Calzaghe Hopkins II OFF.

[Bx730NY]

Reading some of this makes me very confused. You would have to be blind not to see how clearly Joe beat bernard. He had him faking low blows and fighting extremely dirty just to survive until the final bell.

Joe made his adjustments around the 4th round and it was over for hopkins from there. There's no way Joe should give him the satisfaction of a rematch after seeing how dirty hopkins is and what a bad sport he is by not giving him any credit what so ever for beating him soundly.

At most i'd say you could only have Joe Calzaghe winning by 2 points, i had Bernard Hopkins winning based on the knockdown. Opinion's varied on the fight, i liked Bernard Hopkins cleaner, harder, more effective punches.

Joe Calzaghe did throw and land more, but how many of those punches were effective ? can you even really name one good punch Joe Calzaghe landed in the entire fight ? because i can only remember one decent straight left hand, and one good body shot from Joe Calzaghe and thats about it. Regarding effective punches.

I think you should reconsider watching that fight without sound. I thought I remember you saying Marquez beat Pac too despite the Knockdowns. They don't mean much when you refuse to fight because you're under constant pressure like the one Joe put on hopkins.

You can argue all day and all night that he wasn't landing alot of effective punches but all you have to do is look at hopkins to know what effect they were having. Why didn't hopkins open up like he did with Pavlik, Tito and dlh? Because those were all smaller guys and he knew he could overpower them.

The most popular excuse of today is when guys say."I don't know why i just couldn't get off. It wasn't my night".

Translation for that, the other guy had a much better game plan and/or is a better fighter period. No way that fight with Joe and bernard was up in the air unless your a hopkins fan and have money riding on him.