Calzaghe Looked Ordinary? Are You Guys Nuts?

I wouldn't say ordinary, but he didn't look his best. I don't think anyone has looked great against Hopkins, so Calzaghe shouldn't get too much heat for B-Hop's style of fight. My only complaint about Calzaghe is his technique when he throws those flurries otherwise he's a slick boxer with fast hands and great defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LondonBB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE THIRD MAN

I selected Joe to win by UD against Hopkins but i was far from impressed, Hopkins is a difficult opponent and i really don't like watching him much. Jones Jr will be a different story and Joe will have to improve on that performance to beat RJJ. I give Jones a good chance of upsetting Calzaghe.

---

I agree.

But if i look at the fights all great fighters have had against nard, they all end up looking either crap wins or getting ko'd or lose themselves.

RJJ didnt beat him comdortably and taylor's wins were v controversial (exceptionally so the first time)...coupled that bernard easily beat winky and totally shut out tarver, it kind of puts it in perspective.

JC vs RJJ will be a different style of fight (thankfully), 2 styles where fireworks are garunteed when they clash.

Id say that if RJJ is totally up for this one then it will be very difficult for calzaghe. If RJJ is how he is in his prime then id favour him to win, but i dont think either fighter is in their prime anymore sadly (i think we saw prime RJJ 6 years back and prime JC 2 years back)...but its only 1 fight. Calzaghe will have to be on great form to beat jones who will obviously be very 'up for it'.

I'll give it 60/40 to calzaghe in this case. The 40% to jones because jones can catch calzaghe and cause him problems aswell, wouldnt come as a shock if jones won, but im favouring joe.

Hopkins proved by his close loss to joe that he is a great boxer, and still at 43 a great athlete and a sure hall of famer.

---

Roy didn't beat who comfortably? IF your tlaking about Bernard HOpkins he was so sure he was going to win that he gave away the last two roudns to protect his hand, and he still won 116-112, and thus he wanted to it probably owuld have been 118-110

---

heh your gonna hate me , but I scored that RJJ fight for B-Hop, go figure ;)

Nope, i'm not nuts, not today anyway. I watched the fight again and no doubt Hopkins style made Calzaghe look ordinary in this fight but i also think Joe is ordinary anyway, his win against Kessler certainly impressed me but i would like to see him do it again and not fight these old well past there best legends. Jones jr will give Calzaghe a tough time but expect JC to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bx730NY

I can't believe how delirious Bernard and some of you guys are. That fight wasn't even close and would have been even worse for hopkins had he not faked getting hit low and took the 5 minute break.

He was being dominated in every aspect of the game and as usual, resorted to his dirty tactics. Imagine if the ref would have done his job how the scores would have really looked. He got away with murder last night and is the biggest sore loser in boxing.

He consistently hit one or two low blows on the break, headbutted, faked like he got hit low, turned Joe around and hit him from behind and held on just to try to make it close.

If anything, it just shows how great of a fighter Joe is for not loosing his cool and still dominating him despite getting no help from the ref.

Joe Calzaghe P4P #1 fighter in the WORLD!!!

---

I agree with everything here, except for the last line. Calzaghe clearly won the fight. No one has ever looked good against Hopkins, so just winning the fight is impressive enough.

---

Roy looked way better against Hopkins, Also even Winky looked better, didn't take the big punches Calzaghe did, he landed much more solid punches on Hopkins.... overall regardless of scorecards I felt Winky put on a better performance against B-Hop in terms of fighting his style and landing the punches cleanly.

---

When did I ever say that Calzaghe looked better against Hopkins than Roy did?

I simply said that no one has ever looked good against Hopkins. Roy beat Hopkins, he beat him more clearly than Calzaghe did, but he didn't look impressive. Hopkins' style doesn't allow you to show off your skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unknowndonor

All this fuss about Cortez not letting Hatton hold and hit. The ref could have left, and the outcome would have been the same. In the post fight interview, Hatton aknowledged that Floyd was extremely better on the inside than what he expected, just because Cortez didn't let Hatton tackle Floyd, doesn't mean he did a bad job. People want to bitch about the ref helped Floyd, and at the same time, they say well, Hatton is not a p4p fighter at 147, call the wahmbulance. Which is it? Either Hatton isn't that good, or Cortez helped Floyd? What a bunch of BS. As for the Joe-BHOP fight, both fighters got away with alot of crap. I don't think Joe Cortez is a great Ref, but I didn't see him favor either fighter. If he called a foul on BHOP, he would have had to call a foul on Joe. He probably should have made a point early with BHOP, but when he didn't, he knew he couldn't fault Joe later. As I said, both fighters got away with stuff, and neither got a point deducted, so it worked out good.

---

The simple fact is that Joe Cortez in the Hopkins fight illustrated that he alters his own judgement in order to facilitate certain boxing personalities.

Let's view the facts.

The very second Hatton attempted to hold Mayweather and rough him up Cortez shouted break and jumped between the fighters.
In the Hopkins fight, Hopkins suceeded in holding onto Calzaghe for long periods of time, uninterrupted by the referee, where he used the head frequently and forced Joe to bend below the waist, for twelve rounds!

The referee is there for a reason, to ensure that there is fair play and to ensure the safety of the fighters.

How can fighters place their trust in a referee who uses completely different rules for certain fighters??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmandonny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unknowndonor

All this fuss about Cortez not letting Hatton hold and hit. The ref could have left, and the outcome would have been the same. In the post fight interview, Hatton aknowledged that Floyd was extremely better on the inside than what he expected, just because Cortez didn't let Hatton tackle Floyd, doesn't mean he did a bad job. People want to bitch about the ref helped Floyd, and at the same time, they say well, Hatton is not a p4p fighter at 147, call the wahmbulance. Which is it? Either Hatton isn't that good, or Cortez helped Floyd? What a bunch of BS. As for the Joe-BHOP fight, both fighters got away with alot of crap. I don't think Joe Cortez is a great Ref, but I didn't see him favor either fighter. If he called a foul on BHOP, he would have had to call a foul on Joe. He probably should have made a point early with BHOP, but when he didn't, he knew he couldn't fault Joe later. As I said, both fighters got away with stuff, and neither got a point deducted, so it worked out good.

---

The simple fact is that Joe Cortez in the Hopkins fight illustrated that he alters his own judgement in order to facilitate certain boxing personalities.

Let's view the facts.

The very second Hatton attempted to hold Mayweather and rough him up Cortez shouted break and jumped between the fighters.
In the Hopkins fight, Hopkins suceeded in holding onto Calzaghe for long periods of time, uninterrupted by the referee, where he used the head frequently and forced Joe to bend below the waist, for twelve rounds!

The referee is there for a reason, to ensure that there is fair play and to ensure the safety of the fighters.

How can fighters place their trust in a referee who uses completely different rules for certain fighters??

---

I think the mistake you're making is portraying Hatton's and Hopkins' tactics as one and the same. They're not.

Hopkins was employing defensive holding for the most part, tying up Calzaghe to prevent Calzaghe from throwing flurries along the ropes.

Hatton doesn't defensively hold, he's more of an offensive wrestler. He tries to barrel into his opponent and wrestle them into the ropes.

As has been said here many times, Hatton fans really need to get over the Cortez thing. Hatton lost to Floyd because Floyd is about 10x the fighter that Hatton is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmandonny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unknowndonor

All this fuss about Cortez not letting Hatton hold and hit. The ref could have left, and the outcome would have been the same. In the post fight interview, Hatton aknowledged that Floyd was extremely better on the inside than what he expected, just because Cortez didn't let Hatton tackle Floyd, doesn't mean he did a bad job. People want to bitch about the ref helped Floyd, and at the same time, they say well, Hatton is not a p4p fighter at 147, call the wahmbulance. Which is it? Either Hatton isn't that good, or Cortez helped Floyd? What a bunch of BS. As for the Joe-BHOP fight, both fighters got away with alot of crap. I don't think Joe Cortez is a great Ref, but I didn't see him favor either fighter. If he called a foul on BHOP, he would have had to call a foul on Joe. He probably should have made a point early with BHOP, but when he didn't, he knew he couldn't fault Joe later. As I said, both fighters got away with stuff, and neither got a point deducted, so it worked out good.

---

The simple fact is that Joe Cortez in the Hopkins fight illustrated that he alters his own judgement in order to facilitate certain boxing personalities.

Let's view the facts.

The very second Hatton attempted to hold Mayweather and rough him up Cortez shouted break and jumped between the fighters.
In the Hopkins fight, Hopkins suceeded in holding onto Calzaghe for long periods of time, uninterrupted by the referee, where he used the head frequently and forced Joe to bend below the waist, for twelve rounds!

The referee is there for a reason, to ensure that there is fair play and to ensure the safety of the fighters.

How can fighters place their trust in a referee who uses completely different rules for certain fighters??

---

I think the mistake you're making is portraying Hatton's and Hopkins' tactics as one and the same. They're not.

Hopkins was employing defensive holding for the most part, tying up Calzaghe to prevent Calzaghe from throwing flurries along the ropes.

Hatton doesn't defensively hold, he's more of an offensive wrestler. He tries to barrel into his opponent and wrestle them into the ropes.

As has been said here many times, Hatton fans really need to get over the Cortez thing. Hatton lost to Floyd because Floyd is about 10x the fighter that Hatton is.

---

Hatton attempts to take away his opponent ability to move and then throws combinations.

Hopkins uses clinches to foul, headbutt and maim his opponents

Which would you allow@?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmandonny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetPea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hitmandonny

The simple fact is that Joe Cortez in the Hopkins fight illustrated that he alters his own judgement in order to facilitate certain boxing personalities.

Let's view the facts.

The very second Hatton attempted to hold Mayweather and rough him up Cortez shouted break and jumped between the fighters.
In the Hopkins fight, Hopkins suceeded in holding onto Calzaghe for long periods of time, uninterrupted by the referee, where he used the head frequently and forced Joe to bend below the waist, for twelve rounds!

The referee is there for a reason, to ensure that there is fair play and to ensure the safety of the fighters.

How can fighters place their trust in a referee who uses completely different rules for certain fighters??

---

I think the mistake you're making is portraying Hatton's and Hopkins' tactics as one and the same. They're not.

Hopkins was employing defensive holding for the most part, tying up Calzaghe to prevent Calzaghe from throwing flurries along the ropes.

Hatton doesn't defensively hold, he's more of an offensive wrestler. He tries to barrel into his opponent and wrestle them into the ropes.

As has been said here many times, Hatton fans really need to get over the Cortez thing. Hatton lost to Floyd because Floyd is about 10x the fighter that Hatton is.

---

Hatton attempts to take away his opponent ability to move and then throws combinations.

Hopkins uses clinches to foul, headbutt and maim his opponents

Which would you allow@?

---

I didn't see any bad headbutts on Saturday night. And exactly what type of maiming was he attempting?

As I said before and I will say again, the fixation that Hatton fans currently have with Cortez is a symptom of denial. Hatton lost because he wasn't good enough to win. The ref didn't knock him out.