Calzaghe WILL fight again for £10/$16 million

[smashup]

There's a bigger poll than this somewhere but still ...

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...won-fight.html

must of missed that poll,Calzaghe edged it by 2 rounds for me.

There's a bigger poll with different names where Calzaghe is winning by a landslide (can't find it).

Just about every major boxing site had Calzaghe winning by a huge margin.

Joe beat Hopkins by 2/3 rounds
FACT!

Infact as i remeber it Hopkins not only lost CLEARLY but embarressed himself by cheating and acting the fool.

He knew he lost it and could do nothing more than try and get JC disqualified.

No one fell for it and it was clear he was clutching at straws and the result was that Hopkins just made a proper fool of himself.

Utter tosser

[JazMerkin]

Hopkins is never a guy who does that well with judges, and one of the key reasons that he was going to struggle on the judges cards that night was the stupid comment about never losing to a white boy. So the whole 'Calzaghe is British & still got a decision' means nothing, because if you want to go along that route you could argue that the race issue equally played a role.

So the judges favoured Calzaghe because he's white?

No, that's not at all what I said, they MAY have favoured him because of the dickhead comment Hopkins made. It's as good an argument as 'Calzaghe's British so it was all against him', because Calzaghe had enough of Warren's money behind him to ensure he wasn't going to get shafted. In fact, I'd like to hear of a single Brit other than Lewis against Holyfield who has been screwed by the judges against a US fighter in America in recent years, maybe I'm missing someone

[Fenster]

Hopkins is never a guy who does that well with judges, and one of the key reasons that he was going to struggle on the judges cards that night was the stupid comment about never losing to a white boy. So the whole 'Calzaghe is British & still got a decision' means nothing, because if you want to go along that route you could argue that the race issue equally played a role.

So the judges favoured Calzaghe because he's white?

No, that's not at all what I said, they MAY have favoured him because of the dickhead comment Hopkins made. It's as good an argument as 'Calzaghe's British so it was all against him', because Calzaghe had enough of Warren's money behind him to ensure he wasn't going to get shafted. In fact, I'd like to hear of a single Brit other than Lewis against Holyfield who has been screwed by the judges against a US fighter in America in recent years, maybe I'm missing someone

Right.. but thats like saying Adalaide Byrd (the black American judge) MAY have favoured Hopkins the black American.. considering the other two judges and the MAJORITY of people that watched the fight scored it for Calzaghe.

Warren has more clout than Golden Boy?

[JazMerkin]

So the judges favoured Calzaghe because he's white?

No, that's not at all what I said, they MAY have favoured him because of the dickhead comment Hopkins made. It's as good an argument as 'Calzaghe's British so it was all against him', because Calzaghe had enough of Warren's money behind him to ensure he wasn't going to get shafted. In fact, I'd like to hear of a single Brit other than Lewis against Holyfield who has been screwed by the judges against a US fighter in America in recent years, maybe I'm missing someone

Right.. but thats like saying Adalaide Byrd (the black American judge) MAY have favoured Hopkins the black American.. considering the other two judges and the MAJORITY of people that watched the fight scored it for Calzaghe.

Warren has more clout than Golden Boy?

Jesus, I DIDN'T say they favoured Joe because he & they are white, I said it's because of the comment that Hopkins made. Let's put it this way if Alan Minter said what he did about Hagler today, who would you put your money on if it went to the cards regardless of the colour of the judges?

And no I didn't say Warren has more clout than GBP, but he has enough to ensure his fighter probably won't get screwed over.

[Fenster]

No, that's not at all what I said, they MAY have favoured him because of the dickhead comment Hopkins made. It's as good an argument as 'Calzaghe's British so it was all against him', because Calzaghe had enough of Warren's money behind him to ensure he wasn't going to get shafted. In fact, I'd like to hear of a single Brit other than Lewis against Holyfield who has been screwed by the judges against a US fighter in America in recent years, maybe I'm missing someone

Right.. but thats like saying Adalaide Byrd (the black American judge) MAY have favoured Hopkins the black American.. considering the other two judges and the MAJORITY of people that watched the fight scored it for Calzaghe.

Warren has more clout than Golden Boy?

Jesus, I DIDN'T say they favoured Joe because he & they are white, I said it's because of the comment that Hopkins made. Let's put it this way if Alan Minter said what he did about Hagler today, who would you put your money on if it went to the cards regardless of the colour of the judges?

And no I didn't say Warren has more clout than GBP, but he has enough to ensure his fighter probably won't get screwed over.

The argument that "Calzaghe is British and still got the decision" is simply refering to a fighter in the other guys backyard. Whether it be America, Britain, Germany or wherever, it's a given the HOME fighter will be favoured. (i'm sure Britkid will also give you a history of robberies )

I don't see how that compares with a fighter being favoured because of skin colour over racial remarks. Maybe if they got the Ku klux clan to judge it you'd have a point.

Calzaghe won a close fight fair and square. Simple as.

[JazMerkin]

Right.. but thats like saying Adalaide Byrd (the black American judge) MAY have favoured Hopkins the black American.. considering the other two judges and the MAJORITY of people that watched the fight scored it for Calzaghe.

Warren has more clout than Golden Boy?

Jesus, I DIDN'T say they favoured Joe because he & they are white, I said it's because of the comment that Hopkins made. Let's put it this way if Alan Minter said what he did about Hagler today, who would you put your money on if it went to the cards regardless of the colour of the judges?

And no I didn't say Warren has more clout than GBP, but he has enough to ensure his fighter probably won't get screwed over.

The argument that "Calzaghe is British and still got the decision" is simply refering to a fighter in the other guys backyard. Whether it be America, Britain, Germany or wherever, it's a given the HOME fighter will be favoured. (i'm sure Britkid will also give you a history of robberies )

I don't see how that compares with a fighter being favoured because of skin colour over racial remarks. Maybe if they got the Ku klux clan to judge it you'd have a point.

Calzaghe won a close fight fair and square. Simple as.

Ok, how much more simply can I write this?! The judges did not favour Calzaghe because he's white, IMO they did not look favourably on Hopkins because of his dumb comments, not because he's black, but because of WHAT HE SAID. The same would of happened nowadays if Minter fought Hagler, because people don't stand for that sh*t any more.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned no Brit fighter in the past 2 decades has been robbed in the US bar Lewis. Both Calzaghe & Hatton only did well with judges, in Hatton's case getting a favourable decision over a US fighter, Naz was never robbed whilst over there. The fact is as much as I hate to say it the Americans are a bit better for not pulling country partial decisions than we are, it is more a case of a fighter who has the strongest support over there being the one most likely to do well on the judges card. If Britkid can name me some in recent years fine, but until then I won't buy this 'the British fighter has to work extra hard to get a decision', it's not like Hopkins is a 'home' fighter in Vegas in the way ODLH or PBF are.

[Quinito]

Hopkins defeated Calzaghe. Sorry but I am more of a 'quality' guy than a 'quantity' when I score a fight.

[ICB]

Hopkins defeated Calzaghe. Sorry but I am more of a 'quality' guy than a 'quantity' when I score a fight.

I echo this comment.

[Fenster]

Hopkins defeated Calzaghe. Sorry but I am more of a 'quality' guy than a 'quantity' when I score a fight.

I echo this comment.

And you were both wrong.

[ICB]

Hopkins defeated Calzaghe. Sorry but I am more of a 'quality' guy than a 'quantity' when I score a fight.

I echo this comment.

And you were both wrong.

Just like your wrong thinking JMM beat Manny Pacquiao ? that was technically a loss right ? i couldn't think of anyother examples by the way.

[Dark Lord Al]

If i was Joe Calzaghe i would of fought Kelly Pavlik instead of Bernard Hopkins, and Chad Dawson instead of Roy Jones Jr.

Kelly Pavlik is one dimensional and would of probably, been outboxed clearly over 12 rounds.

And Chad Dawson wouldn't have been ready for someone like Joe Calzaghe, he takes too many rounds off and he still hasn't got the experience. To deal with Joe Calzaghe's workrate.

He probably would've got more credit for those fights too. Pavlik was still unbeaten of course

Yea thats what i think aswell, beating Kelly Pavlik now won't mean as much anymore, and even Frank Warren said he would of set up the Kelly Pavlik fight.

Because Kelly Pavlik had a big following and Joe Calzaghe, would of looked impressive because Kelly Pavlik's. Style is made for Joe Calzaghe.

And like i said Chad Dawson i don't think would of had the experience. To deal with Joe Calzaghe, yes people will comeback and say Chad Dawson wasn't that well known which is probably true.

But hardcore fans would of gave Joe Calzaghe alot of credit, because unlike Jeff Lacy. Chad Dawson had proven himself against elite fighters.

It must be true if Warren said it

[Fenster]

I echo this comment.

And you were both wrong.

Just like your wrong thinking JMM beat Manny Pacquiao ? that was technically a loss right ? i couldn't think of anyother examples by the way.

Yes officially Pacster won.

The difference is - the MAJORITY think Marquez beat Pacster, like the HUGE MAJORITY think Calzaghe beat Hopkins.

So I'm right in both cases. Fact.

[ICB]

And you were both wrong.

Just like your wrong thinking JMM beat Manny Pacquiao ? that was technically a loss right ? i couldn't think of anyother examples by the way.

Yes officially Pacster won.

The difference is - the MAJORITY think Marquez beat Pacster, like the HUGE MAJORITY think Calzaghe beat Hopkins.

So I'm right in both cases. Fact.

No thats actually called an opinion, not a fact. We are both technically not wrong for thinking Bernard Hopkins beat Joe Calzaghe.

Because in a close fight when debating the scoring no one is wrong, because people see boxing in different ways.

Just like your opinion in thinking JMM beating Manny Pacquiao, isn't right or wrong. And just because more people thought JMM won. Doesn't make you right either.

Because alot of people thought Manny Pacquiao won, based on the knockdown and because he done more damage to JMM, and he was taking the fight to JMM.

I don't personally share that opinion but that doesn't make it wrong either does it ?

Quite alot of people on this forum believe Bernard Hopkins beat Joe Calzaghe. Including me and i haven't really ever seen any legit reason's.

Why people think Joe Calzaghe won other than workrate, BK proved my point that most of Joe Calzaghe's punches were ineffective.

So if thats the case why should he win just based on workrate ? this isn't amateur scoring.

[Fenster]

Just like your wrong thinking JMM beat Manny Pacquiao ? that was technically a loss right ? i couldn't think of anyother examples by the way.

Yes officially Pacster won.

The difference is - the MAJORITY think Marquez beat Pacster, like the HUGE MAJORITY think Calzaghe beat Hopkins.

So I'm right in both cases. Fact.

No thats actually called an opinion, not a fact. We are both technically not wrong for thinking Bernard Hopkins beat Joe Calzaghe.

Because in a close fight when debating the scoring no one is wrong, because people see boxing in different ways.

Just like your opinion in thinking JMM beating Manny Pacquiao, isn't right or wrong. And just because more people thought JMM won. Doesn't make you right either.

Because alot of people thought Manny Pacquiao won, based on the knockdown and because he done more damage to JMM, and he was taking the fight to JMM.

I don't personally share that opinion but that doesn't make it wrong either does it ?

Quite alot of people on this forum believe Bernard Hopkins beat Joe Calzaghe. Including me and i haven't really ever seen any legit reason's.

Why people think Joe Calzaghe won other than workrate, BK proved my point that most of Joe Calzaghe's punches were ineffective.

So if thats the case why should he win just based on workrate ? this isn't amateur scoring.

It's a fact that the majority of posters believe Marquez beat Pacster and the HUGE MAJORITY know Calzaghe beat Hopkins (check the polls).

That is the fact. Therefore my OPINION is right. Fact.

Only a small minority think Hopkins beat Calzaghe. You guys in the small minority are deluding yourselves a little. Fact.

[ICB]

Yes officially Pacster won.

The difference is - the MAJORITY think Marquez beat Pacster, like the HUGE MAJORITY think Calzaghe beat Hopkins.

So I'm right in both cases. Fact.

No thats actually called an opinion, not a fact. We are both technically not wrong for thinking Bernard Hopkins beat Joe Calzaghe.

Because in a close fight when debating the scoring no one is wrong, because people see boxing in different ways.

Just like your opinion in thinking JMM beating Manny Pacquiao, isn't right or wrong. And just because more people thought JMM won. Doesn't make you right either.

Because alot of people thought Manny Pacquiao won, based on the knockdown and because he done more damage to JMM, and he was taking the fight to JMM.

I don't personally share that opinion but that doesn't make it wrong either does it ?

Quite alot of people on this forum believe Bernard Hopkins beat Joe Calzaghe. Including me and i haven't really ever seen any legit reason's.

Why people think Joe Calzaghe won other than workrate, BK proved my point that most of Joe Calzaghe's punches were ineffective.

So if thats the case why should he win just based on workrate ? this isn't amateur scoring.

It's a fact that the majority of posters believe Marquez beat Pacster and the HUGE MAJORITY know Calzaghe beat Hopkins (check the polls).

That is the fact. Therefore my OPINION is right. Fact.

Only a small minority think Hopkins beat Calzaghe. You guys in the small minority are deluding yourselves a little. Fact.

If your opinion was right then JMM would of got the decision, thats why your opinion is just an opinion not a fact.

So basically what your saying is that anyone that thought Manny Pacquiao won, there opinion is wrong just because more people thought JMM won ?

Come on Fenster i think your just baiting me in here.

Everyone sees boxing different and in close fights no one is wrong, everyone has different views.

Bernard Hopkins scored a knockdown, he landed the more effective punches. He was able to get Joe Calzaghe out of his rhythm for alot of the fight. Especially making him off balance as he was coming in, plus his defense was superb.

Now instead of arguing about nit-picking things like "opinions" and "facts" why don't you give me good reasonings, why you thought Joe Calzaghe won.

Because i have never really seen one good one on this forum yet, and i think all BK did was prove my point that he only scored it for Joe Calzaghe based on workrate.

Yet this isn't amateur scoring there are many more things, to winning a professional boxing match than just workrate.

Like Ring Generalship, Defense, Effective Aggression, Defense, Effective Punches, ETC.