Thread: calzaghe v hopkins

time and again i read how close and controvesial that decision was

close? calzaghe landed 27 times as many punches as hopkins

ok maybe you pick the best 3 punches of the fight and they would all be hopkins but those were the only 3 punches he landed

calzaghe had a bad start and hopkins may have even won the first 4, after that it was clear calzaghi all the way

the only thing controversial about it was that it was a spilt decision and not unanimous

The important thing is none of us are going to rewatch it to be able to argue with you.

Ok now thats cleared up we can move onto other things

Originally Posted by erics44

time and again i read how close and controvesial that decision was

close? calzaghe landed 27 times as many punches as hopkins

ok maybe you pick the best 3 punches of the fight and they would all be hopkins but those were the only 3 punches he landed

calzaghe had a bad start and hopkins may have even won the first 4, after that it was clear calzaghi all the way

the only thing controversial about it was that it was a spilt decision and not unanimous

Good points!

The fact that Hopkins was alowed to slow the fight down with all his play acting was disgusting.

I dont understand how 1 judge even gave it to Hopkins.

This one has been done plenty of times. I have always thought Calzaghe did more than enough to get the win. A bad start, but he turned it around. Hopkins seemed to be worn out by the half way mark.

It's not a fight I enjoy watching, quite boring in fact. A lot of spoiling from Hopkins. I am expecting a bit more of that this weekend, but hopefully Pacal has the pop to put a dent in a much older Hopkins.

Originally Posted by Memphis

Ok now thats cleared up we can move onto other things

Originally Posted by erics44

time and again i read how close and controvesial that decision was

close? calzaghe landed 27 times as many punches as hopkins

ok maybe you pick the best 3 punches of the fight and they would all be hopkins but those were the only 3 punches he landed

calzaghe had a bad start and hopkins may have even won the first 4, after that it was clear calzaghi all the way

the only thing controversial about it was that it was a spilt decision and not unanimous

There's no way im rewatching this fight again, twice was enough for me. I had B-Hop winning. He landed the cleaner more effective punches, and had a very good start with the two point round.

I didn't see Joe Calzaghe landing anything clean, most of his punches were blocked, slaps, or wern't landing that effectively. From my memory i can't remember Joe Calzaghe landing an eye catching blow all night.

Very difficult fight to watch but at first I had Calzaghe on first viewing for forcing the fight but there is a very intersting angle of the fight on youtube where Hopkins lands all the big shots in the fight. I will try finding it now.

Originally Posted by skel1983

Very difficult fight to watch but at first I had Calzaghe on first viewing for forcing the fight but there is a very intersting angle of the fight on youtube where Hopkins lands all the big shots in the fight. I will try finding it now.

Yea thats why he won IMO, i mean its not all about volume. It's about how effective the shots are aswell. For example if Joe Calzaghe outlanded B-Hop by like 10 punches in one round.

But B-Hop's punches were all clean effective straight right hand leads. Where as Joe Calzaghe's punches were all grazing arm punching slaps. Then im giving the round to B-Hop no question.

And in alot of the early rounds i felt, mostly all of B-Hop's shots were clean effective right hand leads. And he even almost floored Joe Calzaghe twice in the fight aswell, at the end of one of the early rounds.

Where as most of Joe Calzaghe's punches wern't effective punches, and he missed alot of punches.

I have no problem with Joe Calzaghe getting the nod, due to him forcing the fight and because B-Hop faded. But i still feel B-Hop banked enough early rounds to just edge it IMO.

I had Hopkins winning it either 114-113 or 115-112, I think he had the cleaner & effective punching, and showed the better ring generalship, but I've got no issue with Calzaghe taking a close decision. I thought the judge who had him winning 9 rounds was a bit off his rocker though

i agree hopkins landed more single effective punches

but they were so few and far between

calzaghi was forcing the fight and as a result left himself open for these single punches

he outpunched him by so many

i would keep and open mind and watch the you tube vid, and maybe i will some day

The fight was dire, last big fight on the BBC, put them off boxing forever.

Originally Posted by erics44

time and again i read how close and controvesial that decision was

close? calzaghe landed 27 times as many punches as hopkins

ok maybe you pick the best 3 punches of the fight and they would all be hopkins but those were the only 3 punches he landed

calzaghe had a bad start and hopkins may have even won the first 4, after that it was clear calzaghi all the way

the only thing controversial about it was that it was a spilt decision and not unanimous

Yup, I think it was a really easy fight to score. Hopkins won the first 4 rounds (10-8 in first) and JC won rounds 5-12.

SIMPLES

Yeah Calzaghe landed 3 times as many slaps at Hopkins did punches so he won the fight. He is clearly the greatest Super Middle weight of all time and would have beaten Jones Jr in his prime just as easily in 2000 as he did in 2008. No question!! He is the best slap-paw boxer period. The all time great Tocker Pudwill didn't even make it out of the 2nd round!!!

It's a no-brainer