IF CALZAGHE LOST, WHY??? (That's for anyone who believes Joe to have lost that is)

For anybody that thought Joe Calzaghe actually lost this fight, can you help me understand your thinking as to how and why you reach that conclusion,

I really would look forward to hearing your views....

RE:On what grounds did Joe Calzaghe lose this fight, I fail to see it at all, yet neither am I gloating,

I just want to be fair to all comers and listen to any EDUCATED views as to how you came to your decision that Joe lost, if this is your serious view point...

:confused::confused::confused:

It wasnt even all that close by the end. Hopkins was winning the fight at certain stages but thats as good as it gets for him.

Clear and obvious Calzaghe win.

I had it for Cal by one point, he barely squeaked by IMO. He earned it mainly for the late fight rallying. I'm gonna watch it again tomorrow.

I think most that saw Bernard winning did so due to effective punching.

Much of what Joe threw in there, were meaningless punches, in a similar way to how an amateur fight is scored. I see their point, but late in the fight, Bernard was doing the exact same thing. Pitty Pat Flurries.

Neither impressed me tonight. The fight was sloppy and amateurish. Both have looked much better in the past. I know Bernard was old and fading and I am starting to wonder if Joe is also.

This sums it up for me niceley


Calzaghe gets nod; Hopkins get stiffed[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]By David Douse (April 22, 2008) Doghouse Boxing (Photo © German Villasenor)

Despite dropping Joe Calzaghe with a short right hand in the first round, consistently landing the harder cleaner punches throughout the fight, and in this writer’s opinion clearly dominating the style in which the battle would be fought, Bernard Hopkins came away from this much anticipated battle on the short end of a split decision.

How did this come to be? Obviously enough, two out of the three judges were sufficiently impressed by Calzaghe throwing leather at every opportunity but I have to wonder whether they were taken in by
the massive pre-fight hype pertaining to the Welshman's alleged ability to throw a thousand punches a round and thus became a confused over what actually constitutes proper scoring shots. It is certainly true that Calzaghe let his hands go rather more than B-Hop, but I would strongly question the quality of Calzaghe's efforts and seriously dispute that he should be credited with landing point scoring punches when the bulk of his efforts were so often nothing but ineffectual slaps.

Even the judge who scored in favour of Hopkins also had it wrong in my view and personally I felt that Hopkins came away with what should have been scored as a three round margin in his favour, especially when his first round knockdown of Calzaghe is taken into account. On no occasion did Calzaghe manage to land any strong punches which had any discernible effect on the older man, whereas Hopkins’ own thudding shots clearly gave the Pride of Wales something to think about on several occasions other than the knockdown.
I have seen criticism online of Hopkins for taking the permitted breather when he was struck low and, although the first low blow from Calzaghe was not of the worst kind (it was also clearly unintentional), it was clearly well south of the border. Hopkins was well within his rights to avail himself of the recovery period and criticising him for this makes no sense and is just plain wrong. I am convinced that those who would sneer at B-Hop for taking time to draw breath would have been absolutely screaming in outrage had it been Hopkins who had committed the foul.

Perhaps mention should also be made here of Calzaghe's crass follow-up whilst standing behind the bent over Hopkins with his jiggling hip thrusting movements clearly simulating a sex act in the most disrespectful and ugly manner and which was, to say the least, hardly what one would expect from a man who has touted himself as a ' Mr Clean’. I cannot feel that Calzaghe has in any way enhanced his reputation by this ugly display and it may be that he does not realise that it was actually himself he was demeaning by his actions.

So what now for Bernard Hopkins? I would think it highly unlikely that Calzaghe would want any part of a rematch and Hopkins probably has little to prove to himself, so I should not be at all surprised if he chose this moment to finally hang up the gloves. Regardless of his decision his legacy is assured and while he might prefer to exit on a winning note, being stiffed on a decision like this won't be the end of the world to him. He has been around far too long to not understand that wrong decisions do come to pass, and that hype in favour of one particular fighter can give a clear perceptual advantage to the recipient when it comes to decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

It wasnt even all that close by the end. Hopkins was winning the fight at certain stages but thats as good as it gets for him.

Clear and obvious Calzaghe win.

---

Yeah, Hopkins got dominated just like you said. Must have just been in it for the payday right Miles?

I think Bernard won for the simple reason that..

First off.. Joe fought the fight of bernard hopkins, at the pace of bernard hopkins..

Secondly in every exchange i saw between the two where for a few seconds every couple rounds they would go at it a bit.. I didnt think joe was taking the punches well.. i thought hopkins was hurting me and i wish to god bernard had commited more i think he could have hurt joe bad eventually.. but Bernard did his thing and stuck to his game..

Also.. I dont think i saw one punch that i thought.. that hurt Bhop.. and they were slappy punches in bunches... and thats not to antagonise the Joey fans.. i took back that slappy shit after the kess fight and he puts some power on those shots THAT night.. But it was only about numbers again last saturday.. So i almost didnt even really count his punches as i considered them to no affect considering bernard had the ring generalship.. the defense, counters and was hitting joe cleaner and harder then joe was hitting him..

But the main thing was.. Joe fought Bhops fight and Still made it challenging.. but i thought Bhop won.. Just barely.. And when its scores of those kinda (Aside from that 116 bullshit) You never really mind who wins.. but it wasnt particularly entertaining.. and i never expected the decision for one minute to be given to joey c..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bambamdaddio

For anybody that thought Joe Calzaghe actually lost this fight, can you help me understand your thinking as to how and why you reach that conclusion,

I really would look forward to hearing your views....

RE:On what grounds did Joe Calzaghe lose this fight, I fail to see it at all, yet neither am I gloating,

I just want to be fair to all comers and listen to any EDUCATED views as to how you came to your decision that Joe lost, if this is your serious view point...

:confused::confused::confused:

---

Hopkins scored the only knock down. And landed the harder punches through out the whole fight. I can't remember one punch from Calzaghe that was even note worthy. Besides his punch to the balls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bambamdaddio

For anybody that thought Joe Calzaghe actually lost this fight, can you help me understand your thinking as to how and why you reach that conclusion,

I really would look forward to hearing your views....

RE:On what grounds did Joe Calzaghe lose this fight, I fail to see it at all, yet neither am I gloating,

I just want to be fair to all comers and listen to any EDUCATED views as to how you came to your decision that Joe lost, if this is your serious view point...

:confused::confused::confused:

---

Hopkins scored the only knock down. And landed the harder punches through out the whole fight. I can't remember one punch from Calzaghe that was even note worthy. Besides his punch to the balls.

---

And that butt love he tried to do on Hopkins. Calzaghe is the best fighter in the gay community.Hopkins hurt him three or four times. Joe's pride got in the way of him answering that right. Hopkins was really in any trouble by the pitter patter at any point. If I was Calzaghe I would not want to go down with being known as a fighter who fights has beens. He needs to take Jermaine Taylor who is a great adaptive fighter and has good power. If not him Pavlik. Kessler is a clearly a overrated fighter. Then who has he fought......Bika, Manfredo and Lacy. I would want more respect than that on my record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bambamdaddio

For anybody that thought Joe Calzaghe actually lost this fight, can you help me understand your thinking as to how and why you reach that conclusion,

I really would look forward to hearing your views....

RE:On what grounds did Joe Calzaghe lose this fight, I fail to see it at all, yet neither am I gloating,

I just want to be fair to all comers and listen to any EDUCATED views as to how you came to your decision that Joe lost, if this is your serious view point...

:confused::confused::confused:

---

Hopkins scored the only knock down. And landed the harder punches through out the whole fight. I can't remember one punch from Calzaghe that was even note worthy. Besides his punch to the balls.

---

Still he was a lazy, fight spoiling bastard, he lost the fight with that and his play acting (almost as bad as Floyd, this ain't WWF) Also you were wrong, again;D

HA, HA, FUCKING HA!

hopkins controled the tempo for most part, even in the later rounds were people seem to have scored the fight for calzaghe i saw b-hop walking around and land the better shots, hopkins never once looked like being knocked down, knocked out or stopped. he floored joe in the first, rocked him right at the end of the 5th ( had there been another 5 seconds in the round and hopkins hit him with even a half decent shot he would have gone down again )

calzaghe didnt look as forcefull as in other fights, he never looked comfortable in the fight, his showboating was from frustration and in hope of winning over judges, yes he threw more ( but not as many as stated ) yes it looks like he landed more ( not as many as stated ) he maybe touched hopkins more is more the case..............you can't win fights with pita patter

every fighter gets a points win he shouldn't have........this was one of calzaghes.......his coments after the fight that he was about to stop hopkins just before the low blow was pathetic, to me that shows how suprised he is that he won the fight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bambamdaddio

For anybody that thought Joe Calzaghe actually lost this fight, can you help me understand your thinking as to how and why you reach that conclusion,

I really would look forward to hearing your views....

RE:On what grounds did Joe Calzaghe lose this fight, I fail to see it at all, yet neither am I gloating,

I just want to be fair to all comers and listen to any EDUCATED views as to how you came to your decision that Joe lost, if this is your serious view point...

:confused::confused::confused:

---

Because the first half of the fight Bernard was winning most rounds by landing shots while Calzaghe wasn't landing hardly anything... Even down the stretch in the rounds that Calzaghe won could have largely gone either way just because even though Calzaghe was busier, in most rounds Bernard still was the more accurate fighter. The punches Calzaghe did land weren't real punches, while Bernard was landing crisp punches all night. Only about 4 rounds in that fight went clearly for either Bernard or Joe so I don't see how people can't see this fight going either way.

If anything I was surprised Calzaghe got so much recognition because he wasn't able to do anything against a guy who is 43... I saw Winky landing far better punches on B-Hop than Cal did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NUCLEAR BULL

hopkins controled the tempo for most part, even in the later rounds were people seem to have scored the fight for calzaghe i saw b-hop walking around and land the better shots, hopkins never once looked like being knocked down, knocked out or stopped. he floored joe in the first, rocked him right at the end of the 5th ( had there been another 5 seconds in the round and hopkins hit him with even a half decent shot he would have gone down again )

calzaghe didnt look as forcefull as in other fights, he never looked comfortable in the fight, his showboating was from frustration and in hope of winning over judges, yes he threw more ( but not as many as stated ) yes it looks like he landed more ( not as many as stated ) he maybe touched hopkins more is more the case..............you can't win fights with pita patter

every fighter gets a points win he shouldn't have........this was one of calzaghes.......his coments after the fight that he was about to stop hopkins just before the low blow was pathetic, to me that shows how suprised he is that he won the fight

---

You don't need to look like your going to be knocked down, knocked out or stopped to lose a fight. Joe looked worse because he was getting hugges to death. Hopkins looked like a stupid twat with the low blows, how the fuck can you say any different? Think he was in that much pain? Play acting pillock made himself look pathetic.

Fans are just as sore losers as Hopkins is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bambamdaddio

For anybody that thought Joe Calzaghe actually lost this fight, can you help me understand your thinking as to how and why you reach that conclusion,

I really would look forward to hearing your views....

RE:On what grounds did Joe Calzaghe lose this fight, I fail to see it at all, yet neither am I gloating,

I just want to be fair to all comers and listen to any EDUCATED views as to how you came to your decision that Joe lost, if this is your serious view point...

:confused::confused::confused:

---

Because the first half of the fight Bernard was winning most rounds by landing shots while Calzaghe wasn't landing hardly anything...

---

I stopped at there.

i dont get these claims that cortez was letting hopkins get away with shit




most of the clinching was initiated from calzaghes sloppy girl punching style, he would lunge in and hopkins would evade his punches causing calzaghe to spastically throw shots and end up being tangled with hopkins




they both utilized headlocks




a low blow is an illegal maneuver even if it doesnt hit u dead on in the balls so if he wanted to be a dick he could have easily deducted points from calzaghe






-----------------------

anyway calzaghe barely landed anything in that fight, the majority of the shots he threw hit hopkins in the arms/back or missed him completely



when he did land he was ineffective



each time he decided to trade hopkins would get off at least 1 hard shot and calzaghe would rethink trading



he really did look like an amateur in that fight


even if for whatever re3ason u think calzaghe won that fight u have to be able to understand why people feel he looked like an amateur, he was INCREDIBLY sloppy and was countered a huge amount of times

Good win by Calzaghe...


Good but not great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SalTheButcher

i dont get these claims that cortez was letting hopkins get away with shit




most of the clinching was initiated from calzaghes sloppy girl punching style, he would lunge in and hopkins would evade his punches causing calzaghe to spastically throw shots and end up being tangled with hopkins




they both utilized headlocks




a low blow is an illegal maneuver even if it doesnt hit u dead on in the balls so if he wanted to be a dick he could have easily deducted points from calzaghe






-----------------------

anyway calzaghe barely landed anything in that fight, the majority of the shots he threw hit hopkins in the arms/back or missed him completely



when he did land he was ineffective



each time he decided to trade hopkins would get off at least 1 hard shot and calzaghe would rethink trading



he really did look like an amateur in that fight


even if for whatever re3ason u think calzaghe won that fight u have to be able to understand why people feel he looked like an amateur, he was INCREDIBLY sloppy and was countered a huge amount of times

---

LOL and Baldomir was the aggressor, who ne'er got hurt from the pitter-pat punches of Floyd, who ran like a girl all night, content with just grazing Baldo's head once every round. Can't have it both ways. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLAQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SalTheButcher

i dont get these claims that cortez was letting hopkins get away with shit




most of the clinching was initiated from calzaghes sloppy girl punching style, he would lunge in and hopkins would evade his punches causing calzaghe to spastically throw shots and end up being tangled with hopkins




they both utilized headlocks




a low blow is an illegal maneuver even if it doesnt hit u dead on in the balls so if he wanted to be a dick he could have easily deducted points from calzaghe






-----------------------

anyway calzaghe barely landed anything in that fight, the majority of the shots he threw hit hopkins in the arms/back or missed him completely



when he did land he was ineffective



each time he decided to trade hopkins would get off at least 1 hard shot and calzaghe would rethink trading



he really did look like an amateur in that fight


even if for whatever re3ason u think calzaghe won that fight u have to be able to understand why people feel he looked like an amateur, he was INCREDIBLY sloppy and was countered a huge amount of times

---

LOL and Baldomir was the aggressor, who ne'er got hurt from the pitter-pat punches of Floyd, who ran like a girl all night, content with just grazing Baldo's head once every round. Can't have it both ways. :rolleyes:

---

?


both ways?


i would have laughed if mayweather was robbed vs baldozar ;)


anyway the two fights arent even comparable


mayweather is fast, accurate and he actually throws real punches that make contact with an opponenets head or body

calzaghe fought hopkins fight at hopkins pace, didn't seem to be landing much and when he did they were uneffective while eating hopkins effective counters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yu1412

This sums it up for me niceley


Calzaghe gets nod; Hopkins get stiffed[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]By David Douse (April 22, 2008) Doghouse Boxing (Photo © German Villasenor)


Despite dropping Joe Calzaghe with a short right hand in the first round, consistently landing the harder cleaner punches throughout the fight, and in this writer’s opinion clearly dominating the style in which the battle would be fought, Bernard Hopkins came away from this much anticipated battle on the short end of a split decision.

How did this come to be? Obviously enough, two out of the three judges were sufficiently impressed by Calzaghe throwing leather at every opportunity but I have to wonder whether they were taken in by
the massive pre-fight hype pertaining to the Welshman's alleged ability to throw a thousand punches a round and thus became a confused over what actually constitutes proper scoring shots. It is certainly true that Calzaghe let his hands go rather more than B-Hop, but I would strongly question the quality of Calzaghe's efforts and seriously dispute that he should be credited with landing point scoring punches when the bulk of his efforts were so often nothing but ineffectual slaps.

Even the judge who scored in favour of Hopkins also had it wrong in my view and personally I felt that Hopkins came away with what should have been scored as a three round margin in his favour, especially when his first round knockdown of Calzaghe is taken into account. On no occasion did Calzaghe manage to land any strong punches which had any discernible effect on the older man, whereas Hopkins’ own thudding shots clearly gave the Pride of Wales something to think about on several occasions other than the knockdown.
I have seen criticism online of Hopkins for taking the permitted breather when he was struck low and, although the first low blow from Calzaghe was not of the worst kind (it was also clearly unintentional), it was clearly well south of the border. Hopkins was well within his rights to avail himself of the recovery period and criticising him for this makes no sense and is just plain wrong. I am convinced that those who would sneer at B-Hop for taking time to draw breath would have been absolutely screaming in outrage had it been Hopkins who had committed the foul.

Perhaps mention should also be made here of Calzaghe's crass follow-up whilst standing behind the bent over Hopkins with his jiggling hip thrusting movements clearly simulating a sex act in the most disrespectful and ugly manner and which was, to say the least, hardly what one would expect from a man who has touted himself as a ' Mr Clean’. I cannot feel that Calzaghe has in any way enhanced his reputation by this ugly display and it may be that he does not realise that it was actually himself he was demeaning by his actions.

So what now for Bernard Hopkins? I would think it highly unlikely that Calzaghe would want any part of a rematch and Hopkins probably has little to prove to himself, so I should not be at all surprised if he chose this moment to finally hang up the gloves. Regardless of his decision his legacy is assured and while he might prefer to exit on a winning note, being stiffed on a decision like this won't be the end of the world to him. He has been around far too long to not understand that wrong decisions do come to pass, and that hype in favour of one particular fighter can give a clear perceptual advantage to the recipient when it comes to decisions.

---

Pretty much how I saw it.

Hopkins slips punch= Calzaghe landed a clean left hand! Total bullshit, but that's how it go's. They will rob that man forever. It's all about the money. Calzaghe V.S. Jones for only a small price of 49.99!

Sorry. You just can not compare Mayweather/ Baldomir to the Calzaghe/ Hopkins fight. Mayweather was clearly outlanding Baldomir and I think everybody on the planet scored it for Mayweather.

The Calzaghe/ Hopkins fight has caused debate as to who won. Personally I thought it was close and you have an argument for either fighter depending how you scored the fight. I did not score the fight but my impression and opinion was that Calzaghe had nicked it. I think its fantasy to say Hopkins lost 9 rounds though. 116 - 111. (Just wrong)

If you liked the clean, harder shots landing, controlling the tempo of the fight then you would say Hopkins. If you go for being the agressor, trying to make the fight, throwing more shots, landing more shots, regardless of how powerful they are then you would go with Calzaghe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ds91

calzaghe fought hopkins fight at hopkins pace, didn't seem to be landing much and when he did they were uneffective while eating hopkins effective counters.

---

Only for the first few rounds did he fight at Hopkins pace, but you can't easily 'up' the pace with a guy molesting you. Also you say Calzaghes punches were soft 'pitter pats' I think I agree, makes Hopkins crying in pain at a 'low blow' look even more pathetic.

a couple of articles which might be of interest.




Schaefer feels knockdown was key
by Ciaran Baynes, 25 April 2008

Golden Boy Promotions CEO Richard Schaefer told setantasports.com that Bernard Hopkins' first round knockdown should have given him the edge in his fight with Joe Calzaghe, adding that a rematch is possible if The Executioner wants it.
Hopkins knocked Calzaghe down in the first minute of the contest and appeared to go on to dominate the first half of the bout before tiring in the closing stages.
With the fight being so close, the two point margin Hopkins established in the first round was key in many observer's scorecards, including Schaefer's.
"I believe that at the end the knockdown made the difference but with a very narrow split points decision, I think Bernard should have won the fight," Schaeffer told setantasports.com.
"It was a very close fight. A difficult fight to score. I think what was scored was the volume of the punches versus the effectiveness of the punches.
"If you look at one of the judges's scorecards, Judge Giampa, from the second round on, he gave Bernard only one round. I think that says it all."
As for his partner in Golden Boy's plans for the future, Schaefer said he would wait a while before discussing this with Hopkins, but he added that him fighting on, possibly in a rematch with Calzaghe was a possibility.
"I will talk to Bernard now and see if he has any plans for a rematch," Schaefer added.
"I think the fact is he fought a tremendous fight, I think he can fight anyone if he wants to. I think it is up to him."



Froch: Calzaghe should have lost
by Mark Doyle, 23 April 2008

Carl Froch has revealed that he was less than impressed with Joe Calzaghe’s victory over Bernard Hopkins on Saturday night and is of the opinion that the Welshman was not a worthy winner of the light-heavyweight contest.
Calzaghe, a long-time target of super-middleweight contender Froch, recovered from a first-round knockdown to claim a split-decision victory over Hopkins after being given the nod on two of three judges’ scorecards.
However, Froch believes that the verdict was unjust and is promising a far more convincing and conclusive performance when he takes on Denis Inkin in a WBC super-middleweight title final eliminator in Nottingham on May 10.
"I've been a big Calzaghe fan down the years and I obviously wanted him to win, but it was a terrible performance from him and I thought Hopkins did enough on the night," Froch argued.
"Calzaghe was messy and inaccurate with his punches. Nothing really landed on Hopkins. I thought Calzaghe got beaten.
"To be fair to Joe, styles make fights and Hopkins was just looking to spoil later on, but I intend to give a better performance against Inkin.
"I'm treating this as a world title fight even though it is a final eliminator because I think Joe would rather give up the belt than fight me, I’m to fresh and to dangerous," Froch added.

B-Hop looked in rounds 1-5, then he got tired and looked like John Ruiz because of all the clenching. He would wait for a counter-punch opportunity, counter, then grab... over and over... counter, grab, counter, grab. This is what lost him the fight; you can't rightfully make the claim that it was Calzaghe's style that caused the clenches--it was Hopkins' refusal to fight. And while in the clench, he would throw kidney shots and shots to the back of the head, on the side opposite of Cortez, (typical Hopkins tactic). Hopkins use to be a crafty and dirty fighter-- he's now just a dirty fighter, (i compared him to John Ruiz!) The rounds 1-5 Hopkins will give Pavlick a good fight, if not beat him-- Bernard Ruiz-Hopkins doesn't stand a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deanrw

I had it for Cal by one point, he barely squeaked by IMO. He earned it mainly for the late fight rallying. I'm gonna watch it again tomorrow.

I think most that saw Bernard winning did so due to effective punching.

Much of what Joe threw in there, were meaningless punches, in a similar way to how an amateur fight is scored. I see their point, but late in the fight, Bernard was doing the exact same thing. Pitty Pat Flurries.

Neither impressed me tonight. The fight was sloppy and amateurish. Both have looked much better in the past. I know Bernard was old and fading and I am starting to wonder if Joe is also.

---

I also had Calzaghe by one point...

I think Calzaghe underestimated Hopkins and didnt work out a game plan before hand. I think Calzaghe won it was close. Its the worst i had seen Calzaghe he wasnt fighting mid-range just flying foward and getting tied up.

If Pavlik can keep his fight at mid-range he will beat Hopkins if he jusy bores foward he will get tied up.

Calzaghe was rarely landing clean shots. He'd throw a lot of punches in a flurry and they'd hit air or Hopkins's arms and shoulders. Hopkins landed more clean shots. That's the best argument for Hopkins winning. A simple and clear one.

Of course, Hopkins wasn't landing too many either. It was an ugly fight, not the easiest to score. More of a case of preference on which style you preferred.

I didn't really have much of a problem with the decision, but it WAS a close fight.

i thought joe lost and so did his and his daddy;D. hopkins landed the more effective punches even dropped him. and jermaine taylor put up a better fight than calzaghe and they still gave joe the decision that really pissed me off to see a guy get a title that he didnt deserve, atleast taylor didnt slap his way to victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

i thought joe lost and so did his and his daddy;D. hopkins landed the more effective punches even dropped him. and jermaine taylor put up a better fight than calzaghe and they still gave joe the decision that really pissed me off to see a guy get a title that he didnt deserve, atleast taylor didnt slap his way to victory.

---

In my opinion Calzaghe's win over Hopkins was more convincing than Taylor's 2 wins over Bernard, i can agree if you think otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bambamdaddio

For anybody that thought Joe Calzaghe actually lost this fight, can you help me understand your thinking as to how and why you reach that conclusion,

I really would look forward to hearing your views....

RE:On what grounds did Joe Calzaghe lose this fight, I fail to see it at all, yet neither am I gloating,

I just want to be fair to all comers and listen to any EDUCATED views as to how you came to your decision that Joe lost, if this is your serious view point...

:confused::confused::confused:

---

Well, you see, the point in boxing is to hit your opponent with punches, When one guy, Calzaghe is throwing sloppy hooks that aren't hitting his opponent, while his opponent is successfully countering him, using good ring generalship, and defensive skills, I tend to give the round to the guy who is doing more than just walking forward and missing shots.

Hopkins was far superior in skill, and he deserved the fight. The compubox people must have been 90 years old or drunk as fuck to see Calzaghe landing 200+ punches, He didn't land anywhere close to that figure, in fact they landed pretty much the same amount of punches, but Hopkins was landing the better ones.

I don't think Calzaghe-Hopkins was better in Calzaghe's favor then Taylor's, because Hopkins landed more on Calzaghe, he lande easier against Joe, and Taylor was landing much harder shots then Calzaghe.

Doesn't matter what people think although people will always have there opinions as judges always have different scores.

What matters is the records books. Calzaghe WIN

I thought Hopkins won the fight Calzaghe landed slightly more punches but their was no weight in them just the pitter patter stuff plus Hopkins was the number 1 in the light-heavyweight division classed as the champ now did Calzaghe do enough to take a championship i say no he didn't your meant to rip a title away from a champ and he didn't do that. The fight could have been better though on a whole and wasn't lets hope Calzaghe vs Jones is a lot better.