Calzaghe WILL fight again for £10/$16 million

ICB - you are wrong and clearly confused. You can't "nitpick" the facts.

I'm saying it's a fact more people thought Marquez won. Therefore my opinion that Marquez won is correct based on the MAJORITY vote. That is the fact.

Now for Calzaghe...

Calzaghe slaughtered Hopkins on the punch stats.

Calzaghe landed 33% of his 707 punches. Hopkins landed only 27% of his 416 punches.

The most TELLING statistic of all though is - Calzaghe connected with 232 punches, the MOST ever landed against Hopkins in the 21 fights he's had tracked by CompuBox. That's your Ring Generalship, Defense, Effective Aggression, Defense, Effective Punches, ETC, all rolled into one. Fact.

So, along with the overwhelming MAJORITY vote for a Calzaghe victory, this unequivocally PROVES, the ONLY way you could have scored the fight for Hopkins is -

A) You're a white hating racist

B) You're a Calzaghe hater

C) You're a Hopkins lover

Which is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

ICB - you are wrong and clearly confused. You can't "nitpick" the facts.

I'm saying it's a fact more people thought Marquez won. Therefore my opinion that Marquez won is correct based on the MAJORITY vote. That is the fact.

Now for Calzaghe...

Calzaghe slaughtered Hopkins on the punch stats.

Calzaghe landed 33% of his 707 punches. Hopkins landed only 27% of his 416 punches.

The most TELLING statistic of all though is - Calzaghe connected with 232 punches, the MOST ever landed against Hopkins in the 21 fights he's had tracked by CompuBox. That's your Ring Generalship, Defense, Effective Aggression, Defense, Effective Punches, ETC, all rolled into one. Fact.

So, along with the overwhelming MAJORITY vote for a Calzaghe victory, this unequivocally PROVES, the ONLY way you could have scored the fight for Hopkins is -

A) You're a white hating racist

B) You're a Calzaghe hater

C) You're a Hopkins lover

Which is it?

---

Your end comment is just laughable considering your a massive Joe Calzaghe fan yourself. But your not biased when it comes to Joe Calzaghe right ? :rolleyes:

And your being a pain because i have a different opinion, so your nit-picking and just being awkward in debates like you always are. Whenever it comes to Joe Calzaghe.

Secondly im white i don't hate Joe Calzaghe, and im not a Bernard Hopkins fan either far from it. So i guess that writes of all of your 3 silly assumptions.

Thridly so more people have Joe Calzaghe winning and ? so why should that change my opinion on the fight ? and how does that make my opinion wrong ? it just means i differ in opinions thats it, i've already gave good reasons why i had Bernard Hopkins winning. On all the things i said in my other comment.

Fourthly i just don't understand you at all Fenster, its like your totally coming from a different place to me. How is your opinion a fact if Manny Pacquiao won ? :confused:

More people thought JMM won does that make them right ? or make your opinion a "Fact" ? you throw the word fact around alot when most of the time it isn't a fact.

All that means is that your opinion is more agreed amongst boxing fans, that doesn't make it a "Fact" that your opinion is correct. The only way your opinion would be a fact is if 100 percent of boxing fans agreed.

How does punchstats prove anything ? so your reaching with punchstats now ? you still haven't gave me any good reason's why you thought Joe Calzaghe won.

I already said Joe Calzaghe landed more punches, but were they effective or clean punches ? no. Are punchstats completely accurate ? no.

And the funny thing is you have told me in the past, not to use punchstats yet here you are using them for your main argument.

Bernard Hopkins clearly was better defensively, most of Joe Calzaghe's punches were glancing blows or not effective.

Most of Bernard Hopkins punches were easy to see, clean/effective.

He had a better ring generalship than Joe Calzaghe for more of the fight, he was able to move around the ring making Joe Calzaghe off balance. he was able to tie up Joe Calzaghe lowering his workrate and frustrating him.

And how in the world is it a fact that Joe Calzaghe had better effective punching, based on punchstats ? are you honestly reading what your saying ? because that is just ridiculous.

I think even the fans who thought Joe Calzaghe won, wouldn't say Joe Calzaghe landed the more effective punches. And you say im biased ? jesus.

Joe will nor fight again and no one will offer him that amount of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

ICB - you are wrong and clearly confused. You can't "nitpick" the facts.

I'm saying it's a fact more people thought Marquez won. Therefore my opinion that Marquez won is correct based on the MAJORITY vote. That is the fact.

Now for Calzaghe...

Calzaghe slaughtered Hopkins on the punch stats.

Calzaghe landed 33% of his 707 punches. Hopkins landed only 27% of his 416 punches.

The most TELLING statistic of all though is - Calzaghe connected with 232 punches, the MOST ever landed against Hopkins in the 21 fights he's had tracked by CompuBox. That's your Ring Generalship, Defense, Effective Aggression, Defense, Effective Punches, ETC, all rolled into one. Fact.

So, along with the overwhelming MAJORITY vote for a Calzaghe victory, this unequivocally PROVES, the ONLY way you could have scored the fight for Hopkins is -

A) You're a white hating racist

B) You're a Calzaghe hater

C) You're a Hopkins lover

Which is it?

---

Your end comment is just laughable considering your a massive Joe Calzaghe fan yourself. But your not biased when it comes to Joe Calzaghe right ? :rolleyes:

And your being a pain because i have a different opinion, so your nit-picking and just being awkward in debates like you always are. Whenever it comes to Joe Calzaghe.

Secondly im white i don't hate Joe Calzaghe, and im not a Bernard Hopkins fan either far from it. So i guess that writes of all of your 3 silly assumptions.

Thridly so more people have Joe Calzaghe winning and ? so why should that change my opinion on the fight ? and how does that make my opinion wrong ? it just means i differ in opinions thats it, i've already gave good reasons why i had Bernard Hopkins winning. On all the things i said in my other comment.

Fourthly i just don't understand you at all Fenster, its like your totally coming from a different place to me. How is your opinion a fact if Manny Pacquiao won ? :confused:

More people thought JMM won does that make them right ? or make your opinion a "Fact" ? you throw the word fact around alot when most of the time it isn't a fact.

All that means is that your opinion is more agreed amongst boxing fans, that doesn't make it a "Fact" that your opinion is correct. The only way your opinion would be a fact is if 100 percent of boxing fans agreed.

How does punchstats prove anything ? so your reaching with punchstats now ? you still haven't gave me any good reason's why you thought Joe Calzaghe won.

I already said Joe Calzaghe landed more punches, but were they effective or clean punches ? no. Are punchstats completely accurate ? no.

And the funny thing is you have told me in the past, not to use punchstats yet here you are using them for your main argument.

Bernard Hopkins clearly was better defensively, most of Joe Calzaghe's punches were glancing blows or not effective.

Most of Bernard Hopkins punches were easy to see, clean/effective.

He had a better ring generalship than Joe Calzaghe for more of the fight, he was able to move around the ring making Joe Calzaghe off balance. he was able to tie up Joe Calzaghe lowering his workrate and frustrating him.

And how in the world is it a fact that Joe Calzaghe had better effective punching, based on punchstats ? are you honestly reading what your saying ? because that is just ridiculous.

I think even the fans who thought Joe Calzaghe won, wouldn't say Joe Calzaghe landed the more effective punches. And you say im biased ? jesus.

---

Hmmm.. you seem to have flapped a bit here and gone all over the shop.

I'm not trying to change your opinion about Calzaghe-Hopkins. You're the one TRYING to challenge the official result and the MAJORITY fan verdict that Calzaghe was a rightful winner.

The judges thought Calzaghe won. That is a fact. The majority of boxing fans think Calzaghe won. That is a fact. The punch-stats say Calzaghe hit Hopkins more often than Hopkins hit him, and more often than any other fighter Hopkins has ever fought. That is a fact.

It is pretty clear Hopkins lost. That is why you are in a small minority. Fact. ;)

I think we all know i am no fan of Calzaghe , however i can accept that Calzaghe won the fight with Hopkins.
I do think Hopkins could have done more , he was lazy , and was outworked. Maybe because Calzaghe wasnt hurting him , who knows. Also I take into account the lack of quality in Calzaghes work , Hopkins did land the harder shots. Hopkins also busted Calzaghe up , which fuelled the fires for saying robbery.
But as someone said Calzaghe landed more punches , quality over quantity or quantity over quality is subject to how the judges see it , always has bean always will be.
So to sum up in years to come the record books will say Calzaghe beat Hopkins, end of story. That my friends is the bottom line.

i'm glad he's retired, he was in all honesty retired from 1999-2005 with the guys he fought, at one point he didnt even have a station that wanted to show his fights.........all he ever cared about was his unbeaten record, so much so it made hi take fights vs no hopers, he so many times turned down decent fights saying the other guy wasnt in his league and theres no interest in the bout....instead he'd fight some unknown guy with 7 losses on his record ( because yeah!!!! we wanted to watch that instead ) i could go out and build an unbeaten record fighting tomatoo cans or maybe fight my old trainer who's 66 and say i'm unbeaten, i went to a legends turf and beat him as well

stay retired joe, its whats best for you, coming back would only lower your already low cred......even after hatton lost to pac-man people kept saying atleast hatton took on top guys in there prime unlike joe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NUCLEAR BULL

i'm glad he's retired, he was in all honesty retired from 1999-2005 with the guys he fought, at one point he didnt even have a station that wanted to show his fights.........all he ever cared about was his unbeaten record, so much so it made hi take fights vs no hopers, he so many times turned down decent fights saying the other guy wasnt in his league and theres no interest in the bout....instead he'd fight some unknown guy with 7 losses on his record ( because yeah!!!! we wanted to watch that instead ) i could go out and build an unbeaten record fighting tomatoo cans or maybe fight my old trainer who's 66 and say i'm unbeaten, i went to a legends turf and beat him as well

stay retired joe, its whats best for you, coming back would only lower your already low cred......even after hatton lost to pac-man people kept saying atleast hatton took on top guys in there prime unlike joe

---

You are being harsh here, If Joe refused a Lacy fight at that time I would prop you. If he turned down Kessler I would also. You don't get may guys fight the young unbeated hungry guy all that often when they are approaching the end of their career.