Calzaghe WILL fight again for £10/$16 million

[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?

[ICB]

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?

Your end comment is just laughable considering your a massive Joe Calzaghe fan yourself. But your not biased when it comes to Joe Calzaghe right ?

And your being a pain because i have a different opinion, so your nit-picking and just being awkward in debates like you always are. Whenever it comes to Joe Calzaghe.

Secondly im white i don't hate Joe Calzaghe, and im not a Bernard Hopkins fan either far from it. So i guess that writes of all of your 3 silly assumptions.

Thridly so more people have Joe Calzaghe winning and ? so why should that change my opinion on the fight ? and how does that make my opinion wrong ? it just means i differ in opinions thats it, i've already gave good reasons why i had Bernard Hopkins winning. On all the things i said in my other comment.

Fourthly i just don't understand you at all Fenster, its like your totally coming from a different place to me. How is your opinion a fact if Manny Pacquiao won ?

More people thought JMM won does that make them right ? or make your opinion a "Fact" ? you throw the word fact around alot when most of the time it isn't a fact.

All that means is that your opinion is more agreed amongst boxing fans, that doesn't make it a "Fact" that your opinion is correct. The only way your opinion would be a fact is if 100 percent of boxing fans agreed.

How does punchstats prove anything ? so your reaching with punchstats now ? you still haven't gave me any good reason's why you thought Joe Calzaghe won.

I already said Joe Calzaghe landed more punches, but were they effective or clean punches ? no. Are punchstats completely accurate ? no.

And the funny thing is you have told me in the past, not to use punchstats yet here you are using them for your main argument.

Bernard Hopkins clearly was better defensively, most of Joe Calzaghe's punches were glancing blows or not effective.

Most of Bernard Hopkins punches were easy to see, clean/effective.

He had a better ring generalship than Joe Calzaghe for more of the fight, he was able to move around the ring making Joe Calzaghe off balance. he was able to tie up Joe Calzaghe lowering his workrate and frustrating him.

And how in the world is it a fact that Joe Calzaghe had better effective punching, based on punchstats ? are you honestly reading what your saying ? because that is just ridiculous.

I think even the fans who thought Joe Calzaghe won, wouldn't say Joe Calzaghe landed the more effective punches. And you say im biased ? jesus.