Calzaghe Looked Ordinary? Are You Guys Nuts?

[donnydarkoIRL]

I think we're being a bit unfair to Hopkins.
He employed dirty tactics, poor sportsmanship and questionable strategy, but in doing so he made the most out of an aged 43 year old body and gave Joe a terrific struggle and a scrappy fight.

The fight was not a case of "what Calzaghe did wrong." It was a case of what Bernard did right.
And what Hopkins did, was drag Joe out of his comfort zonee, negate his counter punching ability and reflexes and drag him into a messy fight.
In turn, Joe coped reasonably well with a "great effort" from Hopkins and dealt out just enugh to be awarded the fight.

It was a split decision, but the judge that awarded the fight to Hopkins scored it 114-113.
Subtract the knockdown and thats a draw.
Joe did well. Obviously better than Tarver and Winky.
They are not ordinary fighters and neither is Joe.

Well put hitmandonny. It was always going to be a close fight. I thought Hopkins was going to get the win before the fight being in the US and all but Joe did enough to win. No-one dominated and no-one got beat up, but both guys did well. I participated in the rbr and went over what I'd observed and i had Joe just ahead, I thought I was being relatively unbiased.

People must remember that Hopkins makes guys look, well not ordinary, but like donny said takes guys out of their comfort zone and tries to push the fight into his plan. He almost did it but just fell a little short, but both guys did well. I was very happy for the win for Joe as it's nice for the titles to spread around the world and not just be with US fighters. It is a big effort to go to the states and beat a legend, and a big effort to fight and undefeated champ when you are 43 years old at the highest level.

I feel the judges may not have liked the aftertaste of Hopkins' dirty tactics. Because of this they favoured the more active productive boxer.

In that sense it was a triumph for boxing.

As for the referee.

[bikersk]

I think we're being a bit unfair to Hopkins.
He employed dirty tactics, poor sportsmanship and questionable strategy, but in doing so he made the most out of an aged 43 year old body and gave Joe a terrific struggle and a scrappy fight.

The fight was not a case of "what Calzaghe did wrong." It was a case of what Bernard did right.
And what Hopkins did, was drag Joe out of his comfort zonee, negate his counter punching ability and reflexes and drag him into a messy fight.
In turn, Joe coped reasonably well with a "great effort" from Hopkins and dealt out just enugh to be awarded the fight.

It was a split decision, but the judge that awarded the fight to Hopkins scored it 114-113.
Subtract the knockdown and thats a draw.
Joe did well. Obviously better than Tarver and Winky.
They are not ordinary fighters and neither is Joe.

Well put hitmandonny. It was always going to be a close fight. I thought Hopkins was going to get the win before the fight being in the US and all but Joe did enough to win. No-one dominated and no-one got beat up, but both guys did well. I participated in the rbr and went over what I'd observed and i had Joe just ahead, I thought I was being relatively unbiased.

People must remember that Hopkins makes guys look, well not ordinary, but like donny said takes guys out of their comfort zone and tries to push the fight into his plan. He almost did it but just fell a little short, but both guys did well. I was very happy for the win for Joe as it's nice for the titles to spread around the world and not just be with US fighters. It is a big effort to go to the states and beat a legend, and a big effort to fight and undefeated champ when you are 43 years old at the highest level.

I feel the judges may not have liked the aftertaste of Hopkins' dirty tactics. Because of this they favoured the more active productive boxer.

In that sense it was a triumph for boxing.

As for the referee.

I agree with that. Yeah I don't know what's going on with Cortez. Can't figure him out.

[donnydarkoIRL]

Well put hitmandonny. It was always going to be a close fight. I thought Hopkins was going to get the win before the fight being in the US and all but Joe did enough to win. No-one dominated and no-one got beat up, but both guys did well. I participated in the rbr and went over what I'd observed and i had Joe just ahead, I thought I was being relatively unbiased.

People must remember that Hopkins makes guys look, well not ordinary, but like donny said takes guys out of their comfort zone and tries to push the fight into his plan. He almost did it but just fell a little short, but both guys did well. I was very happy for the win for Joe as it's nice for the titles to spread around the world and not just be with US fighters. It is a big effort to go to the states and beat a legend, and a big effort to fight and undefeated champ when you are 43 years old at the highest level.

I feel the judges may not have liked the aftertaste of Hopkins' dirty tactics. Because of this they favoured the more active productive boxer.

In that sense it was a triumph for boxing.

As for the referee.

I agree with that. Yeah I don't know what's going on with Cortez. Can't figure him out.

Well I feel Cortez was a disgrace and I'll tell you why.

In the Ricky Hatton Floyd Mayweather bout Cortez was completely intolerant of Hatton keeping Mayweather in place with an arm and hitting. Many fans and trainers deem this "working rough on the inside." Cortez completely prevented Hatton from employing this tactic and ruined Hatton's chances of survinng the 12 rounds.
He then administered a warning and point deduction on an attempted foul.

In the Hopkins fight, Cortez not only allowed Hopkins to utilise a hit and hold style throughout the twelve rounds without warning Hopkins, he also allowed him to get away with numerous uses of the head and punches to the thigh. I don't blame Hopkins for this. Any professional fighter should press any advantage they have.

Cortez clearly altered his attitude and approach to theses two fights according to the personalities involved.
A referee is responsible for a fighters safety, his job is to be completely impartial in performing his duties and the fight with Hopkins proved that he had two completely contrasting standards for Hopkins and Ricky Hatton.
This is not only unprofessional it is also unethical and he should be ashamed of himsel;f for his performance in both fights.

[bikersk]

I feel the judges may not have liked the aftertaste of Hopkins' dirty tactics. Because of this they favoured the more active productive boxer.

In that sense it was a triumph for boxing.

As for the referee.

I agree with that. Yeah I don't know what's going on with Cortez. Can't figure him out.

Well I feel Cortez was a disgrace and I'll tell you why.

In the Ricky Hatton Floyd Mayweather bout Cortez was completely intolerant of Hatton keeping Mayweather in place with an arm and hitting. Many fans and trainers deem this "working rough on the inside." Cortez completely prevented Hatton from employing this tactic and ruined Hatton's chances of survinng the 12 rounds.
He then administered a warning and point deduction on an attempted foul.

In the Hopkins fight, Cortez not only allowed Hopkins to utilise a hit and hold style throughout the twelve rounds without warning Hopkins, he also allowed him to get away with numerous uses of the head and punches to the thigh. I don't blame Hopkins for this. Any professional fighter should press any advantage they have.

Cortez clearly altered his attitude and approach to theses two fights according to the personalities involved.
A referee is responsible for a fighters safety, his job is to be completely impartial in performing his duties and the fight with Hopkins proved that he had two completely contrasting standards for Hopkins and Ricky Hatton.
This is not only unprofessional it is also unethical and he should be ashamed of himsel;f for his performance in both fights.

Ok well thought out. Bet you Hopkins did it on the refs blind side though. I recall the commentators mentioning it during the fight that Hopkins was doing some of these on the blind side. He knows how to do that stuff better than anyone else. May not all be the fault of Cortez, but it does look a bit hypocritical.

[JLAQ]

I agree with that. Yeah I don't know what's going on with Cortez. Can't figure him out.

Well I feel Cortez was a disgrace and I'll tell you why.

In the Ricky Hatton Floyd Mayweather bout Cortez was completely intolerant of Hatton keeping Mayweather in place with an arm and hitting. Many fans and trainers deem this "working rough on the inside." Cortez completely prevented Hatton from employing this tactic and ruined Hatton's chances of survinng the 12 rounds.
He then administered a warning and point deduction on an attempted foul.

In the Hopkins fight, Cortez not only allowed Hopkins to utilise a hit and hold style throughout the twelve rounds without warning Hopkins, he also allowed him to get away with numerous uses of the head and punches to the thigh. I don't blame Hopkins for this. Any professional fighter should press any advantage they have.

Cortez clearly altered his attitude and approach to theses two fights according to the personalities involved.
A referee is responsible for a fighters safety, his job is to be completely impartial in performing his duties and the fight with Hopkins proved that he had two completely contrasting standards for Hopkins and Ricky Hatton.
This is not only unprofessional it is also unethical and he should be ashamed of himsel;f for his performance in both fights.

Ok well thought out. Bet you Hopkins did it on the refs blind side though. I recall the commentators mentioning it during the fight that Hopkins was doing some of these on the blind side. He knows how to do that stuff better than anyone else. May not all be the fault of Cortez, but it does look a bit hypocritical.

There were lots on the blind side, but there were more right in front of Cortez. Cortez is a disgrace to fairness and objectivity. He may be firm, but he is definitely not fair.

[PRIDE OF BOSTON]

Well I feel Cortez was a disgrace and I'll tell you why.

In the Ricky Hatton Floyd Mayweather bout Cortez was completely intolerant of Hatton keeping Mayweather in place with an arm and hitting. Many fans and trainers deem this "working rough on the inside." Cortez completely prevented Hatton from employing this tactic and ruined Hatton's chances of survinng the 12 rounds.
He then administered a warning and point deduction on an attempted foul.

In the Hopkins fight, Cortez not only allowed Hopkins to utilise a hit and hold style throughout the twelve rounds without warning Hopkins, he also allowed him to get away with numerous uses of the head and punches to the thigh. I don't blame Hopkins for this. Any professional fighter should press any advantage they have.

Cortez clearly altered his attitude and approach to theses two fights according to the personalities involved.
A referee is responsible for a fighters safety, his job is to be completely impartial in performing his duties and the fight with Hopkins proved that he had two completely contrasting standards for Hopkins and Ricky Hatton.
This is not only unprofessional it is also unethical and he should be ashamed of himsel;f for his performance in both fights.

Ok well thought out. Bet you Hopkins did it on the refs blind side though. I recall the commentators mentioning it during the fight that Hopkins was doing some of these on the blind side. He knows how to do that stuff better than anyone else. May not all be the fault of Cortez, but it does look a bit hypocritical.

There were lots on the blind side, but there were more right in front of Cortez. Cortez is a disgrace to fairness and objectivity. He may be firm, but he is definitely not fair.

I am not a Cortez fan... Haven't been for a while

[Scrap]

H I had Joe 2up winning down the straight in a terrible fight. There was only one guy trying to fight. As per usual Hopkins trying to mug without effort to me thats mugging the Sport I love, and its certainly not the first time its happened.Boxing without integraty, no time for it.

[THE THIRD MAN]

I selected Joe to win by UD against Hopkins but i was far from impressed, Hopkins is a difficult opponent and i really don't like watching him much. Jones Jr will be a different story and Joe will have to improve on that performance to beat RJJ. I give Jones a good chance of upsetting Calzaghe.

[boozeboxer]

Cortez has some kind of ego problem. They introduce him with some gay "firm but fair slogan". And he just always is trying to get into the spotlight and steal the spotlight from the fighters.

[donnydarkoIRL]

H I had Joe 2up winning down the straight in a terrible fight. There was only one guy trying to fight. As per usual Hopkins trying to mug without effort to me thats mugging the Sport I love, and its certainly not the first time its happened.Boxing without integraty, no time for it.

Yeah, this beloved sport of ours was conceived in liberty and goodwill. The founding fathers never envisoned a boxer who fought dirty, talked dirty, and looked dirty. Nard just has to go, considering this and the fact that he bores the hell out of people watching the sport.

The founding fathers beat the hell out of each other bareknuckle, were known to kick, grapple and gouge at any given opportunity and regulkarly left the opponent blinded or even bleeding to death.

An early hero of the "founding father's the Boston Strongboy John L. Sullivan used to burst into Bars claiming that he would "whup any motherfucker in the house" and who was often drunk in his fights.

[PRIDE OF BOSTON]

H I had Joe 2up winning down the straight in a terrible fight. There was only one guy trying to fight. As per usual Hopkins trying to mug without effort to me thats mugging the Sport I love, and its certainly not the first time its happened.Boxing without integraty, no time for it.

Yeah, this beloved sport of ours was conceived in liberty and goodwill. The founding fathers never envisoned a boxer who fought dirty, talked dirty, and looked dirty. Nard just has to go, considering this and the fact that he bores the hell out of people watching the sport.

The founding fathers beat the hell out of each other bareknuckle, were known to kick, grapple and gouge at any given opportunity and regulkarly left the opponent blinded or even bleeding to death.

An early hero of the "founding father's the Boston Strongboy John L. Sullivan used to burst into Bars claiming that he would "whup any motherfucker in the house" and who was often drunk in his fights.

Sounds a lot like JT... Only difference is the verbage

JT: "I'll fingerbang any mutha fuckin dude in the house..."

[donnydarkoIRL]

Yeah, this beloved sport of ours was conceived in liberty and goodwill. The founding fathers never envisoned a boxer who fought dirty, talked dirty, and looked dirty. Nard just has to go, considering this and the fact that he bores the hell out of people watching the sport.

The founding fathers beat the hell out of each other bareknuckle, were known to kick, grapple and gouge at any given opportunity and regulkarly left the opponent blinded or even bleeding to death.

An early hero of the "founding father's the Boston Strongboy John L. Sullivan used to burst into Bars claiming that he would "whup any motherfucker in the house" and who was often drunk in his fights.

Sounds a lot like JT... Only difference is the verbage

JT: "I'll fingerbang any mutha fuckin dude in the house..."

Whoa that was a good one!

bIG LEFT HOOK FROM pRIDE!!!

[PRIDE OF BOSTON]

The founding fathers beat the hell out of each other bareknuckle, were known to kick, grapple and gouge at any given opportunity and regulkarly left the opponent blinded or even bleeding to death.

An early hero of the "founding father's the Boston Strongboy John L. Sullivan used to burst into Bars claiming that he would "whup any motherfucker in the house" and who was often drunk in his fights.

Sounds a lot like JT... Only difference is the verbage

JT: "I'll fingerbang any mutha fuckin dude in the house..."

Whoa that was a good one!



bIG LEFT HOOK FROM pRIDE!!!

LOL

[Shamrock]

Yeah, this beloved sport of ours was conceived in liberty and goodwill. The founding fathers never envisoned a boxer who fought dirty, talked dirty, and looked dirty. Nard just has to go, considering this and the fact that he bores the hell out of people watching the sport.

The founding fathers beat the hell out of each other bareknuckle, were known to kick, grapple and gouge at any given opportunity and regulkarly left the opponent blinded or even bleeding to death.

An early hero of the "founding father's the Boston Strongboy John L. Sullivan used to burst into Bars claiming that he would "whup any motherfucker in the house" and who was often drunk in his fights.

Sounds a lot like JT... Only difference is the verbage

JT: "I'll fingerbang any mutha fuckin dude in the house..."

A quick prediction from me... if JC fight Jones in Wales he'll win inside the distance. Would have been a totally different fight against Jones a few years back but... JC fighting probably his last fight and in front of his home crowd against a questionably shot Roy Jones will result in a late stoppage win...

[Unknowndonor]

All this fuss about Cortez not letting Hatton hold and hit. The ref could have left, and the outcome would have been the same. In the post fight interview, Hatton aknowledged that Floyd was extremely better on the inside than what he expected, just because Cortez didn't let Hatton tackle Floyd, doesn't mean he did a bad job. People want to bitch about the ref helped Floyd, and at the same time, they say well, Hatton is not a p4p fighter at 147, call the wahmbulance. Which is it? Either Hatton isn't that good, or Cortez helped Floyd? What a bunch of BS. As for the Joe-BHOP fight, both fighters got away with alot of crap. I don't think Joe Cortez is a great Ref, but I didn't see him favor either fighter. If he called a foul on BHOP, he would have had to call a foul on Joe. He probably should have made a point early with BHOP, but when he didn't, he knew he couldn't fault Joe later. As I said, both fighters got away with stuff, and neither got a point deducted, so it worked out good.