Hopkins Interview - Have to Agree With Him - LINK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MIKAY

Fukit, no point arguaing Jc won end of, cant do it no more. Hopkins is 43 yrs old man and is a living legend. Jc struggled to beat a old man so that should tell you everything. 5 years ago hopkins wouldnt of got tired late on and would have continued the beating he gave joe in the first half of the fight. end of

---

And Hopkins couldn't beat Calzaghe on Calzaghe's very worst night! Swings and round abouts old bean.

big h, calzaghe looked bad because hopkins made him look bad, just like hopkins said he would. if bernard stood there like lacy just getting hit joe would have looked a million dollers, b-hop is just to good a operater to let that happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NUCLEAR BULL

big h, calzaghe looked bad because hopkins made him look bad, just like hopkins said he would. if bernard stood there like lacy just getting hit joe would have looked a million dollers, b-hop is just to good a operater to let that happen

---

Agree to an extent, but being a good operator doesn't make up with his lack of throwing punches, you cannot win world title fights when you are as inactive as he was

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Hopkins is in complete denial and would be wise to eat a little humble pie once in a while. He is never able to give any credit to his opponents.

Calzaghe was getting stronger and stronger and took each of the championship rounds. Thats how you take a fight. You outland your opponent by 100 punches and you generally win a fight. You dont win a fight on a single knockdown and a few hard rights.

Why does the challenger need to win emphatically? Are you telling me that if a judge scores it by a round to Calzaghe then he/she should give the fight to Hopkins because Calzaghe didnt win it emphatically on that judges scorecard? Thats some skewed logic. As for Hopkins talking about if he went to Wales and performed like JC...well that sounds completely muddled up.

Get over it.....Hopkins lost. :rolleyes:

---

Give me a break, no way did Calzaghe outland Hopkins by 100 punches. The rule has always been that challenger should have to win rounds decisively... Mayweather an undefeated champion had to go up and beat Oscar decisively in rounds in order to win... that was a decisive win that got a split decision. B-Hop vs Calzaghe should have gone to B-Hop. As for not winning on a knockdown and a few hard rights, you also shouldn't win by flurrying and missing almost every punch you throw.

Also this wasn't Calzaghe's worst night, I've been saying earlier that movement would always give Calzaghe fits, and that B-Hop would likely lose, but Calzaghe would have a tough time finding Bernard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Give me a break, no way did Calzaghe outland Hopkins by 100 punches. The rule has always been that challenger should have to win rounds decisively... Mayweather an undefeated champion had to go up and beat Oscar decisively in rounds in order to win... that was a decisive win that got a split decision. B-Hop vs Calzaghe should have gone to B-Hop.

---

He did outland Hopkins by around 100 punches. Just because almost all of them had no stank on em doesn't matter - a touch counts just as much as a sledgehammer. Otherwise, how are you going to enforce a minimum power requirement? I mean, are you going to break the action and somehow measure just how much impact was on each punch? Calzaghe won rounds by accumulating punches - and that was decisive after the halfway mark.

Also, Mayweather/ODLH wasn't a decisive win for me, either. I had Floyd winning by a couple of rounds, but decisive? It was a close fight, and I had no problem with a split decision - just like in this fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

As for not winning on a knockdown and a few hard rights, you also shouldn't win by flurrying and missing almost every punch you throw.

---

So neither guy should have won?

I know i wont have many people agreeing with me but i just have to say that Joe is one of the most overrated fighters in recent times. And i say this not being a Hopkins fan. All this bs about Joe "landing" all these punches cracks me up. The man pitter patters throughout the fight with nearly all of his punches not landing cleanly nor being effective. Clearly Hopkins got tired towards the end of the fight. Clearly Hopkins relies almost exclusively on one punch (the straight right). Clearly Hopkins didn't dominate this fight. That all being said...for all of his inactivity...he landed the cleaner, more effective punches. I don't care if Calzaghe throws a million punches in a fight...if most of them don't land or are not effective....it doesn't mean anything. I only wish Roy Jones fought him in his prime...and severely exposed him.

Just because the punches don't land with significant force doesn't mean they don't count!

I agree, to some extent - but the rules are what they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

Just because the punches don't land with significant force doesn't mean they don't count!

I agree, to some extent - but the rules are what they are.

---

I am not saying punches always have to be power punches...but just because Joe looks busy...it doesn't mean he is landing punches. He would throw flurries...but nearly all of his punches would miss or be completely ineffective.

all of a sudden someone who questions the intentions of a judge is making up conspiracy theories?


like nevada hasnt had many shady decisions?



giampa himself has had quite a few

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NUCLEAR BULL

big h, calzaghe looked bad because hopkins made him look bad, just like hopkins said he would. if bernard stood there like lacy just getting hit joe would have looked a million dollers, b-hop is just to good a operater to let that happen

---

Agree to an extent, but being a good operator doesn't make up with his lack of throwing punches, you cannot win world title fights when you are as inactive as he was

---

yes big h, but for a man who was inactive the ststs show he threw 450 punches whis isn't bad considering. the highly rated roy jones didn't throw many punches even in his prime but was always consider a great. its just a matter of weather you like a fighter or not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

Just because the punches don't land with significant force doesn't mean they don't count!

I agree, to some extent - but the rules are what they are.

---

And that is exactly where you get outrageous scores from some poor Judges .
They still score the same as in amature bouts.
This is pro boxing glances and touches shouldnt be counted only square lands that have at least some effect.

Its a fight not a dance.

Yet If someone is such a great defensive fighter that they can out manover another man consistently so that the punches he receives are lighter than what he delivers in return, there should be a single point system rewarded on the end of a round for that too.