Calzaghe WILL fight again for £10/$16 million

[leftylee]

Thing is Adam if Calzaghe never "Threw 10 ineffective punches" then there wouldn't have been a fight. Hopkins didn't hardly ever throw a punch and was in defensive mode all night. Calzaghe outworked and outlanded him taking a close yet clear decision.

[ICB]

Calzaghe won because he was more crafty than the King of Craft Hopkins.

Hopkins was fighting in his home country so was always going to get any benefit of doubt the judges had.

Calzaghe out smarted him, by looking the busier and more spectacular, even if all the punches were not landing correctly or indeed if they were landing at all!

Hopkins just did not have the pace of the fight right and Joe took advantage.

For an American to moan he was robbed by the judges fighting a Brit in the States is kind of at least pushing, if not out right taking the piss!

Joe Calzaghe more crafty than Bernard Hopkins ? i don't think so somehow. Bernard Hopkins was making Joe Calzaghe miss all night long. And he was able to smartly gain time to recover in the late rounds by being very crafty.

Well then how comes Hopkins did not get the decision? Calzaghe outsmarted him, he knew what the judges wanted and Hopkins fought the wrong fight, the scores say Joe was too crafty for him.

Hopkins nine times out of ten delivers what is needed, but Joe was too good for him and still won despite losing a 10/8 round.

Luckily for Hopkins, Joe is one of the few with at least the equal of Hopkins boxing brain, because Calzaghe is that good, not Hopkins that bad.

Calzaghe went to America and beat their best 175lber IMO. What is more, he got off the floor to win on points, that is simply brilliant, a virtually unheard of feat for a Brit in the Americas.

Bernard Hopkins lost because Las Vegas judges normally favor the aggressive fighter.

[ICB]

Thing is Adam if Calzaghe never "Threw 10 ineffective punches" then there wouldn't have been a fight. Hopkins didn't hardly ever throw a punch and was in defensive mode all night. Calzaghe outworked and outlanded him taking a close yet clear decision.

Yes he was the aggressor but it wasn't effective aggression. Im sorry but i can't score that fight for Joe Calzaghe just based on workrate, he hardly landed an effective/clean punch all night long.

[Britkid]

Bernard Hopkins lost because Las Vegas judges normally favor the aggressive fighter.

Then why did the ring smart and crafty Hopkins not fight more aggressively. This model of Calzaghe lacks in the power department and Hopkins could easily been the aggressor if he wished.....

The truth is Calzaghe read the situation better than Hopkins and executed the better fight plan. Hopkins had everything in his favour and yet still managed to lose, like I said not because Hopkins is that bad, but because Joe is that good!

[Mr140]

Think that Calzghe pace just tired out Hopkin mean he did nothing in last rounds to get the win mean its his own fault for not doing anything.

[BoomBoom]

Calzaghes record is deceiving in my opinion. Great record, defences, etc. Very good career, not as great though as many think. I cant see him coming back now. I do think he wasted some years, but his career still ran its course. Is he a fighter that should et paid 16 mil for a fight? Absolutely not. Hes not a legend, and most logical people that know what a truly great fighter is are not in not awe of him when he fights. Hes a very good fighter, but probably not even a top 100 atg imo.

[Mr140]

Question bit of topic boom but Ricardo Lopez what would you rate him because in my eyes Joe Calzaghe record is on par with him. I think people bit harsh i am not saying he is a top20 but i think he could make it in top 100 pretty easy boom no way in hell you could name 100 above him i am sure. Wins over Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins are good enough i mean if not for Tito and Oscar Bhops record at middle weight is kinda crap as well all i am saying is top100 i am sure he could make.

[BoomBoom]

Fair enough point, but I do rate Ricardo Lopez higher. The reason is because his record, although undefeated, does him no justice. But in an opposite way. Whats on paper is only a part of it for me. Watching his fights you get the feeling you are watching a spectacular fighter. Its also in how he won. He usually dominated his opposition flawlessly. So truthfully, his opposition wasnt HOFers, but he destroyed worthy opponents. Calzaghe was a very good fighter, also undefeated, but struggled a lot against B level fighters. On paper, I guess you could argue they were to par with one another, but in the ring they werent imo. Being undefeated is an afterthought to me. Its all opinion I guess, its hard to rate a fighter based on anything other than that.

[Mr140]

Fair enough i can understand that i just thought that top 100 was bit harsh reason i even brought it up have some rep dude good post.

[BoomBoom]

100 may be too harsh now that Im really thinking about it but there are a lot of fighters and I doubt I can even count to 100 without losing track lol. He may very well be in the 80-100 group.

[Mr140]

Well the whole point of this thread is to say your opinion then take other peoples thoughts then come up with a answer then your good. Reason i like this forum because there are alot of people all with very different opinions and i think it is great thing.

[Gandalf]

I think Calzaghe was a very special fighter but his career was very frustrating. He spent far too long under Warrens wing taking easy fights that were carefully managed. And even when he did get free he ended up fighting an ancient Jones before simply hanging them up.

He had great skills and an excellent boxing brain. It would have been nice to see Calzaghe tested more. And I say that as a fan because I loved watching him fight.

[awdleyfuturehalloffamer]

hopkins had more speed than calzaghe and still lost decisively. Calzaghe would have taken pavlik to the woodshed and possibly even knocked him out in 8 or fewer rounds.

[JazMerkin]

Hopkins is never a guy who does that well with judges, and one of the key reasons that he was going to struggle on the judges cards that night was the stupid comment about never losing to a white boy. So the whole 'Calzaghe is British & still got a decision' means nothing, because if you want to go along that route you could argue that the race issue equally played a role.

[Fenster]

Hopkins is never a guy who does that well with judges, and one of the key reasons that he was going to struggle on the judges cards that night was the stupid comment about never losing to a white boy. So the whole 'Calzaghe is British & still got a decision' means nothing, because if you want to go along that route you could argue that the race issue equally played a role.

So the judges favoured Calzaghe because he's white?