-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFH
I find it frusterating when people say things like, "Only a [Calzaghe] hater would score the fight for Hopkins.", or that anyone who scored the fight for Hopkins is "in denial", or Hopkins cheated, or when people bring in all manner of arguments that have nothing do with who actually won the individual rounds etc. People who think Hopkins won have a legitimate point.
No one is saying it was a landslide victory for Hopkins, just that it was a close fight that could've gone either way depending on what you prefer - harder, accurate punches, and defense or aggression and volume.
This Calzaghe-fan inferiority complex some of you have is silly, every fighter has their detractors, and the truly great fighters often have more because at times they can polarize sentiment (ie PBF), but so what? No need to get all pissed off because someone else has a dissenting view about your favorite fighter. It's annoying and it makes it difficult to have a real discussion/debate without getting exasperated. I like Calzaghe, and most of his fans are fine, but some people go on about him like he's being viewed as some kind of neo-Sven Ottke, which is not the case.
PS. I like Calzaghe, I was cheering for Calzaghe in the Hopkins fight and I likely would if they fought again. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time because it was such a close fight.
You judge the fight in a non biased way and your opinion is different from mine that is fine because you have logical points and a clearly judging the fight not the records or who is a legend and so,but alot of people are juding the fight on these silly things and not on the fight also alot of people here are fans and are making silly excuses.
If all people judged on boxing alone i would agree with you but alot do not so they should be told when there points are not valid no?
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
The only reason Hopkins lost the fight was because he decided to throw NO punches for certain blocks of time. If he had just decided to throw a couple more a Hopkins win would've possibly happened. He had opportunities but I feel Hopkins gave it away and
Joe took advantage.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
If Hopkins hadnt taken rounds off he wins
He did,and even though he wasnt being hit in pointing places,Joes work rate made it so the judges had a hard time seeing that.
Almost an object lesson for fighters,whats happening in the ring isnt what the judges are seeing from their angle.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Calzaghe won a scrappy fight clearly .... having had to chase and make the fight nearly all the way thru.
:badass::badass::badass:
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
intoccabile
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
intoccabile
I didn't say i advocate anything. I'm just saying, he does it all the time. And it wasn't cheating an any way. It was exaggerating the truth. He was hit low, it didn't hurt, but he exaggerated it.
When people are hit in the back of the head, even grazed, they always complain and tell the ref.. sometimes making it to be something more than it is.
It's call winning. Some people do whatever it takes to win, bernard is one of them.
If i get hit low, even if it doesnt hurt, and i have a chance to use that against my opponent.. why shouldn't I? That's either a point taken from him, or 5 minutes for me to rest. Bhop is smart.
BHop is smart, but he is also a dirty cheat. And to make excuses for it is a reflection upon yourself. The way you talk, you are nothing but a fan boy yourself. And also a hater.
Didnt you say you saw "no way of seeing how Jones could lose to Calzaghe?" And two days later you remarkably pronounce that Jones Jr is shot. :rolleyes:
Thats some boxing knowledge right there. Amazing insight.
And here you are telling us that BHop would most likely do better in a rematch. Do you really think Calzaghe would go in with exactly the same gameplan as well. Is it really "that simple"? Hopkins throws a bit more and wins? ;D
And you are telling other people they are fanboys?? Wow. :-\:rolleyes:
A hater, how? By stating the obvious? And yes I said there's no way I See jones losing to calzaghe, and stated why. And for a few rounds jones showed exactly what I thought would be the case before succumbing to pressure. So I wasn't entirely wrong at all.
In my prediction, i said if jones doesn't take any rounds off he wins. Just so happends, he took 9 rounds off.
Explain to me how I'm being a fan boy in anyway, please? Everyone on this board has the biggest hard on for Joe Calzaghe for reasons unknown. and when someone states somethign blatantly obvious that just so happends to be "against" your beloved Joe Calzaghe, you guys get offended.
Pull Joes dick out of your mouth and see the facts, please. The facts are EVERY fighter is guilty of doing what it takes to win even if that means stretching the truth. A victory is a victory. Joe should have kept his hands up then hopkins would have never been able to stretch any truths, because there would be nothing to stretch.
and YES it IS that simple. Hopkins throws a bit more and wins. Please, name me one fight where Joe Calzaghe actually fought differently than his usual. He's the same fighter every night. He has a Plan A, and plan A seems to ALWAYS work. Because his Plan A is so good, he never needs a Plan B or C. This is me admitting Joe Calzaghe's greatness.. so explain to me how I'm a fan boy?
But at the same time, without ever needing a Plan B or C, we don't know if he needs one now. If it aint broke, dont fix it. That was bhops mentality for a very long time and obviously he saw that it was broken against Calzaghe, he'd fix it in a rematch.
Calzaghe fought bhop the same way he's fought everyone. He'll most likely come out and implement the same plan the next time because 1. It's the only plan he has. and 2. It worked the first time.. why switch it? This isn't rocket science.
Bhop works a little more, and wins. It's that simple. His defense isn't going to change any. Calzaghe won't do anything different to hit Bernard More. So it really comes down to wether bhop wants to engage a bit more or not.
In another thread you clearly stated that you saw no way Jones Jr. could lose this. By saying that you immediately discredit Calzaghe, and shows you have expectations of Jones Jr that are somewhat disconnected from reality.
Ah, but Jones Jr did manage to take the first round! So even that is a means of you trying to say that you were partly right. Forget the fact that it was whitewash thereafter and Calzaghe won every round. Calzaghe even seemed to let up on Jones in the final 2 rounds. Perhaps showing the respect he and Jones obviously have for one another.
A fan boy is someone who is not able to look at things objectively but will follow a fighter no matter what the facts are. You failed to appreciate Jones Jr's slide. You are a hater of Calzaghe because you failed to see any way Jones could lose to him. I could just call you naive, but I like the term hater more. Much better for bandying around internet forums with machismo aplomb.
Maybe you could pull Hopkins dick out of your mouth yourself. If you cannot appreciate the subtlety in Calzaghes game then you are blind. Watch a few Calzaghe fights and you will see for yourself the different nuances in his style, and the way he adapts to whatever is in front of him. Wasn't pretty but he still went overseas and outworked and outlanded the racist prick who has a dick firmly wedged down your throat. :p
Hopkins is one of the dirtiest and most exhausting boxers to watch. His plan A is to circle. His plan B is to hold. His plan C is to counter and his plan D is to fall on the ground whimpering like a little baby. I am in awe of the legend that is BHop. I am in thrall to the way he can mix up his four extremely varied and intricate plans. And would happily pay 50 dollars to watch him every time. :rolleyes:
The only time Hopkins changed a little was because of Pavlik. Pavliks style that night allowed him to. Hopkins CANNOT fight like that against Calzaghe because if you bring it to Joe, you are going to exhaust yourself and be in for an even longer night. Hopkins best strategy is to alternate plans A to D. At least then he keeps it ugly and doesnt embarrass himself in any way.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Thought Joe just sneaked it on the night. On reflection I think he won more comfortably than that. Close fight, but Calzaghe a clear winner for me.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
hopkins won the fight cause of the knockdown if he didin't calzaghe would of won
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hattonthehammer
Seen the fight 3 times and each time i scored it 115-112 for calzaghe with what should of been a hopkins points deduction for blatant headbutts 3 or 4 times.
Calzaghe came to fight, hopkins came to spoil
Thats as I saw it too bud..
:badass::badass::badass:
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrodub
I am not a fan of calzaghe but he won fair and square bhop resorted to cheating and turned it into a holding match because he could do nothing else this is not how you win this is how you get people to say it was close because no one landed anything thats not a champ in my opinion thats a boring fighter who has a good boxing brain and knows how to survive without getting hurt and not making the other guy look good
Seconded bud:beerchug:
:badass::badass::badass:
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
I think this fight appeals to a matter of taste.
What is better, 1 punch or 5 slaps?
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Of course Joe Calzaghe.
Bernard was winning and outfoxing JC for the first five rounds, then slowed down completely, shot. If he had kept it up he would have definitely taken Joe Calzaghe, but Joe way too fit for him to do so, hes always had outstanding fitness.
If the fight had gone eight or perhaps even ten rounds, or he'd had the lungs of a 30something, Bernard would have won, though, no doubt, he was too good a boxer for Joe. There is no doubt that BHop operates at a higher level of Skill than JC.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Save the time and look on boxrec. They tell you the only winner that really matters
-
Calzaghe won by a mile , Hopkins was trying to slow fight down and be dirty but calzaghe kept the pressure on him well. I love it when disrespectful fighters like Hopkins lose. Same goes to bellew the on sat night when losing to cleverly but FairPlay to bellew he was gracious in defeat unlike Hopkins .
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
naa it was never a win by a mile. It was close, but I wouldnt sat it was a SD. It was a 60:40 UD, if oyu get my meaning.
It was close enough that had Bhop not been unable to match a younger mans pace, he would have won UD.
Its important to realise Bhops limitations, but same time you've got to admit to the rounds JC was getting outclassed as a boxer. Bhop def has more skill, he really showed up Joes limits early on, and its a good thing he retired, he wouldnt have been able to continue a reign when his assets (speed, fitness) were youthful attributes that would be gone in a year or two and his limted skills simply wouldnt be enough. Why doesnt Bernard take a leaf from Joe's page and retire soone or fighting some easy bums, he is going to ruin his body if he keeps pluggin away at the top fighters like this.
pity Bernard had to play such a negative race card, he ruined what he accomplished in that almost Rocky VI style endnig.
-
Well Hopkins defiantly didn't have better skills because speed is the best skill of all as calzaghe proved in the majority of his fights .
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Phillips, speed is never a skill, its an attribute, it can only be increased incrementely, wheras you can learn a hundred new boxing moves that count towards more skills.
good speed with good skill is better than each one alone, thats the best. And if you got bombs too, then your name must be Joe Louis.
but full credit to Joe for outpacing the old man and for not getting intimidated when he was clearly losing the fight to him for five rounds. I'd get well depressed if a grandad was dropping me, so he did well to ignore the shame and shock of being outboxed and stick to the plan.
But why is this poll closed? I wanted to vote my fellow Brit.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Hopkins just didn't do enough to win, he was cruising along at the same work rate throughout and was lucky it was a split decision. The margin could've been wider!
Calzaghe worked harder and the knockdown actually made Calzaghe more focused and he threw more punches and landed more punches. I remember thinking that Hopkins definitely let Calzaghe off the hook after the first round knockdown.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter, he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.
Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Joe all the WAY old man Hopkins got hit in the ball's? some hit;D rolling around on the floor in pain?bit like the Dawson fight a great fighter my:moon-new:
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter,
he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.
Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter but it was clear that the only reason Hopkins lost to Joe was because of his stamina at 43 years old.
A younger Hopkins like the one that fought Trinidad would have more than enough stamina to consistently tag Calzaghe when he came in. He wouldn't just box from the outside either. He would get inside on Joe and do even more damage.
I'm not saying Joe wouldn't have his moments, i just think a younger Hopkins is too well rounded for Calzaghe.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter,
he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.
Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter but it was clear that the only reason Hopkins lost to Joe was because of his stamina at 43 years old.
A younger Hopkins like the one that fought Trinidad would have more than enough stamina to consistently tag Calzaghe when he came in. He wouldn't just box from the outside either. He would get inside on Joe and do even more damage.
I'm not saying Joe wouldn't have his moments, i just think a younger Hopkins is too well rounded for Calzaghe.
Dude, the only reason anyone lost to Joe was stamina and handspeed
just like the only reason anyone lost to mike tyson was power
Its easy to say hopkins would have beaten Joe earlier in his carear, the fact is Joe won the fight against a very good hopkins, also it was his first big fight in america and hopkins had had experience coming out of his ears
if they had fough earlier in their carears and in britain joe might not have had such a bad start and could have won all 12 rounds
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter, he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.
Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.
I agree, 100..
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
I actually completely agree. I really don't see how it was very close. Let's say you think Calzaghe shouldn't get points for his slapping-punching style. Fine. He still outjabbed Hopkins something like 45 to 11. Hopkins only landed 11 jabs the whole fight!
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
I actually completely agree. I really don't see how it was very close. Let's say you think Calzaghe shouldn't get points for his slapping-punching style. Fine. He still outjabbed Hopkins something like 45 to 11. Hopkins only landed 11 jabs the whole fight!
Hopkins has never really been a jabber.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter,
he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.
Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter but it was clear that the only reason Hopkins lost to Joe was because of his stamina at 43 years old.
A younger Hopkins like the one that fought Trinidad would have more than enough stamina to consistently tag Calzaghe when he came in. He wouldn't just box from the outside either. He would get inside on Joe and do even more damage.
I'm not saying Joe wouldn't have his moments, i just think a younger Hopkins is too well rounded for Calzaghe.
Dude, the only reason anyone lost to Joe was stamina and handspeed
just like the only reason anyone lost to mike tyson was power
Its easy to say hopkins would have beaten Joe earlier in his carear, the fact is Joe won the fight against a very good hopkins, also it was his first big fight in america and hopkins had had experience coming out of his ears
if they had fough earlier in their carears and in britain joe might not have had such a bad start and
could have won all 12 rounds
http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-...j-laughing.gif
Thanks for the laugh.
So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0.
I mean there's biased then there's that post above.
It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring.
a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch.
Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage.
Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer.
So if Calzaghe couldn't outwork Hopkins as much as he did in 08 because the younger version had much better stamina, how does Calzaghe actually beat him.
Like you said with your narrow minded opinion, Calzaghe beat everyone because of stamina and hand speed.
That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was.
P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head.
Boxing ain't that simple.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter,
he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.
Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter but it was clear that the only reason Hopkins lost to Joe was because of his stamina at 43 years old.
A younger Hopkins like the one that fought Trinidad would have more than enough stamina to consistently tag Calzaghe when he came in. He wouldn't just box from the outside either. He would get inside on Joe and do even more damage.
I'm not saying Joe wouldn't have his moments, i just think a younger Hopkins is too well rounded for Calzaghe.
Dude, the only reason anyone lost to Joe was stamina and handspeed
just like the only reason anyone lost to mike tyson was power
Its easy to say hopkins would have beaten Joe earlier in his carear, the fact is Joe won the fight against a very good hopkins, also it was his first big fight in america and hopkins had had experience coming out of his ears
if they had fough earlier in their carears and in britain joe might not have had such a bad start and
could have won all 12 rounds
http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-...j-laughing.gif
Thanks for the laugh.
So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0.
I mean there's biased then there's that post above.
It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring.
a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch.
Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage.
Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer.
So if Calzaghe couldn't outwork Hopkins as much as he did in 08 because the younger version had much better stamina, how does Calzaghe actually beat him.
Like you said with your narrow minded opinion, Calzaghe beat everyone because of stamina and hand speed.
That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was.
P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head.
Boxing ain't that simple.
I agree to an extent but remember Joe wasn't a spring chicken when he fought Hopkins either. People forget that.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
I actually completely agree. I really don't see how it was very close. Let's say you think Calzaghe shouldn't get points for his slapping-punching style. Fine. He still outjabbed Hopkins something like 45 to 11. Hopkins only landed 11 jabs the whole fight!
Hopkins has never really been a jabber.
He hasn't been, and you may be right, but consider that he landed almost three times as many jabs against Roy Jones and threw two times the amount as he did against Calzaghe. Against, Pavlik he landed twice as many jabs and threw more than two and half times the amount as he did against Calzaghe. Against Jean Pascal, he landed two times the amount and threw almost twice the amount as he did against Pascal. His accuracy (punches landed versus thrown) was also the worst against Calzaghe of all the above opponents.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FinitoElDinamita
Calzaghe made em look stupid and clearly won.. This should be unanimous. I dont know why anybody would even question this victory in the first place.
This fight really made me respect Cal's mental toughness. Leading up to the bout, Hops was pulling his usual intimidation tactics but it didnt work cuz calzaghe wasn't having none of that shit. He wasn't gonna let this ghetto fabulous get inside his head and good for him..
I love calzaghe for owning this ghetto ignorant man. He just laughed at Hop's foolish comments as any superior man would do. He stood up to the bully and humiliated him ...
What a great fighter Calzaghe was..
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter,
he would have beaten Hopkins from any stage in Hopkins career. Calzaghe got it wrong in the early rounds, but once he figured the old fool out it was a case of coasting it with a little rough and tumble in the second half.
Clear and convincing Calzaghe win.
Calzaghe was an exceptional fighter but it was clear that the only reason Hopkins lost to Joe was because of his stamina at 43 years old.
A younger Hopkins like the one that fought Trinidad would have more than enough stamina to consistently tag Calzaghe when he came in. He wouldn't just box from the outside either. He would get inside on Joe and do even more damage.
I'm not saying Joe wouldn't have his moments, i just think a younger Hopkins is too well rounded for Calzaghe.
Dude, the only reason anyone lost to Joe was stamina and handspeed
just like the only reason anyone lost to mike tyson was power
Its easy to say hopkins would have beaten Joe earlier in his carear, the fact is Joe won the fight against a very good hopkins, also it was his first big fight in america and hopkins had had experience coming out of his ears
if they had fough earlier in their carears and in britain joe might not have had such a bad start and
could have won all 12 rounds
http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-...j-laughing.gif
Thanks for the laugh.
So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0.
I mean there's biased then there's that post above.
It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring.
a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch.
Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage.
Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer.
So if Calzaghe couldn't outwork Hopkins as much as he did in 08 because the younger version had much better stamina, how does Calzaghe actually beat him.
Like you said with your narrow minded opinion, Calzaghe beat everyone because of stamina and hand speed.
That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was.
P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head.
Boxing ain't that simple.
I agree to an extent but remember Joe wasn't a spring chicken when he fought Hopkins either. People forget that.
Calzaghe was 36/37 but he was far closer to his prime than Hopkins was.
I mean he look at his performance against Kessler just before the Hopkins fight. The guy looked amazing.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
The problem with Hopkins and Calzaghe is all their best wins are after their primes. I mean both have ruled weak divisions for most of their best years still have it a toss up if they fought at the same age.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
I have just looked at the punch stats and in every round calzaghe had more punches landed EVERY ROUND. I believe that is how they score a fight. Also someone said that Hopkins didnt have a scratch on him. Just because someone does not look hurt it does not mean they are winning the fight. What do you think would have happened if the fight continued. Calzaghe would have slapped him to death.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leighton
I have just looked at the punch stats and in every round calzaghe had more punches landed EVERY ROUND. I believe that is how they score a fight. Also someone said that Hopkins didnt have a scratch on him. Just because someone does not look hurt it does not mean they are winning the fight. What do you think would have happened if the fight continued. Calzaghe would have slapped him to death.
Exactly. Calzaghe is the only man Hopkins got wrong as an opponent since turning 40. All of his opponents post 40 have had their strengths taken away or else weren't all that hot to begin with. His most common weapon has been the catchweight, the second option has been to fight lower output fighters. With Calzaghe he thought he could catch a man moving up, he got it so, so wrong.
Hopkins is way overrated and gets the sympathy vote because he is old, but he wasn't all that hot in his prime either. I take a number of MW's in history over Hopkins.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leighton
I have just looked at the punch stats and in every round calzaghe had more punches landed EVERY ROUND. I believe that is how they score a fight. Also someone said that Hopkins didnt have a scratch on him. Just because someone does not look hurt it does not mean they are winning the fight. What do you think would have happened if the fight continued. Calzaghe would have slapped him to death.
Exactly. Calzaghe is the only man Hopkins got wrong as an opponent since turning 40. All of his opponents post 40 have had their strengths taken away or else weren't all that hot to begin with. His most common weapon has been the catchweight, the second option has been to fight lower output fighters. With Calzaghe he thought he could catch a man moving up, he got it so, so wrong.
Hopkins is way overrated and gets the sympathy vote because he is old, but he wasn't all that hot in his prime either. I take a number of MW's in history over Hopkins.
These are the truest words ive ever read regarding bernard hopkins. Yes miles, it's hop's age that gains him more recognition and sympathy rathr than by his fighting ability itself. Hopkins is overrated for sure.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
My I just say Hopkins is no boxing God? yes he is in his late 40's, come on people one round of boxing 2or3 right hand's, 4or 5 headbut's lot's of hug's and a bit of rolling around on the floor. Some of you call that boxing ?my:moon-new:
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
My I just say Hopkins is no boxing God? yes he is in his late 40's, come on people one round of boxing 2or3 right hand's, 4or 5 headbut's lot's of hug's and a bit of rolling around on the floor. Some of you call that boxing ?my:moon-new:
No, it's appalling really. The things some people are willing to put up with.
The man should really just retire and more so after last weeks debacle. Just horrible, give it up and count your pennies. Hopkins has become like a corporate banker, he just won't go until you you push him hard enough. Just maybe Chad Dawson did that! :D
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Thanks for the laugh.
So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0. I said could not would, he convincingly won the last 8 in the fight they did have, i was offering another alternative to hopkins would have beaten calazaghi if he was younger
I mean there's biased then there's that post above. Your posts are as biast as mine
It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring. Yes it does, look at the supersix and how the results have gone there, have there been any away victories? home advantage is a big advantage
a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch. Hopkins won the first 4, calazaghi won the last 8, calazaghi fights were often close at the start and people couldnt live with him after the first few, its the way he fights
Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage. A younger calazaghi never got put down, he started to get put over a bit more as his carear progressed, it is unlikely hopkins would have scored the Knock down in a fight earlier in their carears, joe would have settled quicker and wouldnt have taken 4 rounds to get going
Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer. he ouworked everyone else he fought after 4 rounds, why would hopkins have been any different
So if Calzaghe couldn't outwork Hopkins as much as he did in 08 because the younger version had much better stamina, how does Calzaghe actually beat him. See point above
Like you said with your narrow minded opinion, Calzaghe beat everyone because of stamina and hand speed. See points above
That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was. No it doesnt you are right, you brought the stamina issue up, i was just saying this was an massive advantage in all his fights, why would hopkins have been any different.
P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head. Just an example, you said calazaghi only beat hopkins coz of stamina, thats a massive asset he had in all his fights, I only pull lots of women coz im good looking
Boxing ain't that simple.
look man, for some reason a lot of people are bitter about calazaghi beating hopkins and we get all these excuses about age
fact is the biggest injustice in the fight was that it ended as a split descision, i dont know what the score was that went hopkins way but someone gave hopkins at least 6 rounds, which 6 did he win?
that fight is the easiest fight i have ever watched to score
hopkins won the first 4 calazaghi the last 8, clear as day
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Well said, Eric. Calzaghe started slow and then totally took over the fight. The only thing that kept Hopkins half in was by the use of fighting dirty and trying to buy time.
It is silly to argue that Hopkins was just too old and it would have been different if younger because the same thing would have happened. Hopkins has never been able to fight at the pace of someone like Calzaghe and in his own prime was fighting pumped up WW's like Trinidad and DLH. Hopkins has never at any stage in his career held a trump card over someone like Calzaghe.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Thanks for the laugh.
So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0. I said could not would, he convincingly won the last 8 in the fight they did have, i was offering another alternative to hopkins would have beaten calazaghi if he was younger
I mean there's biased then there's that post above. Your posts are as biast as mine
It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring. Yes it does, look at the supersix and how the results have gone there, have there been any away victories? home advantage is a big advantage
a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch. Hopkins won the first 4, calazaghi won the last 8, calazaghi fights were often close at the start and people couldnt live with him after the first few, its the way he fights
Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage. A younger calazaghi never got put down, he started to get put over a bit more as his carear progressed, it is unlikely hopkins would have scored the Knock down in a fight earlier in their carears, joe would have settled quicker and wouldnt have taken 4 rounds to get going
Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer. he ouworked everyone else he fought after 4 rounds, why would hopkins have been any different
So if Calzaghe couldn't outwork Hopkins as much as he did in 08 because the younger version had much better stamina, how does Calzaghe actually beat him. See point above
Like you said with your narrow minded opinion, Calzaghe beat everyone because of stamina and hand speed. See points above
That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was. No it doesnt you are right, you brought the stamina issue up, i was just saying this was an massive advantage in all his fights, why would hopkins have been any different.
P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head. Just an example, you said calazaghi only beat hopkins coz of stamina, thats a massive asset he had in all his fights, I only pull lots of women coz im good looking
Boxing ain't that simple.
look man, for some reason a lot of people are bitter about calazaghi beating hopkins and we get all these excuses about age
fact is the biggest injustice in the fight was that it ended as a split descision, i dont know what the score was that went hopkins way but someone gave hopkins at least 6 rounds, which 6 did he win?
that fight is the easiest fight i have ever watched to score
hopkins won the first 4 calazaghi the last 8, clear as day
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eim6bvhmpx..._scorecard.gif
That's the scorecard. I'm not here to argue about the scores of the actual fight. After the fight i had Hopkins edging it but re watching it as time went on, i thought Calzaghe did enough down the stretch to win.
I'm not bitter about Hopkins losing even though I'm a big fan, i actually like Joe.
We are talking about a fantasy match up where both fighters are in their primes. In a fantasy match up the location is irrelevant but i do see your point in regards to fights in the present.
You wrote that a younger Calzaghe was never put down even though i recall Bryon Mitchell dropped him but that doesn't really back up how Calzaghe beats Hopkins. I listed 3 reasons why a prime Hopkins would be far better than the version Calzaghe beat.
A: Actually threw combinations
B: Could fight inside
C: Had much better stamina
Also include Hopkins skills overall as a fighter and your telling me Calzaghe "simply" outworks him like he did to previous opponents.
A old but good version of Hopkins was able to win rounds and make a close fight with a near prime Calzaghe but a Prime great version of Hopkins wouldn't be able to win even more rounds of a prime Calzaghe.
I can't see it.
I'm not saying Joe wouldn't be competitive because he would. I just think because of reasons above that Hopkins has abit too much for him.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Well said, Eric. Calzaghe started slow and then totally took over the fight. The only thing that kept Hopkins half in was by the use of fighting dirty and trying to buy time.
It is silly to argue that Hopkins was just too old and it would have been different if younger because the same thing would have happened. Hopkins has never been able to fight at the pace of someone like Calzaghe and in his own prime was fighting pumped up WW's like Trinidad and DLH. Hopkins has never at any stage in his career held a trump card over someone like Calzaghe.
Watch this fight and tell me Hopkins couldn't keep up with Calzaghe in the stamina department.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozw7bu0yiWc
Hopkins doesn't have to fight at a Calzaghe pace anyway, if he throws enough to keep Joe backpedaling which a prime Hopkins could do, then he would win.
-
Re: Who won Calzaghe or Hopkins? Vote here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pugilistic
Thanks for the laugh.
So your telling me that Prime for Prime Calzaghe could of beat Hopkins 12 rounds to 0. I said could not would, he convincingly won the last 8 in the fight they did have, i was offering another alternative to hopkins would have beaten calazaghi if he was younger
I mean there's biased then there's that post above. Your posts are as biast as mine
It doesn't make a difference where the fight was staged whether it be in America or Britain. All that matters is how their styles mesh in the ring. Yes it does, look at the supersix and how the results have gone there, have there been any away victories? home advantage is a big advantage
a 43 year old Hopkins was getting the better of Calzaghe in the first four rounds of their fight then he got tired. Calzaghe was then able to leave his mark on the fight by outworking and out landing Hopkins down the stretch. Hopkins won the first 4, calazaghi won the last 8, calazaghi fights were often close at the start and people couldnt live with him after the first few, its the way he fights
Ever since 2005, Hopkins has relied on slowing down the tempo of a fight to win. This version of Hopkins rarely fights on the inside and rarely throw combinations. A younger Hopkins didn't do that. He fought for 12 rounds at a good pace, he would throw combinations on a regular basis and he would get on the inside and do damage. A younger calazaghi never got put down, he started to get put over a bit more as his carear progressed, it is unlikely hopkins would have scored the Knock down in a fight earlier in their carears, joe would have settled quicker and wouldnt have taken 4 rounds to get going
Calzaghe wouldn't be able to outwork Hopkins like he did in 2008 because this Hopkins put in work every round and based on how well a 43 year old Hopkins did for four rounds a younger version would of done it far longer. he ouworked everyone else he fought after 4 rounds, why would hopkins have been any different
So if Calzaghe couldn't outwork Hopkins as much as he did in 08 because the younger version had much better stamina, how does Calzaghe actually beat him. See point above
Like you said with your narrow minded opinion, Calzaghe beat everyone because of stamina and hand speed. See points above
That actually doesn't give enough credit to how good Joe was. No it doesnt you are right, you brought the stamina issue up, i was just saying this was an massive advantage in all his fights, why would hopkins have been any different.
P.S - Tyson didn't beat the majority of his opponents based only on his power. What about his exceptional hand speed, head movement, fast fluent footwork, his conditioning, his ability to put punches together to the body and head. Just an example, you said calazaghi only beat hopkins coz of stamina, thats a massive asset he had in all his fights, I only pull lots of women coz im good looking
Boxing ain't that simple.
look man, for some reason a lot of people are bitter about calazaghi beating hopkins and we get all these excuses about age
fact is the biggest injustice in the fight was that it ended as a split descision, i dont know what the score was that went hopkins way but someone gave hopkins at least 6 rounds, which 6 did he win?
that fight is the easiest fight i have ever watched to score
hopkins won the first 4 calazaghi the last 8, clear as day
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eim6bvhmpx..._scorecard.gif
That's the scorecard. I'm not here to argue about the scores of the actual fight. After the fight i had Hopkins edging it but re watching it as time went on, i thought Calzaghe did enough down the stretch to win.
I'm not bitter about Hopkins losing even though I'm a big fan, i actually like Joe.
We are talking about a fantasy match up where both fighters are in their primes. In a fantasy match up the location is irrelevant but i do see your point in regards to fights in the present.
You wrote that a younger Calzaghe was never put down even though i recall Bryon Mitchell dropped him but that doesn't really back up how Calzaghe beats Hopkins. I listed 3 reasons why a prime Hopkins would be far better than the version Calzaghe beat.
A: Actually threw combinations
B: Could fight inside
C: Had much better stamina
Also include Hopkins skills overall as a fighter and your telling me Calzaghe "simply" outworks him like he did to previous opponents.
A old but good version of Hopkins was able to win rounds and make a close fight with a near prime Calzaghe but a Prime great version of Hopkins wouldn't be able to win even more rounds of a prime Calzaghe.
I can't see it.
I'm not saying Joe wouldn't be competitive because he would. I just think because of reasons above that Hopkins has abit too much for him.
i said earlier in his carear calazaghi didnt get put down, as his carear went on he started to go down a bit more
mitchell was the first to knock him over
IMO a younger hopkins may have faired better in their bout, also a younger calazaghi may have
Also IMO calazaghi may have settled earlier if the fight had been in britain and not given himself as much to do
However, hopkins has had some of his best wins around the time and since the calazaghi fight so he was definately not showing his age
