Bernard Hopkins vs Joe Calzaghe I and result of a hypothetical rematch

[p4pking]

It was an extremely close fight, and quite a shit one imo. I don't like Calzaghes as a fighter, the fact that Hopkins simply couldn't fight at his pace forced him to spoil endlessly and when I went to rewatch it a while back I just couldn't be bothered after a while. I don't think there's really even all that much to look for, neither guy was doing anything especially effective it just depends which style you find more aesthetically pleasing in the first place.

Not really, this one was down to who landed vastly more punches

Oh really? Thanks. Imo Calzaghe didn't land a single punch that was on par with what Hopkins did connect with(although so little), which is what makes this fight shit to watch for me.

[Violent Demise]

It was an extremely close fight, and quite a shit one imo. I don't like Calzaghes as a fighter, the fact that Hopkins simply couldn't fight at his pace forced him to spoil endlessly and when I went to rewatch it a while back I just couldn't be bothered after a while. I don't think there's really even all that much to look for, neither guy was doing anything especially effective it just depends which style you find more aesthetically pleasing in the first place.

Not really, this one was down to who landed vastly more punches

Thank you. Might be the smartest thing you ever said. It does indeed come down to who landed more punches. Punches. Not slaps. It's pathetic how so many of y'all claim to know the sport of boxing but fail to realize that Calzaghe's open hand slaps are not legal, scoring blows.

[erics44]

It was an extremely close fight, and quite a shit one imo. I don't like Calzaghes as a fighter, the fact that Hopkins simply couldn't fight at his pace forced him to spoil endlessly and when I went to rewatch it a while back I just couldn't be bothered after a while. I don't think there's really even all that much to look for, neither guy was doing anything especially effective it just depends which style you find more aesthetically pleasing in the first place.

Not really, this one was down to who landed vastly more punches

Thank you. Might be the smartest thing you ever said. It does indeed come down to who landed more punches. Punches. Not slaps. It's pathetic how so many of y'all claim to know the sport of boxing but fail to realize that Calzaghe's open hand slaps are not legal, scoring blows.

like i said before VD, your opinion on this fight is no longer reliable soz

[erics44]

It was an extremely close fight, and quite a shit one imo. I don't like Calzaghes as a fighter, the fact that Hopkins simply couldn't fight at his pace forced him to spoil endlessly and when I went to rewatch it a while back I just couldn't be bothered after a while. I don't think there's really even all that much to look for, neither guy was doing anything especially effective it just depends which style you find more aesthetically pleasing in the first place.

Not really, this one was down to who landed vastly more punches

Oh really? Thanks. Imo Calzaghe didn't land a single punch that was on par with what Hopkins did connect with(although so little), which is what makes this fight shit to watch for me.

you are right, hopkins easily landed the best 5 punches of the fight by a long long way

calzaghe won tho because he landed the next best umpteen

[p4pking]

It was an extremely close fight, and quite a shit one imo. I don't like Calzaghes as a fighter, the fact that Hopkins simply couldn't fight at his pace forced him to spoil endlessly and when I went to rewatch it a while back I just couldn't be bothered after a while. I don't think there's really even all that much to look for, neither guy was doing anything especially effective it just depends which style you find more aesthetically pleasing in the first place.

Not really, this one was down to who landed vastly more punches

Oh really? Thanks. Imo Calzaghe didn't land a single punch that was on par with what Hopkins did connect with(although so little), which is what makes this fight shit to watch for me.

you are right, hopkins easily landed the best 5 punches of the fight by a long long way

calzaghe won tho because he landed the next best umpteen

Ok? Perfectly valid opinion to hold, I just don't think there were really a "next best umpteen". Calzaghe just flurried at nothing and tried to shoeshine Hopkins for much of the fight imo, and had enough success doing so in many rounds but easily lost others in which Hopkins landed real punches. The fight never really took off partly because the two are so utterly opposite in their approach to boxing. Hopkins has textbook punching form and body control but obviously is extremely conservative in his output and can't fight 12 hard rounds. Calzaghe was the antithesis of this really and operated almost entirely on fitness and athletecism. Sometimes such a clash of styles makes for a great fight, this was not one of those nights and I do put more blame on Hopkins for spoiling, for whatever that's worth.

[erics44]

Ok? Perfectly valid opinion to hold, I just don't think there were really a "next best umpteen". Calzaghe just flurried at nothing and tried to shoeshine Hopkins for much of the fight imo, and had enough success doing so in many rounds but easily lost others in which Hopkins landed real punches. The fight never really took off partly because the two are so utterly opposite in their approach to boxing. Hopkins has textbook punching form and body control but obviously is extremely conservative in his output and can't fight 12 hard rounds. Calzaghe was the antithesis of this really and operated almost entirely on fitness and athletecism. Sometimes such a clash of styles makes for a great fight, this was not one of those nights and I do put more blame on Hopkins for spoiling, for whatever that's worth.

i also hold the opinion on the fight that had calzaghe not tried so much to make a fight of it (and been a bit more cagey maybe) he wouldnt have been open to the few punches that hopkins did land

i for one think boxing is an entertainment business and i do think you can win fights by being more entertaining (in a boxing sense)

if there is a fight where each fighter lands about the same amount of punches the fighter who is pushing the fight and trying to make the fight interesting should get the nod (obviously this is a general statement and you take fights on a round by round basis)

and judges do see it that way too, take hatton v collazo as a shining example, IMO callazo won that fight quite comfortably but hatton was on the front foot for the majority of the fight and got the nod (even thought collazo wasnt even using spoiling tactics)

in all other sports rules are designed to make the game as entertaining as possible (they are constantly changing the rules of football to try and give us more goals) and boxing is the same

[AdamGB]

It was an extremely close fight, and quite a shit one imo. I don't like Calzaghes as a fighter, the fact that Hopkins simply couldn't fight at his pace forced him to spoil endlessly and when I went to rewatch it a while back I just couldn't be bothered after a while. I don't think there's really even all that much to look for, neither guy was doing anything especially effective it just depends which style you find more aesthetically pleasing in the first place.

Not really, this one was down to who landed vastly more punches

Thank you. Might be the smartest thing you ever said. It does indeed come down to who landed more punches. Punches. Not slaps. It's pathetic how so many of y'all claim to know the sport of boxing but fail to realize that Calzaghe's open hand slaps are not legal, scoring blows.

Not to upset you too much but do you really find it confusing that more people support the opinion of the professional judges and referees who have officiated calzaghes years of fights when it comes to scoring blows over the opinion of a basement dwelling internet tough guy with a chip on his shoulder over any fighter from Europe?

You don't even understand the difference between a fact and an opinion... If you can't get simple things right then no wonder nobody listens to you.

[p4pking]

Ok? Perfectly valid opinion to hold, I just don't think there were really a "next best umpteen". Calzaghe just flurried at nothing and tried to shoeshine Hopkins for much of the fight imo, and had enough success doing so in many rounds but easily lost others in which Hopkins landed real punches. The fight never really took off partly because the two are so utterly opposite in their approach to boxing. Hopkins has textbook punching form and body control but obviously is extremely conservative in his output and can't fight 12 hard rounds. Calzaghe was the antithesis of this really and operated almost entirely on fitness and athletecism. Sometimes such a clash of styles makes for a great fight, this was not one of those nights and I do put more blame on Hopkins for spoiling, for whatever that's worth.

i also hold the opinion on the fight that had calzaghe not tried so much to make a fight of it (and been a bit more cagey maybe) he wouldnt have been open to the few punches that hopkins did land

i for one think boxing is an entertainment business and i do think you can win fights by being more entertaining (in a boxing sense)

if there is a fight where each fighter lands about the same amount of punches the fighter who is pushing the fight and trying to make the fight interesting should get the nod (obviously this is a general statement and you take fights on a round by round basis)

and judges do see it that way too, take hatton v collazo as a shining example, IMO callazo won that fight quite comfortably but hatton was on the front foot for the majority of the fight and got the nod (even thought collazo wasnt even using spoiling tactics)

in all other sports rules are designed to make the game as entertaining as possible (they are constantly changing the rules of football to try and give us more goals) and boxing is the same

Boxing is also entirely subjective, which most sports aren't for the most part. There will always be shit fights regardless of what rules are in place, although I'm not quite sure what you were alluding to there. Likewise judges will always score fights differently based on what they like, just as we do. You are obviously partial to the aggressor, I almost always root for the guy who is more cagey and seems to move better. I do draw the line somewhere around spoiling though, as far as actually being compelled to watch.

[Dia bando]

The rematch would have been very much the same out come, but this time Joe would have stopped
him, Hopkins can not sustain a fast pace, let's face it in round 10 he was fucked he needed a
rest and that's what he got the cheating shit.
Rolling around the floor like the sugar plum fairy.Joe offered him a rematch 60 40 what was
the answer he said nothing, Bernardo is a money hoer pure and simple Boy's O Yes he is.

[erics44]

Naa papking thats not what im saying, i dont neccesarily side with the agressor, i take each figh dfferently, as with the hatton collazo fight, hatton was the aggressor and i thought collazo won

What i am saying is boxing is less subjective than you think, judges arent jst told to sit there and make their own mind up there are certain rules they have to apply

Hatton did all the pressing and despite taking more cleaner punches he made the fight more of a spectical and got the decision

P.s. Typing on my ipad makes me illiterate

[shza]

Naa papking thats not what im saying, i dont neccesarily side with the agressor, i take each figh dfferently, as with the hatton collazo fight, hatton was the aggressor and i thought collazo won

What i am saying is boxing is less subjective than you think, judges arent jst told to sit there and make their own mind up there are certain rules they have to apply

Hatton did all the pressing and despite taking more cleaner punches he made the fight more of a spectical and got the decision

P.s. Typing on my ipad makes me illiterate

Amazing how much you can go on about judges and objectivity without so much as acknowledging that one of the three judges scored the fight for Hopkins.

[erics44]

Amazing how much you can go on about judges and objectivity without so much as acknowledging that one of the three judges scored the fight for Hopkins.

youre such a mong

You started with the objectivity bollox - "froch fans are all biast and just can be objective and ward would have beaten all froches opponents easily in their own back yards one after another"

One of the judges scored the fight to hopkins - feel better?

Calzaghe deservedly won the fight

[shza]

Amazing how much you can go on about judges and objectivity without so much as acknowledging that one of the three judges scored the fight for Hopkins.

youre such a mong

You started with the objectivity bollox - "froch fans are all biast and just can be objective and ward would have beaten all froches opponents easily in their own back yards one after another"

One of the judges scored the fight to hopkins - feel better?

Calzaghe deservedly won the fight

I'm not sure what you're referring to, since I never said that. In a completely different thread. Your post on this thread was the one that introduced "objectivity" here and the notion that a win on the cards proves something about Calzaghe deserving to win. (Despite directly contradicting yourself on that same point w/r/t Hatton-Collazo.)

It is, of course, true that Ward would have beaten all of Froch's opponents (the ones he didn't already beat) though, btw.

[erics44]

Point out the post where i mention objectivity

And explain my contradiction

[shza]

Point out the post where i mention objectivity

And explain my contradiction

If you're too lazy to look four or five posts up and too much of an idiot or pretender to not acknowledge or understand your contradiction, there's no helping you. But that's been obvious since you started posting on this site.