according to how suddenly we're scoring fights BHop should have got the nod vs Calzag

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Many posters on here scored the fight to BHop.

It's all comes down to how you score rounds and what you prefer.

Polls on this forum are split on who won Canelo vs Trout, and who won Hopkins vs Calazaghe, reason being is they were close and could have went either way.

 

I still have Hopkins on my p4p Top 10.:good

 

Oscar beat Trindad aswell... Add it

 

Your attempted sarcasm is lost on us because that's a reasonable position to take in a close fight, which it was. I scored that fight a draw but frequently found BHop's punches being more effective than Calzaghe's slaps.

This isn't amateur boxing.

 

Difference is Canelo did a better job and landed more hurtful shots than Hopkins did on Calzaghe.

 

i just logged on read a couple threads and see it's time to log right back off..peace

 

Ud12 deal with it

 

http://www.***********.com/forums/view.php?pg=compubox-bernard-hopkins-joe-calzaghe


http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/9199718/canelo-alvarez-passes-toughest-test-tops-austin-trout

no.

calzaghe outlanded hopkins by 100 punches whereas trout only outlanded canelo by 30.

thats over three times difference so this comparison is nowhere near justifiable.

 

hopkins schooled the **** out of calzaghe without getting hit with hardly anything. i can count the number of real punches calzaghe landed on my two hands. the only thing worse than the fight was the scoring, HBO commentary (as always), and those ridiculous compubox numbers that had calzaghe landing at a higher connect % than hopkins. really?
that said, the canelo vs trout fight reminded me a lot of this fight. I thought Hopkins won that fihgt easily, but I can't difinitely say Canelo did the same. the difference is that canelo made trout miss a lot, but he still got hit with a lot as well. Hopkins just schooled calzaghe in every part of the game. he basically just toyed with him.

 

There was an outcry when Hopkins didnt get the nod.

it was another fight that divided opinion for the exact same reason canelo-trout did.

There's always gonna be debatable decisions in a subjective sport. That's why boards like this exist.

 

great thread..
i was thinking of making one similar..
It's irritating to know that if you claim to think B-Hop or Trout won, you will be attacked by stubborn ass fans who can't aknowledge a close fight.. same thing with not agreeing with the Chavez-Taylor stoppage..

bunch of defensive bitches when it comes to having a close fight with an African American..

 

The problem is, if you watch the rounds in backward order you'll struggle to find a stanza Hopkins landed anything significant until midway point, because of course by R6 Calzaghe had Hops figured and ever upped the insane pressure. Mostly ineffective, yeah, but still landing some of the many while Hopkins' success rate evaporated and complaining and grabbing became a norm.

Big Hops fan here, but for the first time I can recall, the old man looked clueless as time went on. Trout-Canelo was nothing like it, Austin started well then Canelo made it his fight, and maintained a high number of clean blows over the course of 12 compared to the excellent start by Bernard that quickly eroded as the angles and holes disappeared. It was a masterpiece of out-of-the-box beating gym rat science.

 

I'm guilty of never scoring even rounds but I can appreciate that they are scored so when I score a fight I try to consider rounds that I don't mind going the other way and if I can agree with a judges card I'll accept the official result.

For instance I have scored pac-jmm 1 for either man each time I watch it. All that takes is 1 round that I scored to be even and the draw is fair.

 

45. :good