
Originally Posted by
p4pking
Ok? Perfectly valid opinion to hold, I just don't think there were really a "next best umpteen". Calzaghe just flurried at nothing and tried to shoeshine Hopkins for much of the fight imo, and had enough success doing so in many rounds but easily lost others in which Hopkins landed real punches. The fight never really took off partly because the two are so utterly opposite in their approach to boxing. Hopkins has textbook punching form and body control but obviously is extremely conservative in his output and can't fight 12 hard rounds. Calzaghe was the antithesis of this really and operated almost entirely on fitness and athletecism. Sometimes such a clash of styles makes for a great fight, this was not one of those nights and I do put more blame on Hopkins for spoiling, for whatever that's worth.
i also hold the opinion on the fight that had calzaghe not tried so much to make a fight of it (and been a bit more cagey maybe) he wouldnt have been open to the few punches that hopkins did land
i for one think boxing is an entertainment business and i do think you can win fights by being more entertaining (in a boxing sense)
if there is a fight where each fighter lands about the same amount of punches the fighter who is pushing the fight and trying to make the fight interesting should get the nod (obviously this is a general statement and you take fights on a round by round basis)
and judges do see it that way too, take hatton v collazo as a shining example, IMO callazo won that fight quite comfortably but hatton was on the front foot for the majority of the fight and got the nod (even thought collazo wasnt even using spoiling tactics)
in all other sports rules are designed to make the game as entertaining as possible (they are constantly changing the rules of football to try and give us more goals) and boxing is the same
Bookmarks