Printable View
I still keep seeing the same people trying to make out that Hopkins beat Calzaghe. Personally, I dont think the fight was particularly close after the 4th. It was scrappy all the way and there was a lot of spoiling. But Joe did what needed to be done IMO.
So, Ive started a poll looking to see who you thought won the fight. Be honest to yourself, if that is indeed possible.
Let the voting commence.
Hopkins won by a round in my eyes, but it was a close fight that could've gone either way. I'd love to see a rematch, the atmosphere in Cardiff would be outstanding if it took place there.
Calzaghe won the fight.
Close, not a visually impressive win but he won.
People who say Hopkins won in my opinion focus on the fact that Calzaghe struggled with Hopkins style and emphasize all the negatives whilst completely ignoring that Hopkins did virtually nothing in the second half of the fight and kept holding and claiming low blows to try and get himself a breather.
If Calzaghe would have fought the way Hopkins did, writhing on the floor as if his balls had been exploded in order to get a breather and try and get points docked he would have been derided.
Hopkins lost and he deserved to lose becuase he refused to fight.
If you don't try and win you don't deserve to win. Calzaghe won that fight.
i say hopkins edged it by a little it wasnt a blow out for either. but bhop landed the more effective punches, kept the fight at his pace, didnt let joe fight his fight, and managed to floor joe. and to take the title you have to beat the champ clearly and it wasnt a clear fight for either so the fight could basically go either way, but if i had the choice i say bhop should have got the decision.
And can we please stop all these calzaghe hate threads and hes the best threads DAMN there are other fighters you kno :p
I'm not a Joe Calzaghe fan but I thought he edged it..
Fights are scored by rounds and I thought Calzaghe won 6 as did Bernard with the knockdown being the deciding factor and that's how I score it everytime I see it. Can get into what won Hopkins those 6 rounds if you want. But I thought Hopkins won.
Hopkins did what hager did againest Leonard , ie, becuase Calzaghe's punches were not hurting him , he ignored alot of them , if hopkins had been a bit busier he could have won convincinly.
Bernard didnt have a mark on him.
I want to see a rematch.
Calzaghe landed over 100 pinches more than Hop so I think its pretty obvious who won .
Pretty much sums it up. Had he been busier I don't think we'd be disputing the decision so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al
I had the fight 5 rounds to 6 with a knockdown in the first when i first scored the bout. It was a draw. Now whenever i rewatch I have hopkins winning 6 rounds to joes 6 with the knockdown being the factor.
This could very easily be a draw but I don't see how hopkins loses anything over 5 rounds.
I voted Joe...
I had it a draw with a meaningless knockdown that gave Hopkins the fight, but I loved this fight because it showed how good they both are, I didn't appreciate what Joe did against Hopkins until I actually took a step back and realized this was Hopkins after all, and coming straight at him usually spells death so for Cazlaghe to limit that right hand as much he did before the fake groin shot was pretty impresive, After that I thought Hopkins got steam back and began to beat Calzaghe to the punch again, but It was back and forth fight that IMO Bernard won on the knockdown, but it could have gone the other way if you really love pressure.
It was close, but i think maybe a draw???.............. i think Joe got 1 more round though................ but Hoppy got the KD..................DRAW :D..................REMATCH!!
I gave hopkins 4 rounds and that's being generous.
joe won the fight, but it wasn't impressive. To much slapping, but he won so he did what he needed to do.
Calzaghe - anyone who says otherwise is in denial. One of the ugliest fights I've ever witnessed but whoever thinks Bhop deserved a decision is crazy. Yeah he got a legitimate knockdown in the 1st round and it stunned Calzaghe for a second but he only hit the canvas because Bhop bowled him over with his weight after his legs buckled.
Very close because of the 10-8 1st round and Hopkins winning at least 3 of the first 4 rounds. I can't see how anybody gives him a round after round 5 thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by miles
I had Hopkins up by about 1 or 2 points but at worst i thought a draw i didn't think Calzaghe did enough to take the title from the champ. One thing i will say is Calzaghe said he under performed but then he fought no different vs Jones really but Bernard did under perform so if they fought again Bernard could fight better but i don't think Calzaghe can so Hopkins would take rematch for me.
It was a horrible fight, Hopkins was unwilling or more likely unable to make a fight of it after those early rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG HVery close because of the 10-8 1st round and Hopkins winning at least 3 of the first 4 rounds. I can't see how anybody gives him a round after round 5 thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by miles
Part of me would like to see a rematch because I think Calzaghe could do a much better job. Having said that, even if Calzaghe outlanded Hopkins by 500 and shut him out for 10 of 12 rounds, you would still get the same people disagreeing with how the vast majority go about scoring their fights.
I think Calzaghe did underperform and the bad start and spoiling tactics of Hopkins only cemented the struggle. Hopkins was gassing against a Calzaghe who was throwing far less than normal and a subdued Calzaghe still got it done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragos Bitch
Calzaghe knows what to expect of Hopkins now. And if Hopkins goes at Calzaghe like he did against Pavlik then that would be suicide for Hopkins. Calzaghe wont just stand there and take it, he would respond and wear Hopkins down something rotten.
One of these polls was done immediately after the fight - it was a landslide for Calzaghe.
I think it's best to let the neutrals judge in these close-ish fights.
You'll never see a hater pick Joe and likewise his fans will pick him.. but the neutrals overwhelmingly thought Calzaghe won. Which he did. Fact. ;)
If the fans debate over this fight like this its shows their should be a rematch i know Calzaghe won't rematch him but us the fans know their should be one.
Calzaghe fights the same in every fight. he looked no different against nard than he did others. Difference is Nard is so slippery. He wouldn't do any better. He'd probably do worse now that Nard knows Cal will throw even if he's hitting nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI think Calzaghe did underperform and the bad start and spoiling tactics of Hopkins only cemented the struggle. Hopkins was gassing against a Calzaghe who was throwing far less than normal and a subdued Calzaghe still got it done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragos Bitch
Calzaghe knows what to expect of Hopkins now. And if Hopkins goes at Calzaghe like he did against Pavlik then that would be suicide for Hopkins. Calzaghe wont just stand there and take it, he would respond and wear Hopkins down something rotten.
calzaghe by a point :-\
Don't think so.. he'd beat Hopkins much easier if they fought again.Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileCalzaghe fights the same in every fight. he looked no different against nard than he did others. Difference is Nard is so slippery. He wouldn't do any better. He'd probably do worse now that Nard knows Cal will throw even if he's hitting nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI think Calzaghe did underperform and the bad start and spoiling tactics of Hopkins only cemented the struggle. Hopkins was gassing against a Calzaghe who was throwing far less than normal and a subdued Calzaghe still got it done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragos Bitch
Calzaghe knows what to expect of Hopkins now. And if Hopkins goes at Calzaghe like he did against Pavlik then that would be suicide for Hopkins. Calzaghe wont just stand there and take it, he would respond and wear Hopkins down something rotten.
First off - It was Calzaghe's first fight at 175.
Secondly - It wont be in Hopkins USA backyard.
Even with ALL the advantages last time Hopkins STILL couldn't win. By rights Hopkins should have been thrown-out for cheating in the 10th round.
You're clearly a fanboy. If hopkins increases his volume even a fraction of what he did in the first fight ,he wins. It's that simple. You should also follow bhops career a bit better. He's often times been called teh dirtiest fighter in the game for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterDon't think so.. he'd beat Hopkins much easier if they fought again.Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileCalzaghe fights the same in every fight. he looked no different against nard than he did others. Difference is Nard is so slippery. He wouldn't do any better. He'd probably do worse now that Nard knows Cal will throw even if he's hitting nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
First off - It was Calzaghe's first fight at 175.
Secondly - It wont be in Hopkins USA backyard.
Even with ALL the advantages last time Hopkins STILL couldn't win. By rights Hopkins should have been thrown-out for cheating in the 10th round.
What he did in the 10th? He's done in about 6 or 7 other fights. The whole low blow thing was de ja vu for me, having seen all of bhops fights.
I'm a fanboy for telling the truth? Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileYou're clearly a fanboy. If hopkins increases his volume even a fraction of what he did in the first fight ,he wins. It's that simple. You should also follow bhops career a bit better. He's often times been called teh dirtiest fighter in the game for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterDon't think so.. he'd beat Hopkins much easier if they fought again.Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabile
First off - It was Calzaghe's first fight at 175.
Secondly - It wont be in Hopkins USA backyard.
Even with ALL the advantages last time Hopkins STILL couldn't win. By rights Hopkins should have been thrown-out for cheating in the 10th round.
What he did in the 10th? He's done in about 6 or 7 other fights. The whole low blow thing was de ja vu for me, having seen all of bhops fights.
So.. you advocate CHEATING!!! Thats pretty low man. You would rather see a fighter win from fraudulent theatrics than fair and square?
I didn't say i advocate anything. I'm just saying, he does it all the time. And it wasn't cheating an any way. It was exaggerating the truth. He was hit low, it didn't hurt, but he exaggerated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterI'm a fanboy for telling the truth? Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileYou're clearly a fanboy. If hopkins increases his volume even a fraction of what he did in the first fight ,he wins. It's that simple. You should also follow bhops career a bit better. He's often times been called teh dirtiest fighter in the game for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
What he did in the 10th? He's done in about 6 or 7 other fights. The whole low blow thing was de ja vu for me, having seen all of bhops fights.
So.. you advocate CHEATING!!! Thats pretty low man. You would rather see a fighter win from fraudulent theatrics than fair and square?
When people are hit in the back of the head, even grazed, they always complain and tell the ref.. sometimes making it to be something more than it is.
It's call winning. Some people do whatever it takes to win, bernard is one of them.
If i get hit low, even if it doesnt hurt, and i have a chance to use that against my opponent.. why shouldn't I? That's either a point taken from him, or 5 minutes for me to rest. Bhop is smart.
BHop is smart, but he is also a dirty cheat. And to make excuses for it is a reflection upon yourself. The way you talk, you are nothing but a fan boy yourself. And also a hater.Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileI didn't say i advocate anything. I'm just saying, he does it all the time. And it wasn't cheating an any way. It was exaggerating the truth. He was hit low, it didn't hurt, but he exaggerated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterI'm a fanboy for telling the truth? Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabile
So.. you advocate CHEATING!!! Thats pretty low man. You would rather see a fighter win from fraudulent theatrics than fair and square?
When people are hit in the back of the head, even grazed, they always complain and tell the ref.. sometimes making it to be something more than it is.
It's call winning. Some people do whatever it takes to win, bernard is one of them.
If i get hit low, even if it doesnt hurt, and i have a chance to use that against my opponent.. why shouldn't I? That's either a point taken from him, or 5 minutes for me to rest. Bhop is smart.
Didnt you say you saw "no way of seeing how Jones could lose to Calzaghe?" And two days later you remarkably pronounce that Jones Jr is shot. :rolleyes:
Thats some boxing knowledge right there. Amazing insight.
And here you are telling us that BHop would most likely do better in a rematch. Do you really think Calzaghe would go in with exactly the same gameplan as well. Is it really "that simple"? Hopkins throws a bit more and wins? ;D
And you are telling other people they are fanboys?? Wow. :-\:rolleyes:
I am not a fan of calzaghe but he won fair and square bhop resorted to cheating and turned it into a holding match because he could do nothing else this is not how you win this is how you get people to say it was close because no one landed anything thats not a champ in my opinion thats a boring fighter who has a good boxing brain and knows how to survive without getting hurt and not making the other guy look good
Seen the fight 3 times and each time i scored it 115-112 for calzaghe with what should of been a hopkins points deduction for blatant headbutts 3 or 4 times.
Calzaghe came to fight, hopkins came to spoil
A hater, how? By stating the obvious? And yes I said there's no way I See jones losing to calzaghe, and stated why. And for a few rounds jones showed exactly what I thought would be the case before succumbing to pressure. So I wasn't entirely wrong at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesBHop is smart, but he is also a dirty cheat. And to make excuses for it is a reflection upon yourself. The way you talk, you are nothing but a fan boy yourself. And also a hater.Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileI didn't say i advocate anything. I'm just saying, he does it all the time. And it wasn't cheating an any way. It was exaggerating the truth. He was hit low, it didn't hurt, but he exaggerated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
When people are hit in the back of the head, even grazed, they always complain and tell the ref.. sometimes making it to be something more than it is.
It's call winning. Some people do whatever it takes to win, bernard is one of them.
If i get hit low, even if it doesnt hurt, and i have a chance to use that against my opponent.. why shouldn't I? That's either a point taken from him, or 5 minutes for me to rest. Bhop is smart.
Didnt you say you saw "no way of seeing how Jones could lose to Calzaghe?" And two days later you remarkably pronounce that Jones Jr is shot. :rolleyes:
Thats some boxing knowledge right there. Amazing insight.
And here you are telling us that BHop would most likely do better in a rematch. Do you really think Calzaghe would go in with exactly the same gameplan as well. Is it really "that simple"? Hopkins throws a bit more and wins? ;D
And you are telling other people they are fanboys?? Wow. :-\:rolleyes:
In my prediction, i said if jones doesn't take any rounds off he wins. Just so happends, he took 9 rounds off.
Explain to me how I'm being a fan boy in anyway, please? Everyone on this board has the biggest hard on for Joe Calzaghe for reasons unknown. and when someone states somethign blatantly obvious that just so happends to be "against" your beloved Joe Calzaghe, you guys get offended.
Pull Joes dick out of your mouth and see the facts, please. The facts are EVERY fighter is guilty of doing what it takes to win even if that means stretching the truth. A victory is a victory. Joe should have kept his hands up then hopkins would have never been able to stretch any truths, because there would be nothing to stretch.
and YES it IS that simple. Hopkins throws a bit more and wins. Please, name me one fight where Joe Calzaghe actually fought differently than his usual. He's the same fighter every night. He has a Plan A, and plan A seems to ALWAYS work. Because his Plan A is so good, he never needs a Plan B or C. This is me admitting Joe Calzaghe's greatness.. so explain to me how I'm a fan boy?
But at the same time, without ever needing a Plan B or C, we don't know if he needs one now. If it aint broke, dont fix it. That was bhops mentality for a very long time and obviously he saw that it was broken against Calzaghe, he'd fix it in a rematch.
Calzaghe fought bhop the same way he's fought everyone. He'll most likely come out and implement the same plan the next time because 1. It's the only plan he has. and 2. It worked the first time.. why switch it? This isn't rocket science.
Bhop works a little more, and wins. It's that simple. His defense isn't going to change any. Calzaghe won't do anything different to hit Bernard More. So it really comes down to wether bhop wants to engage a bit more or not.
LOL you were wrong he lost you said you could not see how he could lose well he lost LOL
I thought Hopkins edged it by a point.
It was a fight though that could of gone either way and i can't complain about the decision.
I personally would like to see a rematch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileA hater, how? By stating the obvious? And yes I said there's no way I See jones losing to calzaghe, and stated why. And for a few rounds jones showed exactly what I thought would be the case before succumbing to pressure. So I wasn't entirely wrong at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesBHop is smart, but he is also a dirty cheat. And to make excuses for it is a reflection upon yourself. The way you talk, you are nothing but a fan boy yourself. And also a hater.Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabile
Didnt you say you saw "no way of seeing how Jones could lose to Calzaghe?" And two days later you remarkably pronounce that Jones Jr is shot. :rolleyes:
Thats some boxing knowledge right there. Amazing insight.
And here you are telling us that BHop would most likely do better in a rematch. Do you really think Calzaghe would go in with exactly the same gameplan as well. Is it really "that simple"? Hopkins throws a bit more and wins? ;D
And you are telling other people they are fanboys?? Wow. :-\:rolleyes:
In my prediction, i said if jones doesn't take any rounds off he wins. Just so happends, he took 9 rounds off.
Explain to me how I'm being a fan boy in anyway, please? Everyone on this board has the biggest hard on for Joe Calzaghe for reasons unknown. and when someone states somethign blatantly obvious that just so happends to be "against" your beloved Joe Calzaghe, you guys get offended.
Pull Joes dick out of your mouth and see the facts, please. The facts are EVERY fighter is guilty of doing what it takes to win even if that means stretching the truth. A victory is a victory. Joe should have kept his hands up then hopkins would have never been able to stretch any truths, because there would be nothing to stretch.
and YES it IS that simple. Hopkins throws a bit more and wins. Please, name me one fight where Joe Calzaghe actually fought differently than his usual. He's the same fighter every night. He has a Plan A, and plan A seems to ALWAYS work. Because his Plan A is so good, he never needs a Plan B or C. This is me admitting Joe Calzaghe's greatness.. so explain to me how I'm a fan boy?
But at the same time, without ever needing a Plan B or C, we don't know if he needs one now. If it aint broke, dont fix it. That was bhops mentality for a very long time and obviously he saw that it was broken against Calzaghe, he'd fix it in a rematch.
Calzaghe fought bhop the same way he's fought everyone. He'll most likely come out and implement the same plan the next time because 1. It's the only plan he has. and 2. It worked the first time.. why switch it? This isn't rocket science.
Bhop works a little more, and wins. It's that simple. His defense isn't going to change any. Calzaghe won't do anything different to hit Bernard More. So it really comes down to wether bhop wants to engage a bit more or not.
haha was this post a joke? :D
Jones would have won had he not taken 9 rounds off! He must be really kicking himself now he realises his fight plan of getting battered and busted up against the ropes didn't work. 'If only I fought back' he must be saying :-\
And Hopkins who could barely finish the first Calzaghe fight as it was without taking 5 minute breaks during rounds must also be regretting that he forgot to throw punches in the second half of the fight.
He was obviously so preoccupied with winning and making Joe look bad that he forgot the small matter of trying to actually land blows himself. :rolleyes:
LOL well said ;D;D;D;DQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileA hater, how? By stating the obvious? And yes I said there's no way I See jones losing to calzaghe, and stated why. And for a few rounds jones showed exactly what I thought would be the case before succumbing to pressure. So I wasn't entirely wrong at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
In my prediction, i said if jones doesn't take any rounds off he wins. Just so happends, he took 9 rounds off.
Explain to me how I'm being a fan boy in anyway, please? Everyone on this board has the biggest hard on for Joe Calzaghe for reasons unknown. and when someone states somethign blatantly obvious that just so happends to be "against" your beloved Joe Calzaghe, you guys get offended.
Pull Joes dick out of your mouth and see the facts, please. The facts are EVERY fighter is guilty of doing what it takes to win even if that means stretching the truth. A victory is a victory. Joe should have kept his hands up then hopkins would have never been able to stretch any truths, because there would be nothing to stretch.
and YES it IS that simple. Hopkins throws a bit more and wins. Please, name me one fight where Joe Calzaghe actually fought differently than his usual. He's the same fighter every night. He has a Plan A, and plan A seems to ALWAYS work. Because his Plan A is so good, he never needs a Plan B or C. This is me admitting Joe Calzaghe's greatness.. so explain to me how I'm a fan boy?
But at the same time, without ever needing a Plan B or C, we don't know if he needs one now. If it aint broke, dont fix it. That was bhops mentality for a very long time and obviously he saw that it was broken against Calzaghe, he'd fix it in a rematch.
Calzaghe fought bhop the same way he's fought everyone. He'll most likely come out and implement the same plan the next time because 1. It's the only plan he has. and 2. It worked the first time.. why switch it? This isn't rocket science.
Bhop works a little more, and wins. It's that simple. His defense isn't going to change any. Calzaghe won't do anything different to hit Bernard More. So it really comes down to wether bhop wants to engage a bit more or not.
haha was this post a joke? :D
Jones would have won had he not taken 9 rounds off! He must be really kicking himself now he realises his fight plan of getting battered and busted up against the ropes didn't work. 'If only I fought back' he must be saying :-\
And Hopkins who could barely finish the first Calzaghe fight as it was without taking 5 minute breaks during rounds must also be regretting that he forgot to throw punches in the second half of the fight.
He was obviously so preoccupied with winning and making Joe look bad that he forgot the small matter of trying to actually land blows himself. :rolleyes:
Calzaghe. Hopkins went defensive the full 12 rounds. How can you win with that style ? Sure he threw a couple of good clean shots but Calzaghe forced the fight and took it too him. He landed the more punches and outworked B-Hop end of.
I had it 115-112 Calzaghe.
Thats ridiculous logic Samuel Peter landed 100 more punches than James Toney, in there 1st fight and everyone considers that a robbery. And that James Toney deserved the nod.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAME
I think Bernard Hopkins won it, he landed the cleaner effective punches. Joe Calzaghe hardly landed a flush punch all night 114-113 Bernard Hopkins.
Tell that too Willie Pep, Pernell Whitaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by leftylee
Bernard Calzaghe beat Joe Hopkins.
I find it frusterating when people say things like, "Only a [Calzaghe] hater would score the fight for Hopkins.", or that anyone who scored the fight for Hopkins is "in denial", or Hopkins cheated, or when people bring in all manner of arguments that have nothing do with who actually won the individual rounds etc. People who think Hopkins won have a legitimate point.
No one is saying it was a landslide victory for Hopkins, just that it was a close fight that could've gone either way depending on what you prefer - harder, accurate punches, and defense or aggression and volume.
This Calzaghe-fan inferiority complex some of you have is silly, every fighter has their detractors, and the truly great fighters often have more because at times they can polarize sentiment (ie PBF), but so what? No need to get all pissed off because someone else has a dissenting view about your favorite fighter. It's annoying and it makes it difficult to have a real discussion/debate without getting exasperated. I like Calzaghe, and most of his fans are fine, but some people go on about him like he's being viewed as some kind of neo-Sven Ottke, which is not the case.
PS. I like Calzaghe, I was cheering for Calzaghe in the Hopkins fight and I likely would if they fought again. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time because it was such a close fight.