Printable View
That's 1 - 3 more clean punches than Calzaghe landed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
You mean Hopkins one clean hard punch (well maybe 3) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by PugilisticThe neutrals would remember Calzaghe's epic windmill combos over Hopkins clean hard punches. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
The polls showed a landslide victory for Calzaghe. No neutrals thought Hopkins won that fight (well maybe two or three)
I've seen the fight twice since it air and both times I score it for Hopkins by a point. Calzaghe landed nothing of consequence all night long.
And for the record I am a much bigger fan of Calzaghe than I am of Hopkins.
Hopkins fought to the best of his ability, he even had to pull a few stunts out the bag like crawling round on the floor and screaming like a 2 year old girl;D
Joe fought messy but as the rounds went on he got better, a rematch would have confirmed Joes superiority:)
No doubt. He would have won far more convincingly. Hopkins has only one trick when it comes to a fighter like Calzaghe and Calzaghe had him worked out by the half way mark. It would have been a boring fight again though. :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammerQuote:
Originally Posted by HornfingerBehave, obviously you didn't watch that fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
you dont get on here much nowadays mate do you
slagging hatton off is essential to being a member of the saddos community
its only the few of us that dont have the opinion that hatton was and will always be nothing more than an average fighter!
Like I've said on previous thread I have my own opinion. There didn't used to be so many sheep on here.
And of course a fighter who's only ever been beaten by the 2 best pound for pound fighters on the planet (one of which who is possibly a juicer) was (he should stay retired) average..... :beat: :11fb8:
On the subject of hopkins calzaghe, I thought joe won but IMO it was a very close fight.
Maybe....maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
We will never know though, Joe didn't want none of a rematch. :)
Crap fight all around.Love Hopkins but had him losing by one or two...Joe out hustled him but in no way is a better 'fighter-boxer' than Hopkins.He just had more desire and fire in his gut for it...Hopkins took shit for granted...again.
To be fair, if you were Calzaghe, you know Hopkins was struggling because of all the tricks he tried pulling and you know a rematch would be a one way street, Hopkins just cant handle speed and workrate, he had to run away from Taylor before he got beaten a Third time;DQuote:
Originally Posted by PugilisticMaybe....maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
We will never know though, Joe didn't want none of a rematch. :)
Joe also realised no one would want to watch another boring Hopkins fight consisting of Beranard trying to slow the pace, play the ref and survive, he wanted a few names on his resume before he went, its a shame Frochs craap management didnt move him a bit more, he was offered the calzaghe match but ran, at least there wouldnt be any slight lingering doubts by people who just couldnt apreciate Calazghe, not that I think Froch is all that great but its another up and comer, i cant stand the twaat but fair play to him, just saw him in that dancing shite doing the old bugsy malone "bad guys", I love that song but like "so you wanna be a boxer" more, and Johnny Nelson can move;D
So whats a better win on your resume ? A second win over Bernard Hopkins or a past it Roy Jones ? seeing how your talking about resumes and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossTo be fair, if you were Calzaghe, you know Hopkins was struggling because of all the tricks he tried pulling and you know a rematch would be a one way street, Hopkins just cant handle speed and workrate, he had to run away from Taylor before he got beaten a Third time;DQuote:
Originally Posted by PugilisticMaybe....maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
We will never know though, Joe didn't want none of a rematch. :)
Joe also realised no one would want to watch another boring Hopkins fight consisting of Beranard trying to slow the pace, play the ref and survive, he wanted a few names on his resume before he went, its a shame Frochs craap management didnt move him a bit more, he was offered the calzaghe match but ran, at least there wouldnt be any slight lingering doubts by people who just couldnt apreciate Calazghe, not that I think Froch is all that great but its another up and comer, i cant stand the twaat but fair play to him, just saw him in that dancing shite doing the old bugsy malone "bad guys", I love that song but like "so you wanna be a boxer" more, and Johnny Nelson can move;D
At the end of the day, he beat Hopkins and Jones;)
I dont rate either of them, Hopkins ran a few years ago when offered the fight and Jones would never have lived with calzaghes speed and work rate or his power when he was younger;D
I agree :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Jokes aside, How can you blame either Hopkins or Jones for not fighting Calzaghe back then...... Calzaghe at the time was all risk and no reward.
Hopkins was smarter to fight him later on in his career where Joe was far more recognized around the boxing world and actually had some good wins on his resume.
Judging by the smiley after the rest of your post, you don't like Joe's chances against a Prime Jones and i agree.
To give Calzaghe some credit though, I think he causes Roy alot more trouble than most think because of his southpaw style (Roy struggled abit with them), speed and workrate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugilistic
Thanks Pugilistic, it took 14 posts from the start of this thread for me to actually read something that wasn't Joe Calslappy biase. (apart from LanceUppercuts post too)
I agree with you...A difficult to score fight. I prefered Hopkins in the fight, not that it was pretty..but compared to Calzaghes sloppy punches that didn't land much I gave Hopkins the nod after watching it.
Everyone at my boxing gym had Hopkins winning too.
Calzaghe won this fight fair and square but it was by no means a landslide. Like Jones-Hopkins in '94, Jones clearly won but it wasn't a blowout.
You can tell how much Beranrd was struggling and just trying to stay in the fight by all the bullshiit, cry baby, biitch girl shiit he did, rolling round on the floor, he didnt want a fight, he skirted, grabbed and side stepped his way to a loss;)
Even Jones couldnt push Hopkins that far and before you say "Hopkins was old" so was Joe, if it had happened 10 years before, the same thing would have happened, Hopkins wouldnt have had a clue, he thinks his crappy tactics will make people stutter and hesitate, he didnt bank on someone who can throw non stop punches for 12 rounds, a younger Calzaghe would have had the same workrate but more power.
Calzaghe beat Hopkins imo and strangely I think Calzaghe was more past his best than Hopkins was (vis a vis Hopkins fight vs Pavlik) having said that I definitely favour prime Hopkins to beat prime Calzaghe and I would heavily favour prime Jones to beat prime Calzaghe
Calzaghe landed 232 from 707 punches thrown.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHThat's 1 - 3 more clean punches than Calzaghe landed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterYou mean Hopkins one clean hard punch (well maybe 3) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugilistic
The polls showed a landslide victory for Calzaghe. No neutrals thought Hopkins won that fight (well maybe two or three)
Those 200+ punches weren't earth shattering, but were certainly effective enough to make Hopkins disgrace himself with a despicable act of cheating.
I hope the guys at your gym can fight better than they score?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlthugzQuote:
Originally Posted by Pugilistic
Thanks Pugilistic, it took 14 posts from the start of this thread for me to actually read something that wasn't Joe Calslappy biase. (apart from LanceUppercuts post too)
I agree with you...A difficult to score fight. I prefered Hopkins in the fight, not that it was pretty..but compared to Calzaghes sloppy punches that didn't land much I gave Hopkins the nod after watching it.
Everyone at my boxing gym had Hopkins winning too.
I trust my own eyes more than I will ever trust Compubox and Calzaghe didn't land anything of consequence all fight long.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterCalzaghe landed 232 from 707 punches thrown.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHThat's 1 - 3 more clean punches than Calzaghe landed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Those 200+ punches weren't earth shattering, but were certainly effective enough to make Hopkins disgrace himself with a despicable act of cheating.
I dislike Hopkins, I like Calzaghe and I was cheering for him, but I felt that he lost the fight by one point. I've watched it twice since it aired and both times I have come up with the same conclusion. It was so close that I don't really have a problem with Calzaghe getting the decision, but in my mind Hopkins won the fight. It was ugly, dirty, and boring, but he won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI trust my own eyes more than I will ever trust Compubox and Calzaghe didn't land anything of consequence all fight long.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterCalzaghe landed 232 from 707 punches thrown.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Those 200+ punches weren't earth shattering, but were certainly effective enough to make Hopkins disgrace himself with a despicable act of cheating.
I dislike Hopkins, I like Calzaghe and I was cheering for him, but I felt that he lost the fight by one point. I've watched it twice since it aired and both times I have come up with the same conclusion. It was so close that I don't really have a problem with Calzaghe getting the decision, but in my mind Hopkins won the fight. It was ugly, dirty, and boring, but he won.
Thankfully your opinion is shared with just a small minority.
I think most people thought it was a close-ish fight with Cazlaghe a clear winner - that's what the polls seem to indicate anyway.
:cwm13: Shite...I'm just glad they did not have that rematch.Sort of ironic how Calzaghe spoiled a talked about fight for both by beating the other,well for awhile.Jones win was a drubbing...Hopkins win was very close,but a win none the less.I do think Joe did his fair share of disrespecting the ring acting a fool and pseudo boffing Jones in the keister though.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterQuote:
Originally Posted by CFHI trust my own eyes more than I will ever trust Compubox and Calzaghe didn't land anything of consequence all fight long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I dislike Hopkins, I like Calzaghe and I was cheering for him, but I felt that he lost the fight by one point. I've watched it twice since it aired and both times I have come up with the same conclusion. It was so close that I don't really have a problem with Calzaghe getting the decision, but in my mind Hopkins won the fight. It was ugly, dirty, and boring, but he won.
Thankfully your opinion is shared with just a small minority.
I think most people thought it was a close-ish fight with Cazlaghe a clear winner - that's what the polls seem to indicate anyway.
I tried to find the poll that was made after the fight, but it must have been lost when the board switched servers. I seem to remember it was about 2:1 in favor of Calzaghe winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterQuote:
Originally Posted by CFHI trust my own eyes more than I will ever trust Compubox and Calzaghe didn't land anything of consequence all fight long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I dislike Hopkins, I like Calzaghe and I was cheering for him, but I felt that he lost the fight by one point. I've watched it twice since it aired and both times I have come up with the same conclusion. It was so close that I don't really have a problem with Calzaghe getting the decision, but in my mind Hopkins won the fight. It was ugly, dirty, and boring, but he won.
Thankfully your opinion is shared with just a small minority.
I think most people thought it was a close-ish fight with Cazlaghe a clear winner - that's what the polls seem to indicate anyway.
I had it as a close fight. Calzaghe by a point... Hopkins is a dirty fighter, but he deserves credit for his craftyness!
Funny that, the first thing we were taught was that scoring shots are with the front of the glove...not by slapping your opponent with the inside of the glove... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterI hope the guys at your gym can fight better than they score?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlthugzQuote:
Originally Posted by Pugilistic
Thanks Pugilistic, it took 14 posts from the start of this thread for me to actually read something that wasn't Joe Calslappy biase. (apart from LanceUppercuts post too)
I agree with you...A difficult to score fight. I prefered Hopkins in the fight, not that it was pretty..but compared to Calzaghes sloppy punches that didn't land much I gave Hopkins the nod after watching it.
Everyone at my boxing gym had Hopkins winning too.
Ooooh! :oooh:
what about a head butt? is that a scoring shot? if not someone needs to tell old man B-HopQuote:
Originally Posted by AlthugzFunny that, the first thing we were taught was that scoring shots are with the front of the glove...not by slapping your opponent with the inside of the glove... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterI hope the guys at your gym can fight better than they score?Quote:
Originally Posted by Althugz
slaIt was a rubbish fight and i don't like either boxer, the last time i watched it i had B-Hop winning by one point. Based on the knockdown and the cleaner more effective punches.
I have no idea where these supposedly 200+ landed punches, from Joe Calzaghe come from. Because i see mostly slapping shots hitting arms and gloves. And mostly grazing shots.
But then again B-Hop should of engaged more, and made more of his lead early on. So he has no one to blame but himself that he lost the decision, and its the same reason he lost both Jermain Taylor fights, because he simply didn't do enough work.
And its the same with the RJJ loss back in 93, he was far too cautious even with jabbing. And he didn't want to take any risks, at B-Hop's best like against Glen Johnson, Felix Trinidad, when he mixed aggression with great boxing skills, i believe he is better than Joe Calzaghe.
But either way i don't really care who deserved to win the fight, because i have no real time for either boxer. And it was an awful fight.
Here's a poll (i'm certain there were much more voters than this in the original one).Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI tried to find the poll that was made after the fight, but it must have been lost when the board switched servers. I seem to remember it was about 2:1 in favor of Calzaghe winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterQuote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Thankfully your opinion is shared with just a small minority.
I think most people thought it was a close-ish fight with Cazlaghe a clear winner - that's what the polls seem to indicate anyway.
Calzaghe - 37 votes 69.81%
Hopkins - 16 votes 30.19%
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...won-fight.html
The big sites (eastside, BS, and the boxing news sites) had hundreds of voters in their polls with similar percentages - Calzaghe 70% Hopkins 30%.
I think it's a really easy fight to score:
B-Hop won the first 4 rounds, with a 10-8 in the first, JC won rounds 5 -12
115- 113 Calzaghe
Simples :cool:
Calzaghe won the fight, it was horrible to watch but Calzaghe edged it. You cant win a fight by not going forward, Hopkins was too defensive for my liking. If Calzaghe wouldnt have forced the action there wouldnt have been a fight. He landed the more punches and set the pace of the fight.
They both fought dirty that fight, and HOpkins should have won it by a point. I can't believe how many punches compubox "Amassed" for Joe because he was hardly landing anything cleanly. Hopkins won because he landed the cleaner harder shots, and I agree it was disgraceful what he did with the low blow, but after that he controlled the fight once again showing that Calzaghe only won any of the rounds because of Hopkins' age more than anything. Hopkins was clearly the better fighter.
Can someone please confirm if this is a true statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rascal
"You cant win a fight by not going forward"
I wouldn't think that it's true but someone tell me if I'm wrong.
In my eyes you wont win a fight by not going forward and hanging back for 12 rounds, period. There aint a right or wrong answer, its your own opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjaspy3Can someone please confirm if this is a true statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rascal
"You cant win a fight by not going forward"
I wouldn't think that it's true but someone tell me if I'm wrong.
Plenty of people have won fights without taking a forward step, but they actually threw punches whilst moving backwards, in this fight Hopkins didn't
Cant argue with that. But if I was a judge I'ld be scoring rounds for fighters going forward, attempting to force the action thus scoring as well. I just dont know how a fighter as negative as Hopkins was here could win.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
I've watched & scored it 3 times & every time for Hopkins. 1st time it was 114-113 in his favour, 2nd 115-112 & the last was 114-113 again. But I was glad he lost because Hopkins was a complete prick before the fight. I have to say on the subject of who people thought won it, with almost everyone I talked to at my gym, I'd say about 80-90% of those said they thought Hopkins won it.
But ignoring that anyone who says 'Hopkins was robbed' or 'Calzaghe won it clearly' is living in lala-land. It was a close fight that could have gone either way... as the scorecards did.
Yeh in this case I totally agree mate, but there are other fighters who I admired even though they were on the backfoot, i.e Whitaker. He was on the end of some very dodgy decisions for the exact reason that some jusges will always score for the agressor.Quote:
Originally Posted by The RascalCant argue with that. But if I was a judge I'ld be scoring rounds for fighters going forward, attempting to force the action thus scoring as well. I just dont know how a fighter as negative as Hopkins was here could win.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG H