Calzaghe WILL fight again for £10/$16 million

[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.

[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.

[Fenster]

ICB - you are wrong and clearly confused. You can't "nitpick" the facts.

I'm saying it's a fact more people thought Marquez won. Therefore my opinion that Marquez won is correct based on the MAJORITY vote. That is the fact.

Now for Calzaghe...

Calzaghe slaughtered Hopkins on the punch stats.

Calzaghe landed 33% of his 707 punches. Hopkins landed only 27% of his 416 punches.

The most TELLING statistic of all though is - Calzaghe connected with 232 punches, the MOST ever landed against Hopkins in the 21 fights he's had tracked by CompuBox. That's your Ring Generalship, Defense, Effective Aggression, Defense, Effective Punches, ETC, all rolled into one. Fact.

So, along with the overwhelming MAJORITY vote for a Calzaghe victory, this unequivocally PROVES, the ONLY way you could have scored the fight for Hopkins is -

A) You're a white hating racist

B) You're a Calzaghe hater

C) You're a Hopkins lover

Which is it?