-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Poor
Come on VD... Two glaring errors already.
1) You set the bar far too low... You talk about shit like having sex once or having a job as if they are huge achievements. I wonder why? ??? Wrong on all counts anyway I'm afraid, except the kids... and whilst I'm happy you're proud of your kids the fact that you've procreated isn't really something you get to hang over people's head's... :rolleyes:
Although I did find the the job comment funny... work and business keep me too busy to be on here even half as much as you. :-X
2) again we see the typical Velvet Denise stab in the dark attempt at insults - Make some shit up about somebody you know little to nothing about and hope to god that it's actually true so it will offend them.
As usual it failed. :)
I don't recall ever seeing your picture in your avatar, just that childish, tweenager thug shit you have now. That being said maybe you did... But unlike you, obsessing over the history of somebody else's avatar seems a bit weird to me. Never seen your picture and frankly I'm glad I haven't. I've already seen the Elephant man once and that was enough.
I thought you'd relish the opportunity to get off topic. The mere concept that Calzaghe possibly didn't pursue a rematch because he felt that he'd won, or might not care about some people having doubts as long as he didn't doubt himself seems to be too much for your tiny mind to comprehend... as does the fact (those things you only deal in, if by only you mean "with a large helping of my personal opinion and speculations) that he was never penalised in 46 pro fights for hitting with the thumb or cuff.
Not once, several fights, different judges, different referees... must be a HUGE conspiracy?
Violent "I only deal in fiction and opinion" Denise
Like I said. Nothing but a damn mindless sheep. Can't you for once have your own damn opinion? Stop being a follower for once in that sad, pathetic thing you call a life. It dosn't matter what has been allowed. According to the rules of boxing slapping with an open hand is illegal. That's a fact not an opinion, stupid. Or am I lying? In order to keep you from ducking another question yet again, I'm asking you point blank. Is slapping with an open hand a foul, yes or no? It's not a trick question. And I don't need no lame ass essay on what others think about it. It's a simple yes or no question. Now if your ignorant ass doesn't know than just say so. Trust me it won't shock anybody
I do find it funny how you state that you're so busy and can't be here as much as you want yet still manage to post over 9,000 times.
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
My god... do you actually have the ability to comprehend anything?! The fail is starting to out weight the amusement. You're so dumb it's getting painful.
I never said I couldn't be on here as much as I wanted... :vd: just that I found it amusing that you felt in a position to accuse me of being unemployed, despite the fact that you've been here for less time than I have and posted something like 6000 times more. Then there's the amount of time you've spent logged on here, which I'd wager is a lot more than me. There's a 'time online' thread in the hidden boards if you feel the need to compare.
Back on subject (again :rolleyes:) -
I'm not sure why you want me to regurgitate the queensbury rules back to you. You can't hit with the thumb or inside of the glove. That's a fact, nobody is disputing what the rules say you moron (again, you seem to lack the ability to understand what is being said? ???). What is just mere opinion though is your assessment that Calzaghe prominently hits with the inside of his glove.
Wrong
He hits with the target area of the glove... the problem is that he doesn't turn his punches over - which isn't illegal. It's just not a textbook way to throw a punch and something he started doing to protect his bad hands as it places less stress on the joints, at the sacrifice of power.
This may confuse those ignorant of boxing, biased or simply unobservant I guess, but I can't help you there... so I won't worry about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9SfWjk00cs
It's easy for you to cry 'sheep sheep' over and over again, but the facts remain - Calzaghe has never once been penalised for hitting with the inside of the glove. You cannot dispute that. Unless there has been a massive conspiracy going on for DECADES among st all of the organizations that Calzaghe has boxed for it would seem that your opinion has little backing it other than being a hater.
The facts simply just don't support your opinion of him hitting with the inside of the glove all the time. Which is strange seeing as how 'you only deal in fact' :rolleyes:
Hopkins has made a career of twisting or flat out breaking the rules... he used his head about as much as his fists and the fight against Calzaghe was no different. Strangely you don't seem to be complaining about that though. I can't think why? Is it jingoism or fanboyness? which one?
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
My god... do you actually have the ability to comprehend anything?! The fail is starting to out weight the amusement. You're so dumb it's getting painful.
I never said I couldn't be on here as much as I wanted... :vd: just that I found it amusing that you felt in a position to accuse me of being unemployed, despite the fact that you've been here for less time than I have and posted something like 6000 times more. Then there's the amount of time you've spent logged on here, which I'd wager is a
lot more than me. There's a 'time online' thread in the hidden boards if you feel the need to compare.
Back on subject (again :rolleyes:) -
I'm not sure why you want me to regurgitate the queensbury rules back to you. You can't hit with the thumb or inside of the glove. That's a fact, nobody is disputing what the rules say you moron (again, you seem to lack the ability to understand what is being said? ???). What is just mere
opinion though is your assessment that Calzaghe prominently hits with the inside of his glove.
Wrong
He hits with the target area of the glove... the problem is that he doesn't turn his punches over - which isn't illegal. It's just not a textbook way to throw a punch and something he started doing to protect his bad hands as it places less stress on the joints, at the sacrifice of power.
This may confuse those ignorant of boxing, biased or simply unobservant I guess, but I can't help you there... so I won't worry about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9SfWjk00cs
It's easy for you to cry 'sheep sheep' over and over again, but the facts remain -
Calzaghe has never once been penalised for hitting with the inside of the glove. You cannot dispute that. Unless there has been a massive conspiracy going on for DECADES among st all of the organizations that Calzaghe has boxed for it would seem that your opinion has little backing it other than being a hater.
The
facts simply just don't support your opinion of him hitting with the inside of the glove all the time. Which is strange seeing as how 'you only deal in fact' :rolleyes:
Hopkins has made a career of twisting or flat out breaking the rules... he used his head about as much as his fists and the fight against Calzaghe was no different. Strangely you don't seem to be complaining about that though. I can't think why? Is it jingoism or fanboyness? which one?
Now I feel bad. I realize now that I was way out of line when I called you a mindless sheep. There was no reason for me to insult the sheep like that. You ain't no sheep. Sheep is a fucking Mensa member when compared to you. Of course Calzaghe was never penalized a point. Why the fuck you think he spent damn near his whole career fighting at home? Think about it, stupid. I would tell you to read between the lines but reading is already a problem for you. How many champions have there been from Wales prior to Calzaghe? About 7, 8 maybe? 10 if you include the garbage that is Gavin Rees and The Human highlight knock out by machine Enzo Maccarinelli that managed to win titles during or after Calzaghe won his. Out of those champions how many were actually good? Not many. 2 of there best ones (the Great Jimmy Wilde and the not as great Freddie Welsh) were from early 1900. The rest were a bunch of barely mediocre fighters who were hard to get behind. Seriously who really gave a fuck about Robbie Regan, Howard Winstone or Barry Jones? So desperate for a good fighter they actually tried to make it seem like Steve Robinson was one just for defending against a couple of scrubs more than once. So when a fighter with talent (which Calzaghe did have) came along there no way in hell they would gonna do something silly like make him fight by the rules. knowing he could do what he wanted, Calzaghe never left home till he was pretty much forced too. The fact that i even had to explain this to you shows how ignorant you really are.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2.../hopcalz-1.gif
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...6/accuracy.gif
Are you seriously gonna tell me those ain't slaps? Those are legal punches to you?
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
My god... do you actually have the ability to comprehend anything?! The fail is starting to out weight the amusement. You're so dumb it's getting painful.
I never said I couldn't be on here as much as I wanted... :vd: just that I found it amusing that you felt in a position to accuse me of being unemployed, despite the fact that you've been here for less time than I have and posted something like 6000 times more. Then there's the amount of time you've spent logged on here, which I'd wager is a
lot more than me. There's a 'time online' thread in the hidden boards if you feel the need to compare.
Back on subject (again :rolleyes:) -
I'm not sure why you want me to regurgitate the queensbury rules back to you. You can't hit with the thumb or inside of the glove. That's a fact, nobody is disputing what the rules say you moron (again, you seem to lack the ability to understand what is being said? ???). What is just mere
opinion though is your assessment that Calzaghe prominently hits with the inside of his glove.
Wrong
He hits with the target area of the glove... the problem is that he doesn't turn his punches over - which isn't illegal. It's just not a textbook way to throw a punch and something he started doing to protect his bad hands as it places less stress on the joints, at the sacrifice of power.
This may confuse those ignorant of boxing, biased or simply unobservant I guess, but I can't help you there... so I won't worry about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9SfWjk00cs
It's easy for you to cry 'sheep sheep' over and over again, but the facts remain -
Calzaghe has never once been penalised for hitting with the inside of the glove. You cannot dispute that. Unless there has been a massive conspiracy going on for DECADES among st all of the organizations that Calzaghe has boxed for it would seem that your opinion has little backing it other than being a hater.
The
facts simply just don't support your opinion of him hitting with the inside of the glove all the time. Which is strange seeing as how 'you only deal in fact' :rolleyes:
Hopkins has made a career of twisting or flat out breaking the rules... he used his head about as much as his fists and the fight against Calzaghe was no different. Strangely you don't seem to be complaining about that though. I can't think why? Is it jingoism or fanboyness? which one?
Now I feel bad. I realize now that I was way out of line when I called you a mindless sheep. There was no reason for me to insult the sheep like that. You ain't no sheep. Sheep is a fucking Mensa member when compared to you. Of course Calzaghe was never penalized a point. Why the fuck you think he spent damn near his whole career fighting at home? Think about it, stupid. I would tell you to read between the lines but reading is already a problem for you. How many champions have there been from Wales prior to Calzaghe? About 7, 8 maybe? 10 if you include the garbage that is Gavin Rees and The Human highlight knock out by machine Enzo Maccarinelli that managed to win titles during or after Calzaghe won his. Out of those champions how many were actually good? Not many. 2 of there best ones (the Great Jimmy Wilde and the not as great Freddie Welsh) were from early 1900. The rest were a bunch of barely mediocre fighters who were hard to get behind. Seriously who really gave a fuck about Robbie Regan, Howard Winstone or Barry Jones? So desperate for a good fighter they actually tried to make it seem like Steve Robinson was one just for defending against a couple of scrubs more than once. So when a fighter with talent (which Calzaghe did have) came along there no way in hell they would gonna do something silly like make him fight by the rules. knowing he could do what he wanted, Calzaghe never left home till he was pretty much forced too. The fact that i even had to explain this to you shows how ignorant you really are.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2.../hopcalz-1.gif
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...6/accuracy.gif
Are you seriously gonna tell me those ain't slaps? Those are legal punches to you?
So Summing it up.
Bhop would have won if they would have counted Calzaghes slaps as slaps.
Calzaghe would have won if they counted Calzaghe punches as punches.
There you go. No need to argue any more. Lets all get along and be friends. YAY :)
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
I do in joy people tiring to rewrite history, correct me if I am Wrong go onto Boxrec then
put Joe Calzaghe's record up read it,what he beat Hopkins.
I gave simple instruction just in case you are thick or may be gormless or a :11fb8:. or for those that
may be mental e challenged.;D
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
nice ledft hand by joe in there
perhaps bernard didnt land all the best punches after all
maybe it looked like he did coz he threw so few :)
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
nice ledft hand by joe in there
perhaps bernard didnt land all the best punches after all
maybe it looked like he did coz he threw so few :)
Lol, Calzaghe didn't land anything at all in that gif:confused:. That little clip basically demonstrates how the whole fight went, kind of funny.
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Left to the ear, bhops head is knocked over to his right shoulder
:)
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Left to the ear, bhops head is knocked over to his right shoulder
:)
That's a wrist to the shoulder, not a left to the ear. He moved his head.
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shza
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Left to the ear, bhops head is knocked over to his right shoulder
:)
That's a wrist to the shoulder, not a left to the ear.
Well what a suprise
Are you a part of the calzaghe didnt land any punches posse?
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shza
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Left to the ear, bhops head is knocked over to his right shoulder
:)
That's a wrist to the shoulder, not a left to the ear.
Well what a suprise
Are you a part of the calzaghe didnt land any punches posse?
I'm talking about that clip. I don't think even you would point to that as his best work.
Over the fight, he landed a very low percentage. High volume, no power, low connect. I've already said I thought Hopkins won the fight by a round, though I don't have a problem with someone giving it to Calzaghe by a point or two. I do have a problem with jokers like you and miles saying this split decision was "clear" and decisive, which it wasn't.
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Its an opinion big man
I thought it was clear calzaghe won the fight, when i heard the verdict i was shocked it was a split decision and even more shocked after that so many people thought hopkins won
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Gandalf: How in the hell do you have Calzaghe winning clearly? Hopkins knocked him down and clearly landed the better punches.
ha
IMO he didnt win clearly but he clearly won :)
In this fight Hopkins, got the knock down he did land may be 4or 5 punches, and that's being kind
in round 10 he was fucked,Calzaghe was getting to him and did he not like it.
He get's a tap in the bollocks, and roll's around the floor like a twat that he is.
As all the record book's will tell Calzaghe, won the fight that's good enough for me no if or but's, you can talk till the cow's come home Calzaghe beat Hopkins:deadnew:
That's not what I saw. I saw Hopkins kicking Calzaghe's ass for the majority of the fight and winning 115-112, 7 rounds to 5. And those record books contain a decision made by judges who aren't any more qualified to judge a fight than you or me. Hell, I could become a judge right now if I wanted too.
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Gandalf: How in the hell do you have Calzaghe winning clearly? Hopkins knocked him down and clearly landed the better punches.
ha
IMO he didnt win clearly but he clearly won :)
In this fight Hopkins, got the knock down he did land may be 4or 5 punches, and that's being kind
in round 10 he was fucked,Calzaghe was getting to him and did he not like it.
He get's a tap in the bollocks, and roll's around the floor like a twat that he is.
As all the record book's will tell Calzaghe, won the fight that's good enough for me no if or but's, you can talk till the cow's come home Calzaghe beat Hopkins:deadnew:
That's not what I saw. I saw Hopkins kicking Calzaghe's ass for the majority of the fight and winning 115-112, 7 rounds to 5. And those record books contain a decision made by judges who aren't any more qualified to judge a fight than you or me. Hell, I could become a judge right now if I wanted too.
Explain : 140+ clinches off Hopkins
: 40 + leading and landing with the head.
Without a point deduction please explain how you get away with this and win a fight. If Calzaghe never had the flash knockdown in round 1. It would of been a clear shut out win.
Round 10, proved it all. Hopkins couldn't deal with Calzaghe, 5 minutes recovery time for a punch that wasn't even below the belt. But as most of you say he's a 'slapper'. A slap in the b*lls. Takes 5 minutes to recover for a so called warrior.
Calzaghe lost 4 rounds in my opinion, and in many's. Unless your day job was a judge for the WBC, WBO, IBF, WBA or any organisation I might listen to your unvalid trivial post. Until then .... ;)
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Gandalf: How in the hell do you have Calzaghe winning clearly? Hopkins knocked him down and clearly landed the better punches.
ha
IMO he didnt win clearly but he clearly won :)
In this fight Hopkins, got the knock down he did land may be 4or 5 punches, and that's being kind
in round 10 he was fucked,Calzaghe was getting to him and did he not like it.
He get's a tap in the bollocks, and roll's around the floor like a twat that he is.
As all the record book's will tell Calzaghe, won the fight that's good enough for me no if or but's, you can talk till the cow's come home Calzaghe beat Hopkins:deadnew:
That's not what I saw. I saw Hopkins kicking Calzaghe's ass for the majority of the fight and winning 115-112, 7 rounds to 5. And those record books contain a decision made by judges who aren't any more qualified to judge a fight than you or me. Hell, I could become a judge right now if I wanted too.
Explain : 140+ clinches off Hopkins
: 40 + leading and landing with the head.
Without a point deduction please explain how you get away with this and win a fight. If Calzaghe never had the flash knockdown in round 1. It would of been a clear shut out win.
Round 10, proved it all. Hopkins couldn't deal with Calzaghe, 5 minutes recovery time for a punch that wasn't even below the belt. But as most of you say he's a 'slapper'. A slap in the b*lls. Takes 5 minutes to recover for a so called warrior.
Calzaghe lost 4 rounds in my opinion, and in many's. Unless your day job was a judge for the WBC, WBO, IBF, WBA or any organisation I might listen to your unvalid trivial post. Until then .... ;)
Don't even get me started with Joe Calslappy. All he did was use slaps to hit Hopkins. Anyone calling those punches doesn't understand boxing. Hopkins knocked Calzaghe on his ass in round 1 and continued to hit him with significant punches throughout. I had Hopkins easily winning 7 rounds. As far your faith in judges is concerned, it is misplaced. What about the judges who scored the Lara-Williams fight or Briggs-Foreman? Do you trust them to make a good decision? Some judges are consistently good, but others are bad. The judges in the Calzaghe fight fall on the bad side. I could do a better job than many judges.
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Gandalf: How in the hell do you have Calzaghe winning clearly? Hopkins knocked him down and clearly landed the better punches.
ha
IMO he didnt win clearly but he clearly won :)
In this fight Hopkins, got the knock down he did land may be 4or 5 punches, and that's being kind
in round 10 he was fucked,Calzaghe was getting to him and did he not like it.
He get's a tap in the bollocks, and roll's around the floor like a twat that he is.
As all the record book's will tell Calzaghe, won the fight that's good enough for me no if or but's, you can talk till the cow's come home Calzaghe beat Hopkins:deadnew:
That's not what I saw. I saw Hopkins kicking Calzaghe's ass for the majority of the fight and winning 115-112, 7 rounds to 5. And those record books contain a decision made by judges who aren't any more qualified to judge a fight than you or me. Hell, I could become a judge right now if I wanted too.
Explain : 140+ clinches off Hopkins
: 40 + leading and landing with the head.
Without a point deduction please explain how you get away with this and win a fight. If Calzaghe never had the flash knockdown in round 1. It would of been a clear shut out win.
Round 10, proved it all. Hopkins couldn't deal with Calzaghe, 5 minutes recovery time for a punch that wasn't even below the belt. But as most of you say he's a 'slapper'. A slap in the b*lls. Takes 5 minutes to recover for a so called warrior.
Calzaghe lost 4 rounds in my opinion, and in many's. Unless your day job was a judge for the WBC, WBO, IBF, WBA or any organisation I might listen to your unvalid trivial post. Until then .... ;)
Don't even get me started with Joe Calslappy. All he did was use slaps to hit Hopkins. Anyone calling those punches doesn't understand boxing. Hopkins knocked Calzaghe on his ass in round 1 and continued to hit him with significant punches throughout. I had Hopkins easily winning 7 rounds. As far your faith in judges is concerned, it is misplaced. What about the judges who scored the Lara-Williams fight or Briggs-Foreman? Do you trust them to make a good decision? Some judges are consistently good, but others are bad. The judges in the Calzaghe fight fall on the bad side. I could do a better job than many judges.
Hopkins got beat , take it on the chin if you can.!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Gandalf: How in the hell do you have Calzaghe winning clearly? Hopkins knocked him down and clearly landed the better punches.
ha
IMO he didnt win clearly but he clearly won :)
In this fight Hopkins, got the knock down he did land may be 4or 5 punches, and that's being kind
in round 10 he was fucked,Calzaghe was getting to him and did he not like it.
He get's a tap in the bollocks, and roll's around the floor like a twat that he is.
As all the record book's will tell Calzaghe, won the fight that's good enough for me no if or but's, you can talk till the cow's come home Calzaghe beat Hopkins:deadnew:
That's not what I saw. I saw Hopkins kicking Calzaghe's ass for the majority of the fight and winning 115-112, 7 rounds to 5. And those record books contain a decision made by judges who aren't any more qualified to judge a fight than you or me. Hell, I could become a judge right now if I wanted too.
Explain : 140+ clinches off Hopkins
: 40 + leading and landing with the head.
Without a point deduction please explain how you get away with this and win a fight. If Calzaghe never had the flash knockdown in round 1. It would of been a clear shut out win.
Round 10, proved it all. Hopkins couldn't deal with Calzaghe, 5 minutes recovery time for a punch that wasn't even below the belt. But as most of you say he's a 'slapper'. A slap in the b*lls. Takes 5 minutes to recover for a so called warrior.
Calzaghe lost 4 rounds in my opinion, and in many's. Unless your day job was a judge for the WBC, WBO, IBF, WBA or any organisation I might listen to your unvalid trivial post. Until then .... ;)
Don't even get me started with Joe Calslappy. All he did was use slaps to hit Hopkins. Anyone calling those punches doesn't understand boxing. Hopkins knocked Calzaghe on his ass in round 1 and continued to hit him with significant punches throughout. I had Hopkins easily winning 7 rounds. As far your faith in judges is concerned, it is misplaced. What about the judges who scored the Lara-Williams fight or Briggs-Foreman? Do you trust them to make a good decision? Some judges are consistently good, but others are bad. The judges in the Calzaghe fight fall on the bad side. I could do a better job than many judges.
You clearly have a keen eye for scoring a fight..I can.respect that so I'll give you a piece of free advice.
Arguing with either or both Dia Bando and Eric is a very fruitless activity. They have far more experience in stupidity than you do so you just can't win especially if you have more than half a brain cell between the ears (which you appear to have)
Let this thread fall quietly into the abyss like Joe Calzaghes career
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Gandalf: How in the hell do you have Calzaghe winning clearly? Hopkins knocked him down and clearly landed the better punches.
ha
IMO he didnt win clearly but he clearly won :)
In this fight Hopkins, got the knock down he did land may be 4or 5 punches, and that's being kind
in round 10 he was fucked,Calzaghe was getting to him and did he not like it.
He get's a tap in the bollocks, and roll's around the floor like a twat that he is.
As all the record book's will tell Calzaghe, won the fight that's good enough for me no if or but's, you can talk till the cow's come home Calzaghe beat Hopkins:deadnew:
That's not what I saw. I saw Hopkins kicking Calzaghe's ass for the majority of the fight and winning 115-112, 7 rounds to 5. And those record books contain a decision made by judges who aren't any more qualified to judge a fight than you or me. Hell, I could become a judge right now if I wanted too.
Explain : 140+ clinches off Hopkins
: 40 + leading and landing with the head.
Without a point deduction please explain how you get away with this and win a fight. If Calzaghe never had the flash knockdown in round 1. It would of been a clear shut out win.
Round 10, proved it all. Hopkins couldn't deal with Calzaghe, 5 minutes recovery time for a punch that wasn't even below the belt. But as most of you say he's a 'slapper'. A slap in the b*lls. Takes 5 minutes to recover for a so called warrior.
Calzaghe lost 4 rounds in my opinion, and in many's. Unless your day job was a judge for the WBC, WBO, IBF, WBA or any organisation I might listen to your unvalid trivial post. Until then .... ;)
Don't even get me started with Joe Calslappy. All he did was use slaps to hit Hopkins. Anyone calling those punches doesn't understand boxing. Hopkins knocked Calzaghe on his ass in round 1 and continued to hit him with significant punches throughout. I had Hopkins easily winning 7 rounds. As far your faith in judges is concerned, it is misplaced. What about the judges who scored the Lara-Williams fight or Briggs-Foreman? Do you trust them to make a good decision? Some judges are consistently good, but others are bad. The judges in the Calzaghe fight fall on the bad side. I could do a better job than many judges.
You clearly have a keen eye for scoring a fight..I can.respect that so I'll give you a piece of free advice.
Arguing with either or both Dia Bando and Eric is a very fruitless activity. They have far more experience in stupidity than you do so you just can't win especially if you have more than half a brain cell between the ears (which you appear to have)
Let this thread fall quietly into the abyss like Joe Calzaghes career
Arguing with me, truth hurt's my friend weather you like Calzaghe, or not Hopkins lost people want to debate it's fine.Many fighter's I like have lost past and present, and will do in the future,it's boxing.
Remember anyone can have a say on the Forum, but when you fighter has lost just take it like a MAN.!
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
My god... do you actually have the ability to comprehend anything?! The fail is starting to out weight the amusement. You're so dumb it's getting painful.
I never said I couldn't be on here as much as I wanted... :vd: just that I found it amusing that you felt in a position to accuse me of being unemployed, despite the fact that you've been here for less time than I have and posted something like 6000 times more. Then there's the amount of time you've spent logged on here, which I'd wager is a
lot more than me. There's a 'time online' thread in the hidden boards if you feel the need to compare.
Back on subject (again :rolleyes:) -
I'm not sure why you want me to regurgitate the queensbury rules back to you. You can't hit with the thumb or inside of the glove. That's a fact, nobody is disputing what the rules say you moron (again, you seem to lack the ability to understand what is being said? ???). What is just mere
opinion though is your assessment that Calzaghe prominently hits with the inside of his glove.
Wrong
He hits with the target area of the glove... the problem is that he doesn't turn his punches over - which isn't illegal. It's just not a textbook way to throw a punch and something he started doing to protect his bad hands as it places less stress on the joints, at the sacrifice of power.
This may confuse those ignorant of boxing, biased or simply unobservant I guess, but I can't help you there... so I won't worry about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9SfWjk00cs
It's easy for you to cry 'sheep sheep' over and over again, but the facts remain -
Calzaghe has never once been penalised for hitting with the inside of the glove. You cannot dispute that. Unless there has been a massive conspiracy going on for DECADES among st all of the organizations that Calzaghe has boxed for it would seem that your opinion has little backing it other than being a hater.
The
facts simply just don't support your opinion of him hitting with the inside of the glove all the time. Which is strange seeing as how 'you only deal in fact' :rolleyes:
Hopkins has made a career of twisting or flat out breaking the rules... he used his head about as much as his fists and the fight against Calzaghe was no different. Strangely you don't seem to be complaining about that though. I can't think why? Is it jingoism or fanboyness? which one?
Now I feel bad. I realize now that I was way out of line when I called you a mindless sheep. There was no reason for me to insult the sheep like that. You ain't no sheep. Sheep is a fucking Mensa member when compared to you. Of course Calzaghe was never penalized a point. Why the fuck you think he spent damn near his whole career fighting at home? Think about it, stupid. I would tell you to read between the lines but reading is already a problem for you. How many champions have there been from Wales prior to Calzaghe? About 7, 8 maybe? 10 if you include the garbage that is Gavin Rees and The Human highlight knock out by machine Enzo Maccarinelli that managed to win titles during or after Calzaghe won his. Out of those champions how many were actually good? Not many. 2 of there best ones (the Great Jimmy Wilde and the not as great Freddie Welsh) were from early 1900. The rest were a bunch of barely mediocre fighters who were hard to get behind. Seriously who really gave a fuck about Robbie Regan, Howard Winstone or Barry Jones? So desperate for a good fighter they actually tried to make it seem like Steve Robinson was one just for defending against a couple of scrubs more than once. So when a fighter with talent (which Calzaghe did have) came along there no way in hell they would gonna do something silly like make him fight by the rules. knowing he could do what he wanted, Calzaghe never left home till he was pretty much forced too. The fact that i even had to explain this to you shows how ignorant you really are.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2.../hopcalz-1.gif
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...6/accuracy.gif
Are you seriously gonna tell me those ain't slaps? Those are legal punches to you?
I see nothing land in the first clip, the second I see 2 on the inside of the glove... the rest are with the scoring area. So clearly Manfredo was robbed and the better man didn't win. :(
Again I notice your reluctance to mention Hopkin's frequent and blatant fouls, but each to their own I guess. :)
It's academic really though, I just wanted to see if you'd still push forward with your argument about the several decade long calzaghe conspiracy. I didn't know that the Welsh even ran boxing in UK... let alone Europe or (later on) America. Now I know. You have opened my eyes. :-X
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Gandalf: How in the hell do you have Calzaghe winning clearly? Hopkins knocked him down and clearly landed the better punches.
ha
IMO he didnt win clearly but he clearly won :)
In this fight Hopkins, got the knock down he did land may be 4or 5 punches, and that's being kind
in round 10 he was fucked,Calzaghe was getting to him and did he not like it.
He get's a tap in the bollocks, and roll's around the floor like a twat that he is.
As all the record book's will tell Calzaghe, won the fight that's good enough for me no if or but's, you can talk till the cow's come home Calzaghe beat Hopkins:deadnew:
That's not what I saw. I saw Hopkins kicking Calzaghe's ass for the majority of the fight and winning 115-112, 7 rounds to 5. And those record books contain a decision made by judges who aren't any more qualified to judge a fight than you or me. Hell, I could become a judge right now if I wanted too.
Explain : 140+ clinches off Hopkins
: 40 + leading and landing with the head.
Without a point deduction please explain how you get away with this and win a fight. If Calzaghe never had the flash knockdown in round 1. It would of been a clear shut out win.
Round 10, proved it all. Hopkins couldn't deal with Calzaghe, 5 minutes recovery time for a punch that wasn't even below the belt. But as most of you say he's a 'slapper'. A slap in the b*lls. Takes 5 minutes to recover for a so called warrior.
Calzaghe lost 4 rounds in my opinion, and in many's. Unless your day job was a judge for the WBC, WBO, IBF, WBA or any organisation I might listen to your unvalid trivial post. Until then .... ;)
Don't even get me started with Joe Calslappy. All he did was use slaps to hit Hopkins. Anyone calling those punches doesn't understand boxing. Hopkins knocked Calzaghe on his ass in round 1 and continued to hit him with significant punches throughout. I had Hopkins easily winning 7 rounds. As far your faith in judges is concerned, it is misplaced. What about the judges who scored the Lara-Williams fight or Briggs-Foreman? Do you trust them to make a good decision? Some judges are consistently good, but others are bad. The judges in the Calzaghe fight fall on the bad side. I could do a better job than many judges.
You clearly have a keen eye for scoring a fight..I can.respect that so I'll give you a piece of free advice.
Arguing with either or both Dia Bando and Eric is a very fruitless activity. They have far more experience in stupidity than you do so you just can't win especially if you have more than half a brain cell between the ears (which you appear to have)
Let this thread fall quietly into the abyss like Joe Calzaghes career
I'll give you advice too
althugz doesnt listen to reason and is regularly out witted on this forum. what he does now is resorts to slagging members of the forum who have out witted him to other members of the forum to try and get them 'on side'
for instance, he is so desperate he even trys to side with someone who starts a post "Don't even get me started with Joe Calslappy" :D
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Plain and simple Joe C. maybe not impressively but he did win. If he came out of retirement to fight Hopkins, B. would send him packing this time.
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
This is one of those fights that baffles me when people try to score it for a guy who threw like 350 punches in 12 rounds (Hopkins). Hopkins was buying all the time he could get in the last 3 rounds by faking the low blows. HBO shows clear replays of shots landing on the belt and some not even landing at all with Hopkins reacting like a maimed duck.
The KD never had joe in trouble. He was off balance, but yes, effectively hit on the chin.
Hopkins is one TOUGH cat. He was obviously out of energy in the last 3 rounds and was buying time. If Joe's punches were so Slappy and soft why did he seem so fatigued and overwhelmed? Why didn't he answer with fists instead of looking right at the judge during the match.
And those low blows... really? The ref never saw them, and was giving Hopkins the benefit of the doubt every time he reacted. Hopkins is crafty. realllly crafty.
Joe has no interest in boxing anymore. He cannot compete on that level anymore, and I wish him well in retirement. He's not going to give us swansong after swansong like RJJ. Hopkins on the other hand has earned a new level of respect from me after the two Pascal fights..
Hopkins prob loses the rematch narrowly
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Gandalf: How in the hell do you have Calzaghe winning clearly? Hopkins knocked him down and clearly landed the better punches.
ha
IMO he didnt win clearly but he clearly won :)
In this fight Hopkins, got the knock down he did land may be 4or 5 punches, and that's being kind
in round 10 he was fucked,Calzaghe was getting to him and did he not like it.
He get's a tap in the bollocks, and roll's around the floor like a twat that he is.
As all the record book's will tell Calzaghe, won the fight that's good enough for me no if or but's, you can talk till the cow's come home Calzaghe beat Hopkins:deadnew:
That's not what I saw. I saw Hopkins kicking Calzaghe's ass for the majority of the fight and winning 115-112, 7 rounds to 5. And those record books contain a decision made by judges who aren't any more qualified to judge a fight than you or me. Hell, I could become a judge right now if I wanted too.
Explain : 140+ clinches off Hopkins
: 40 + leading and landing with the head.
Without a point deduction please explain how you get away with this and win a fight. If Calzaghe never had the flash knockdown in round 1. It would of been a clear shut out win.
Round 10, proved it all. Hopkins couldn't deal with Calzaghe, 5 minutes recovery time for a punch that wasn't even below the belt. But as most of you say he's a 'slapper'. A slap in the b*lls. Takes 5 minutes to recover for a so called warrior.
Calzaghe lost 4 rounds in my opinion, and in many's. Unless your day job was a judge for the WBC, WBO, IBF, WBA or any organisation I might listen to your unvalid trivial post. Until then .... ;)
Don't even get me started with Joe Calslappy. All he did was use slaps to hit Hopkins. Anyone calling those punches doesn't understand boxing. Hopkins knocked Calzaghe on his ass in round 1 and continued to hit him with significant punches throughout. I had Hopkins easily winning 7 rounds. As far your faith in judges is concerned, it is misplaced. What about the judges who scored the Lara-Williams fight or Briggs-Foreman? Do you trust them to make a good decision? Some judges are consistently good, but others are bad. The judges in the Calzaghe fight fall on the bad side. I could do a better job than many judges.
You clearly have a keen eye for scoring a fight..I can.respect that so I'll give you a piece of free advice.
Arguing with either or both Dia Bando and Eric is a very fruitless activity. They have far more experience in stupidity than you do so you just can't win especially if you have more than half a brain cell between the ears (which you appear to have)
Let this thread fall quietly into the abyss like Joe Calzaghes career
Arguing with me, truth hurt's my friend weather you like Calzaghe, or not Hopkins lost people want to debate it's fine.Many fighter's I like have lost past and present, and will do in the future,it's boxing.
Remember anyone can have a say on the Forum, but when you fighter has lost just take it like a MAN.!
I never have problem's with people that criticize, fighter's I like, some people do have a problem if any body criticize there fighter. They do seem to go a bit overboard, it's not unlike the cur dog barking from behind the garden gate, open the gate face to face and he fucking run's off need I say more.!
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
My god... do you actually have the ability to comprehend anything?! The fail is starting to out weight the amusement. You're so dumb it's getting painful.
I never said I couldn't be on here as much as I wanted... :vd: just that I found it amusing that you felt in a position to accuse me of being unemployed, despite the fact that you've been here for less time than I have and posted something like 6000 times more. Then there's the amount of time you've spent logged on here, which I'd wager is a
lot more than me. There's a 'time online' thread in the hidden boards if you feel the need to compare.
Back on subject (again :rolleyes:) -
I'm not sure why you want me to regurgitate the queensbury rules back to you. You can't hit with the thumb or inside of the glove. That's a fact, nobody is disputing what the rules say you moron (again, you seem to lack the ability to understand what is being said? ???). What is just mere
opinion though is your assessment that Calzaghe prominently hits with the inside of his glove.
Wrong
He hits with the target area of the glove... the problem is that he doesn't turn his punches over - which isn't illegal. It's just not a textbook way to throw a punch and something he started doing to protect his bad hands as it places less stress on the joints, at the sacrifice of power.
This may confuse those ignorant of boxing, biased or simply unobservant I guess, but I can't help you there... so I won't worry about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9SfWjk00cs
It's easy for you to cry 'sheep sheep' over and over again, but the facts remain -
Calzaghe has never once been penalised for hitting with the inside of the glove. You cannot dispute that. Unless there has been a massive conspiracy going on for DECADES among st all of the organizations that Calzaghe has boxed for it would seem that your opinion has little backing it other than being a hater.
The
facts simply just don't support your opinion of him hitting with the inside of the glove all the time. Which is strange seeing as how 'you only deal in fact' :rolleyes:
Hopkins has made a career of twisting or flat out breaking the rules... he used his head about as much as his fists and the fight against Calzaghe was no different. Strangely you don't seem to be complaining about that though. I can't think why? Is it jingoism or fanboyness? which one?
Now I feel bad. I realize now that I was way out of line when I called you a mindless sheep. There was no reason for me to insult the sheep like that. You ain't no sheep. Sheep is a fucking Mensa member when compared to you. Of course Calzaghe was never penalized a point. Why the fuck you think he spent damn near his whole career fighting at home? Think about it, stupid. I would tell you to read between the lines but reading is already a problem for you. How many champions have there been from Wales prior to Calzaghe? About 7, 8 maybe? 10 if you include the garbage that is Gavin Rees and The Human highlight knock out by machine Enzo Maccarinelli that managed to win titles during or after Calzaghe won his. Out of those champions how many were actually good? Not many. 2 of there best ones (the Great Jimmy Wilde and the not as great Freddie Welsh) were from early 1900. The rest were a bunch of barely mediocre fighters who were hard to get behind. Seriously who really gave a fuck about Robbie Regan, Howard Winstone or Barry Jones? So desperate for a good fighter they actually tried to make it seem like Steve Robinson was one just for defending against a couple of scrubs more than once. So when a fighter with talent (which Calzaghe did have) came along there no way in hell they would gonna do something silly like make him fight by the rules. knowing he could do what he wanted, Calzaghe never left home till he was pretty much forced too. The fact that i even had to explain this to you shows how ignorant you really are.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2.../hopcalz-1.gif
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...6/accuracy.gif
Are you seriously gonna tell me those ain't slaps? Those are legal punches to you?
I see nothing land in the first clip, the second I see 2 on the inside of the glove... the rest are with the scoring area. So clearly Manfredo was robbed and the better man didn't win. :(
Again I notice your reluctance to mention Hopkin's frequent and blatant fouls, but each to their own I guess. :)
It's academic really though, I just wanted to see if you'd still push forward with your argument about the several decade long calzaghe conspiracy. I didn't know that the Welsh even ran boxing in UK... let alone Europe or (later on) America. Now I know. You have opened my eyes. :-X
Damn. That desperate for some kind of acknowledgement huh? Poor kid. Why bring it up when you already mentioned it like 3 or 4 times? Common sense stupid. You say Hopkins frequently, blatantly fouls his opponents. Ok. Thank you for stating the obvious. What is it you want me to do? Disagree? No. I agree with the fucking statement. Hopkins is a dirty fighter who blatantly fouls his opponents on a regular basis. I'm not like you. I don't treat certain fighters with kid gloves and refuses to see what there really all about. You want me to acknowledge your statement even though I don't dispute it? Pathetic fool
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
No kid gloves? lol in your own words it only took you 3-4 posts to talk about something entirely relevant to your 'argument'.
One fighters fouls get your vagina in a twist whilst another gets a pass unless it is forced out of you, kicking and screaming.
Again we see the great, unbiased venereal posting... Without any double standards of course. :rolleyes:
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
redbaron
Gandalf: How in the hell do you have Calzaghe winning clearly? Hopkins knocked him down and clearly landed the better punches.
ha
IMO he didnt win clearly but he clearly won :)
In this fight Hopkins, got the knock down he did land may be 4or 5 punches, and that's being kind
in round 10 he was fucked,Calzaghe was getting to him and did he not like it.
He get's a tap in the bollocks, and roll's around the floor like a twat that he is.
As all the record book's will tell Calzaghe, won the fight that's good enough for me no if or but's, you can talk till the cow's come home Calzaghe beat Hopkins:deadnew:
That's not what I saw. I saw Hopkins kicking Calzaghe's ass for the majority of the fight and winning 115-112, 7 rounds to 5. And those record books contain a decision made by judges who aren't any more qualified to judge a fight than you or me. Hell, I could become a judge right now if I wanted too.
Explain : 140+ clinches off Hopkins
: 40 + leading and landing with the head.
Without a point deduction please explain how you get away with this and win a fight. If Calzaghe never had the flash knockdown in round 1. It would of been a clear shut out win.
Round 10, proved it all. Hopkins couldn't deal with Calzaghe, 5 minutes recovery time for a punch that wasn't even below the belt. But as most of you say he's a 'slapper'. A slap in the b*lls. Takes 5 minutes to recover for a so called warrior.
Calzaghe lost 4 rounds in my opinion, and in many's. Unless your day job was a judge for the WBC, WBO, IBF, WBA or any organisation I might listen to your unvalid trivial post. Until then .... ;)
Don't even get me started with Joe Calslappy. All he did was use slaps to hit Hopkins. Anyone calling those punches doesn't understand boxing. Hopkins knocked Calzaghe on his ass in round 1 and continued to hit him with significant punches throughout. I had Hopkins easily winning 7 rounds. As far your faith in judges is concerned, it is misplaced. What about the judges who scored the Lara-Williams fight or Briggs-Foreman? Do you trust them to make a good decision? Some judges are consistently good, but others are bad. The judges in the Calzaghe fight fall on the bad side. I could do a better job than many judges.
Kind of funny if you think about it. If they were in a real fight the guy throwing punches would lose by being bitch slapped to death. Doesnt really say much for the skill of boxing.
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
It' 'seem's old Joe leave's a nasty taste in some of your mouth's
O yes Undefeated Undisputed Champion Of The World.? Ha Ha ;D:LOLATYOU:
Easy to be undefeated when you duck most of your dangerous opponents & get decisions which he no way in hell deserves if he does. Hopkins won 115-113 & thats being generous to Slappy.
The proof of the pudding was when Nard offered the Welsh Wonder a rematch in his home country, in front of Calzaghe's fans who'd followed him throughout his career, What a way for Joe to repay those fans, BUT what does Joe do?? Joe RETIRES!!! to go sniffiin, drinkin, chasin ho's & killing innocent little rabbits.
Calzaghe a true chamion you say :LOLATYOU:
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
C.J.Rock
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
It' 'seem's old Joe leave's a nasty taste in some of your mouth's
O yes Undefeated Undisputed Champion Of The World.? Ha Ha ;D:LOLATYOU:
Easy to be undefeated when you duck most of your dangerous opponents & get decisions which he no way in hell deserves if he does. Hopkins won 115-113 & thats being generous to Slappy.
The proof of the pudding was when Nard offered the Welsh Wonder a rematch in his home country, in front of Calzaghe's fans who'd followed him throughout his career, What a way for Joe to repay those fans, BUT what does Joe do?? Joe RETIRES!!! to go sniffiin, drinkin, chasin ho's & killing innocent little rabbits.
Calzaghe a true chamion you say :LOLATYOU:
Can't remember Joe doing hard time, but if I recall :saint: Bernardo did a nasty crime if I remember, from zero to hero a great roll model not really in the words of Mr king Only In America.
Get back behind the garden gate carry on Barking.:lolhaha:
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
The fight was a stinker and that was mainly due to Hopkins, no way could he keep up with Joe. No body wanted to see a return of that fight, if Joe won on B Hop’s turf, there was no need to fight again.
I agree Joe wasted a large portion of his career and tried to make amends near the end of his career, so Roy Jones was logically the next fight for him. He had beaten 2 young undefeated fighters and 2 old legends.
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
The fight was a stinker and that was mainly due to Hopkins, no way could he keep up with Joe. No body wanted to see a return of that fight, if Joe won on B Hop’s turf, there was no need to fight again.
I agree Joe wasted a large portion of his career and tried to make amends near the end of his career, so Roy Jones was logically the next fight for him. He had beaten 2 young undefeated fighters and 2 old legends.
I agree with you but injury did stop him from fighting on many occasion's, Joe had bad hand trouble
all through his career,let's face fact's in boxing you hand's are your tool's.
At the end of his career he was no spring chicken, himself, but I agree he did waste a large part of his
career.;)
-
Re: Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch
Yes Joe had hand trouble, just imagine if he did not he would have stopped Lacy and Kessler for sure. Reember he had elbow problems against Starie, which was a poor fight and against Robin Reid. He came back against Omar Sheika and never looked back.
