calzaghe v hopkins

[amat]

time and again i read how close and controvesial that decision was

close? calzaghe landed 27 times as many punches as hopkins

ok maybe you pick the best 3 punches of the fight and they would all be hopkins but those were the only 3 punches he landed

calzaghe had a bad start and hopkins may have even won the first 4, after that it was clear calzaghi all the way

the only thing controversial about it was that it was a spilt decision and not unanimous

Compubox was as stupid that night as you are. Calzaghe was barely landing anything. I think it was a close fight, but besides Hopkins clearly not being what he once was, it was evident he was a better fighter.

In most rounds Hopkins is the only one landing real punches. Calzaghe slaps and makes it look like sometimes he's landing punches, but lots of times his punches had no steam on them and Hopkins was rolling with the punch, IMO that shouldn't count for almost anything when it comes to clean effective punching. I had Hopkins winning by a round so with the kd that's 2 points, and that's because in more rounds than not he was landing the better shots, and Calzaghe wasn't landing 20+ punches a round like Compubox would have you believe. If one guy lands 4-5 more punches, but no hard punches, and the other guy lands every telling blow in the round then he wins it, hands down. THe problem is they fought in Las Vegas where mindless aggression and output is favored(even though Calzaghe doesn't apply mindless aggression). We saw Oscar get a split decision loss againt Mayweather where he was clearly outboxed in 8-9 rounds of the fight, but Oscar like Calzaghe got points for throwing meaningless flurries.

youre stupider than me dude

it was one of the clearest victories over 12 rounds ive ever seen

That's probably because you have only seen like 2 Froch fights and slightly remember Hatton-Collazo. Most people saw the fight as pretty close. When did we get a new Hattonhammer? Or at least a terrible imitation of one.

[erics44]

time and again i read how close and controvesial that decision was

close? calzaghe landed 27 times as many punches as hopkins

ok maybe you pick the best 3 punches of the fight and they would all be hopkins but those were the only 3 punches he landed

calzaghe had a bad start and hopkins may have even won the first 4, after that it was clear calzaghi all the way

the only thing controversial about it was that it was a spilt decision and not unanimous

Compubox was as stupid that night as you are. Calzaghe was barely landing anything. I think it was a close fight, but besides Hopkins clearly not being what he once was, it was evident he was a better fighter.

In most rounds Hopkins is the only one landing real punches. Calzaghe slaps and makes it look like sometimes he's landing punches, but lots of times his punches had no steam on them and Hopkins was rolling with the punch, IMO that shouldn't count for almost anything when it comes to clean effective punching. I had Hopkins winning by a round so with the kd that's 2 points, and that's because in more rounds than not he was landing the better shots, and Calzaghe wasn't landing 20+ punches a round like Compubox would have you believe. If one guy lands 4-5 more punches, but no hard punches, and the other guy lands every telling blow in the round then he wins it, hands down. THe problem is they fought in Las Vegas where mindless aggression and output is favored(even though Calzaghe doesn't apply mindless aggression). We saw Oscar get a split decision loss againt Mayweather where he was clearly outboxed in 8-9 rounds of the fight, but Oscar like Calzaghe got points for throwing meaningless flurries.

youre stupider than me dude

it was one of the clearest victories over 12 rounds ive ever seen

That's probably because you have only seen like 2 Froch fights and slightly remember Hatton-Collazo. Most people saw the fight as pretty close. When did we get a new Hattonhammer? Or at least a terrible imitation of one.

the only reasons i can see anyone persistantly making a case for hopkins in this fight is extreme biastness, dislike for a fighter or being sore looser

he clearly lost the fight, on a scale of 1 to 10 in controversialness (10 being the most controversial) that result was a 1 if that

hatton v collazo was probably more like an 8 or 9

this forum is one of the most funny forums i have visited, you have an opinion like calzaghi comfortably beat hopkins and loads of people start throwing insults at you - you know nothing about boxing, you are stupid, you have probly only ever seen one fight, your mams a slag, im gonna kill your dog, you have a small pecker it happens all the time

[amat]

You have a tiny penis.

[Dean Duke]

I dont normally get involved in threads like these but after reading some of the posts I must have my say on this and ask a few questions too, firstly the fight its self, I had it very close with Calzaghe just edging it on work rate and willingness to engage in action.

1. why didnt Hopkins press the Action after he had Joe on the deck
2. If joes shots didnt carry any pop why did Bernard cover up, tie up and not try to overwhelm joe.
3. Why did Bernard roll about on the floor looking for the ref to take points off Joe if the punches had no power.
4. Why is it ok for Hopkins to use dirty boxing and then when its done back he wants points taken off the other fighter.

At the end of the day Hopkins could of put it on the line and put more effort in but for whatever reason he didnt and lost a very close fight. I used to be a proper fan of Bernard untill he didnt try enough against Jones in the 1st fight. The thing with Hopkins is if the fights not quite going his way he will not risk getting stopped or hurt to turn the fight around he just does not have it in him to dig deep and take risks, look at the fights he has lost he just will not put in that extra bit of effort needed, he just doesnt like to take shots to land his own and when you fight at elite level somtimes all the difference needed to win is a fighter who can hang it out when needed and that unfortunatly aint Bernard.
On a side note I still do admire the way he lives the life, the mans the same age as me and looks incredible, is still dedicated and old skool but mentally is slightly up him self.

[ross]

I dont normally get involved in threads like these but after reading some of the posts I must have my say on this and ask a few questions too, firstly the fight its self, I had it very close with Calzaghe just edging it on work rate and willingness to engage in action.

1. why didnt Hopkins press the Action after he had Joe on the deck
2. If joes shots didnt carry any pop why did Bernard cover up, tie up and not try to overwhelm joe.
3. Why did Bernard roll about on the floor looking for the ref to take points off Joe if the punches had no power.
4. Why is it ok for Hopkins to use dirty boxing and then when its done back he wants points taken off the other fighter.

At the end of the day Hopkins could of put it on the line and put more effort in but for whatever reason he didnt and lost a very close fight. I used to be a proper fan of Bernard untill he didnt try enough against Jones in the 1st fight. The thing with Hopkins is if the fights not quite going his way he will not risk getting stopped or hurt to turn the fight around he just does not have it in him to dig deep and take risks, look at the fights he has lost he just will not put in that extra bit of effort needed, he just doesnt like to take shots to land his own and when you fight at elite level somtimes all the difference needed to win is a fighter who can hang it out when needed and that unfortunatly aint Bernard.
On a side note I still do admire the way he lives the life, the mans the same age as me and looks incredible, is still dedicated and old skool but mentally is slightly up him self.

Exactly right, if Joe wasnt landing anything clean, why was Bernard so hesitant to actually fight?

Joe was crude and had an ugly technique but he could keep fighting and do more than his opponent. To see how Hopkins has done since and Kessler beating Froch, id Take Joe over anyone at super middle and light heavy now. Dawson cant deal with fast hands, he was ok fighting all those plodders and old men. Ward would struggle with Joes work rate and ability to make a fight rough, like Bika did to him.

Bernard would have done worse in his prime against a younger Calzaghe that had that work rate but could punch as well.

[erics44]

You have a tiny penis.

its probly slightly larger than yours mind and has almost definately visited more vaginas