Did hopkins fight the wrong fight against Calzaghe?

I assumed before the fight that Hopkins wouldn't be able to keep pace with Calzaghe off the ropes, he did a lot better then I thought he did, but I thought going into the fihgt he would look more like Sakio Bika, or come forwad a lot more. I remember thinking in the first round when Calzaghe was giving Hopkins so much respect that, that was his oppertunity to lead in the fight. I feel when Hopkins declined the oppertunity to come forward he opted to fight in a much more tiring fashion. Looking back I still feel Hopkins had the advantage on the inside, and when he was coming forwad, Calzaghe only countered him a few times, and on the inside Calzaghe's punches were meaningless while Hopkins was landing solidly. I am not saying this would for sure work better, but it would be interesting to see Hopkins fight in a style more like he did against Pavlik with a lot more forward movement, a litte more willing to take punches for Calzaghe who can't hit that hard anyways to land heavier and more punches of his own. I thought going into that fight that the rougher it would be the better off Hopkins would be, but he didn't make it rough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

I assumed before the fight that Hopkins wouldn't be able to keep pace with Calzaghe off the ropes, he did a lot better then I thought he did, but I thought going into the fihgt he would look more like Sakio Bika, or come forwad a lot more. I remember thinking in the first round when Calzaghe was giving Hopkins so much respect that, that was his oppertunity to lead in the fight. I feel when Hopkins declined the oppertunity to come forward he opted to fight in a much more tiring fashion. Looking back I still feel Hopkins had the advantage on the inside, and when he was coming forwad, Calzaghe only countered him a few times, and on the inside Calzaghe's punches were meaningless while Hopkins was landing solidly. I am not saying this would for sure work better, but it would be interesting to see Hopkins fight in a style more like he did against Pavlik with a lot more forward movement, a litte more willing to take punches for Calzaghe who can't hit that hard anyways to land heavier and more punches of his own. I thought going into that fight that the rougher it would be the better off Hopkins would be, but he didn't make it rough.

---

Hopkisn fought the fight he fought several times prior. 1 punch at a time, then hug.
I think the Calzaghe loss is what fueled hopkins into fighting the way he did against Pavlik.
He now sees that you can't win fights by making people look bad, activity is a issue too. After the taylor fights he wasn't sold. He went on and beat tarver and winky. he loses to calzaghe for the same reasons he loses to Taylor - it could have been prevented.

The calzaghe lost was a great thing for hopkins, it was a reality check. He wont fight that way ever again


Also.. more excuses

Kelly Pavlik's Dad Wanted Hopkins Fight Stopped - Boxing News

Joe was a harder fight for BHop. Joe is more experienced and has a plan B and C, Pavlik is limited. Bhop fought the way he did because of Calzaghe.

I think you, Master, in that Cazlaghe is a much different, much more adaptable opponent then Pavlik, but his biggest weakness has been when he has foughten rough fights, Now Calzaghe is a good inside fighter, but the biggest mistake such a good fighter can do is go shot for shot, However where other guys are overwhelmed by Calzaghe's flurries, Hopkins clearly wasn't. Hopkins was able to make Calzaghe consistently miss, bs compubox aside. I would just be curious to see if this would be a more effective style for him to use.

Against active fighters like Taylor and Joe he seems to put too much in reserve for fear of running out of gas, and did not let it all hang out because he believed their work rate may overwhelm him if he fought their fight.

Even against winky and taylor he only did one punch and grab, fellas.

He fought Oscar, Taylor, Winky, Tarver, Calzaghe all the same.. Not taking anything from calzaghe, he DOES have a plan b c d etc etc, but hopkin sfought the fight he always fought.
It had nothing to dowith Joes style..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Even against winky and taylor he only did one punch and grab, fellas.

He fought Oscar, Taylor, Winky, Tarver, Calzaghe all the same.. Not taking anything from calzaghe, he DOES have a plan b c d etc etc, but hopkin sfought the fight he always fought.
It had nothing to dowith Joes style..

---

Winky,Tarver & Taylor fight absolutely nothing like Calzaghe though do they. He was able to fight that way against those guys.

Hopkins fought the best he could and had he of had the referee he had against Pavlik he would have either got busted up or DQ`d for holding.

Cortez was awful in that fight.

I think Bernard Hopkins should of fought toe to toe more, and roughed up Joe Calzaghe on the inside. Past fights have showed Joe Calzaghe has struggled in those kind of fights, and Bernard Hopkins is way more skilled at those kind of fights, than Reid, Salem, Bika, etc.

The only way Hopkins has a chance in a fight against Calzaghe is if it were a gun fight, even then hed be too slow on the trigger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

The only way Hopkins has a chance in a fight against Calzaghe is if it were a gun fight, even then hed be too slow on the trigger

---

Yea your right there fight was that one sided wasn't it :rolleyes:

I think he should of come forward more instead of always backing up.

At times in the fight he would come forward and he seemed to be effective when he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Hopkins fought the best he could and had he of had the referee he had against Pavlik he would have either got busted up or DQ`d for holding.

Cortez was awful in that fight.

---

No way would have he gotten busted up by Calzaghe, IMO this fight gets worse for Calzaghe the more toe to toe these two go. I think Hopkins plainly stated he has foughten in a defensive manner because of his age. I just think guys who like to impose themselves on you like Calzaghe, Pavlik, Margarito, etc are the wrong opponents to do it against. You have to do what Holyfield did against Tyson, it gets inside their head, Calzaghe has just been fortunate enough/good enough that he can either outbox his opponent and outfight them. I think Hopkins outboxed Calzaghe in the first fight, but judges don't seem to value that as much as physically beating the opponent down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Hopkins fought the best he could and had he of had the referee he had against Pavlik he would have either got busted up or DQ`d for holding.

Cortez was awful in that fight.

---

No way would have he gotten busted up by Calzaghe, IMO this fight gets worse for Calzaghe the more toe to toe these two go. I think Hopkins plainly stated he has foughten in a defensive manner because of his age. I just think guys who like to impose themselves on you like Calzaghe, Pavlik, Margarito, etc are the wrong opponents to do it against. You have to do what Holyfield did against Tyson, it gets inside their head, Calzaghe has just been fortunate enough/good enough that he can either outbox his opponent and outfight them. I think Hopkins outboxed Calzaghe in the first fight, but judges don't seem to value that as much as physically beating the opponent down.

---

Do you remember what rounds you scored for each?

I think he didn't account for Calzaghe's jab as much as he should have, Calzaghe was able to straighten himself out in the second half of the fight behind the jab. In the first half Calzaghe was just countering over all of Joe's posturing/punches but then found that more difficult later on. Think he should have abandoned the countering and become more offensive by getting in and out with 1 punch like he did in the early goings.

Still, I think he won but obviously not convincingly.

I had it 6-6, Hopkins winning on the knock down, I would have to go back though because I haven't actually scored the rounds in awhile, and I don't write it down. But even the rounds Calzaghe won weren't because he was the superior boxer(By that I mean skillwise) It was because Hopkins just wasn't throwing punches, and Calzaghe was. There were maybe two rounds I thought Calzaghe outboxed Hopkins(landed more clean punches). In this fight I thought Hopkins' defensive abilities made Calzaghe look horrible, whereas I don't think Calzaghe made Hopkins look any different than he always has(as an old crafty fighter). IMO in terms of skill there was a large gap, which very much surprised me, between them. I knew Hopkins was a much purer tactician, but I thought their effiveness was dead even with the same output based on their previous fights, but on fight night if you compare punch for punch I felt Hopkins looked like a much better fighter. I just think their two previous fights (against Wright and Kessler) were misleading because stylewise I think Winky matched up a lot better against Hopkins then Kessler did against Calzaghe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

I think he didn't account for Calzaghe's jab as much as he should have, Calzaghe was able to straighten himself out in the second half of the fight behind the jab. In the first half Calzaghe was just countering over all of Joe's posturing/punches but then found that more difficult later on. Think he should have abandoned the countering and become more offensive by getting in and out with 1 punch like he did in the early goings.

Still, I think he won but obviously not convincingly.

---

I give Calzaghe credit for making adjustments that made it harder for Hopkins to land punches, I think he made sure he widened the gab between him and Hopkins so that Hopkins was out of range when he threw that right hand later on in the fight. Like I said the thing that surprised was much better Hopkins IMO was, simply because Calzaghe is such a calculated, skilled fighter, except in those moments he doesn't fight his fight.

Teath, one thing you have to remember is, Joe can fight taking a step or two back. The way i see it, Bernard didn't want the risk of getting his timing wrong.
As you know timing is paramount to Bernard and i feel the theory was that its much easier to simplify with a guy like Calzaghe and have him walk on to your shots. It takes some of the edge away from a guy like Clazaghe to have him fall into the same monotonous traps.

If the fight wasn't as monotonus as it was, Clazaghe may of come into his own.

Pavlik's own, got owned.

Not so much fought the wrong fight, he was winning the fight and Joe made changes. Joe traded with Hopkins for the rest of the fight and took chances to win.

Who else has took a fight to Hopkins like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

I had it 6-6, Hopkins winning on the knock down, I would have to go back though because I haven't actually scored the rounds in awhile, and I don't write it down. But even the rounds Calzaghe won weren't because he was the superior boxer(By that I mean skillwise) It was because Hopkins just wasn't throwing punches, and Calzaghe was. There were maybe two rounds I thought Calzaghe outboxed Hopkins(landed more clean punches). In this fight I thought Hopkins' defensive abilities made Calzaghe look horrible, whereas I don't think Calzaghe made Hopkins look any different than he always has(as an old crafty fighter). IMO in terms of skill there was a large gap, which very much surprised me, between them. I knew Hopkins was a much purer tactician, but I thought their effiveness was dead even with the same output based on their previous fights, but on fight night if you compare punch for punch I felt Hopkins looked like a much better fighter. I just think their two previous fights (against Wright and Kessler) were misleading because stylewise I think Winky matched up a lot better against Hopkins then Kessler did against Calzaghe.

---

You gave Calzaghe 6 rounds?

For someone so sure Hopkins won you sure had it close, pal.

Boxing is NOT just about skill and technique. You don't win for being the best looking. Without mental strength and arsehole those qualities mean NOTHING. You seem to have marked Calzaghe DOWN because he disappointed you.

Maybe Hopkins is a more skillful, better all-round fighter than Calzaghe. But considering Hopkins is a GREAT and Calzaghe took SIX rounds off him (in your opinion) he can't be doing too much WRONG, right? ;)

Hopkins coming forward more would have been better for Calzaghe. Hopkins would have engaged more and taken more out of himself. It would have been a little bit less boring and a clearer victory for Calzaghe.

As it is, Hopkins is good enough to dismantle Pavlik. He is NOT good enough to dismantle Calzaghe. Get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

I assumed before the fight that Hopkins wouldn't be able to keep pace with Calzaghe off the ropes, he did a lot better then I thought he did, but I thought going into the fihgt he would look more like Sakio Bika, or come forwad a lot more. I remember thinking in the first round when Calzaghe was giving Hopkins so much respect that, that was his oppertunity to lead in the fight. I feel when Hopkins declined the oppertunity to come forward he opted to fight in a much more tiring fashion. Looking back I still feel Hopkins had the advantage on the inside, and when he was coming forwad, Calzaghe only countered him a few times, and on the inside Calzaghe's punches were meaningless while Hopkins was landing solidly. I am not saying this would for sure work better, but it would be interesting to see Hopkins fight in a style more like he did against Pavlik with a lot more forward movement, a litte more willing to take punches for Calzaghe who can't hit that hard anyways to land heavier and more punches of his own. I thought going into that fight that the rougher it would be the better off Hopkins would be, but he didn't make it rough.

---

You have this one right, in my book. Hopkins did fight the wrong fight against Calzaghe, the same way he fought the wrong fight against Taylor. Hopkins is an arrogant guy. In his mind, rightly or wrongly, work rate is meaningless and the judges should be able to tell that his one-punch counters are far more effective than pity-pat flurries or ineffective aggression. Also, he hasn't made a point of trying to be entertaining in his fights. He's a throwback with an old-school mentality. A champion shouldn't lose his belt on a decision unless he is CLEARLY beaten. He expects judges to know that Calzaghe's flurries were completely ineffective and that every punch he landed against Calzaghe was worth two or three of Calzaghe's shot's in terms of effectiveness.

In the Pavlik fight, I think he learned from his mistakes. He wanted to put on a show, dominate, and be entertaining. The post fight interview pretty much spells that out. Losing those decisions to Taylor and Calzaghe woke him up to the reality of boxing in 2008, and his approach to Pavlik reflected that. Or perhaps because he respected Pavlik's power, he knew that the only way to beat him was to throw enough that Kelly couldn't get off.

Losses seem to have that effect on Hopkins. Look how lethargic Hopkins looked in the second Taylor fight. He knew he lost that fight, and came back against Tarver like he had jumped into the fountain of youth. After the Calzaghe loss, he seriously re-evaluated things and came up with a better plan.

Honestly, If Hopkins was as aggressive against Joe C. as he was against Pavlik, I think the result would have been different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Even against winky and taylor he only did one punch and grab, fellas.

He fought Oscar, Taylor, Winky, Tarver, Calzaghe all the same.. Not taking anything from calzaghe, he DOES have a plan b c d etc etc, but hopkin sfought the fight he always fought.
It had nothing to dowith Joes style..

---

Winky,Tarver & Taylor fight absolutely nothing like Calzaghe though do they. He was able to fight that way against those guys.

---

Wow you just proved my point, bright guy. LOL!!!

You just admitted he fought the same fight against all of them, which is what I said -.-;
and the question the OP asked was " do we think hopkins fought the wrong fight against calzaghe". So yes, he did fight the wrong fight.. and you seem to be in agreement by saying " but calzaghe fights different then everyone else he fought this way " < - This is the reason why he fought the wrong fight -.-;

Hopkins is arrogant. He takes people to school, makes them look bad, and swears the fight is in the bag.
When the verdict is in, turns out the jduges didnt agree with him. It happened twice with taylor, third time with Calzaghe.
3 strikes, your out. He realises now that what he thinks is right isn't always right in the judges mind.. and I will say again - His loss to calzaghe
is one of the best things that could have ever happened to him. Had he not lost to calzaghe, he would have probably fought the same fight
against Pavlik.. but he knows now that he has to work aswell as do all the other things he's so great at.

I don't think Winky did any worse against Bernard than Calzaghe did, in fact taking in account how much more wear on his tires, and how much smaller he was I would in the whole scheme of things Winky is a better fighter then Calzaghe p4p in terms of all time greatness, Hopkins had a harder time landing on Winky, and WInky landed IMO more left hands then Calzaghe, and neither of them really landed a whole lot of jabs though both landed a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kel

Not so much fought the wrong fight, he was winning the fight and Joe made changes. Joe traded with Hopkins for the rest of the fight and took chances to win.

Who else has took a fight to Hopkins like that?

---

Jermain taylor to me fought a better fight that calzaghe. atleast he landed some decent punches like that big right hand that drove hopkins in to the corner early in the first fight. joe never landed anything that to even make hopkins blink.

Hopkins took s!!! for granted,went into sniper mode.Calzaghe was willing and did not let Hopkins get into his head,Calzaghe basically outworked him & It caught up to Hopkins down the stretch and I KO'd the TV set with a boot.Pretty basic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

I don't think Winky did any worse against Bernard than Calzaghe did, in fact taking in account how much more wear on his tires, and how much smaller he was I would in the whole scheme of things Winky is a better fighter then Calzaghe p4p in terms of all time greatness, Hopkins had a harder time landing on Winky, and WInky landed IMO more left hands then Calzaghe, and neither of them really landed a whole lot of jabs though both landed a few.

---

Bhop looked worse in that fight yet won by a clear margin.

Weren't we all commenting on how Bhops legs seemed to of gone ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intoccabile

Even against winky and taylor he only did one punch and grab, fellas.

He fought Oscar, Taylor, Winky, Tarver, Calzaghe all the same.. Not taking anything from calzaghe, he DOES have a plan b c d etc etc, but hopkin sfought the fight he always fought.
It had nothing to dowith Joes style..

---

Winky,Tarver & Taylor fight absolutely nothing like Calzaghe though do they. He was able to fight that way against those guys.

---

Wow you just proved my point, bright guy. LOL!!!

You just admitted he fought the same fight against all of them, which is what I said -.-;

---

My point wasn't aimed at you or trying to dissprove what you said, I was agreeing with you 'Bright Guy'. My point was that the way Calzaghe fought didn't allow Hopkins to do what he normally does SUCCESSFULLY.
So by that regard Hopkins fought the wrong fight or should've adapted during the fight. :rolleyes: