you would be more mentally and physically able if you just stuck to boxing and then when you retire from boxing go work in the bank.

There is F*** all money in women’s pro boxing in general. I doubt normal purses even pay for their training expenses.

walshb

pac_man wrote: »

I'm only quoting what you said. Your "NOTHING" likable comment is way off for what she did both inside and outside the ring.

Well, maybe I gave you too much credit for thinking that you’d twig what I meant.

I’ll spell it out more clearly next time...

walshb

For a storm in a teacup (which, btw I agree with) you seem to be pretty insistent about it...

She came across unlikable to me from what I saw, heard and read throughout the events...

You don’t agree. Big deal....and nothing to do with moving goalposts...I’m clear as crystal here..

kerplun k

pac_man wrote: »

At no point does she say that the judges got the decision wrong. She stated that the scorecards were wide. Her analysis on how the fight went was spot on.She wanted a scrap, Katie throws quick combinations and ran, that's what shes good at. It hardly makes her out to be a sore loser

I never said that she said the judges got the decision wrong. I said she stopped short of it, and was ungracious for claiming Taylor ran from her, and didn’t bother acknowledging her performance.

pac_man wrote: »

Was this said in between a round? If that's what it takes to motivate a fighter then whats wrong with that? It's a fight, not a tickling contest.

It was. but obviously it didn’t f**king work
She might as well been in a tickling contest, because she certainly wasn’t boxing.

pac_man wrote: »

I'm not being funny but it was probably the first time she ever had a mic in front of her, directly after a fight. Full of adrenaline/emotion which is going to be affecting her ability to be thinking straight. She somehow forgets to acknowledge Taylors win to which shes not obliged to do so.She did this afterwards btw. I think your creating a storm in a teacup.

And yet most combat fighters do, still no words of congratulating on social media or public comments. Maybe she said it personally, but this certainly wasn’t shown in the ring after the fight, so I highly doubt it.

You can defend her until the cows come home, but people saying she acted like a sore loser is a completely valid point. And that’s me done with the conversation.