How did you score the Calzaghe vs Hopkins fight?

I never scored it and I will never watch that fight again to score it. What a frustrating fight that was to watch. Typical past prime Hopkins tbh.

I remember feeling Joe was lucky to get the win. His flurries hit a lot of arms, shoulders and air. Hopkins landed the cleaner, harder shots, spoiled Joe's work and dropped him hard in the first. Joe had the work rate and a bit of show boating that's about it.

A draw was probably fair.

 

I'm not incredibly angry or bitter about anything. I wanted Joe to win and was getting frustrated at Hopkins spoiling tactics and Joe's inability to land clean. Hopkins has a great defence. He hardly gave Joe face or body to land on the whole fight. Joe hit a lot of nothing in that fight and that's the truth.

I dont care if Hopkins was #3 and unbeating in 15 years, he was still past his prime.
Yes Joe was past prime too and had hand troubles. It didn't stop him being probably the most naturally fit boxer in the sport. Joe has ATG work rate but his punch accuracy is terrible for the output he puts in. Hopkins exposed his flaws in that fight.

It's your opinion. I have no problem with your card but I don't really score for work rate if the punches are not landing on face or body.

Joe had high work rate but low accuracy. Hopkins had good accuracy but low work rate. Even though Hopkins spoiled and made it a **** fight he still deserved at least a draw imo.

 

I bet on Hopkins and felt as robbed as Hopkins when the verdict was announced. I agree with everything you say apart from your opinion of the other poster's card; 9-3 to Calzaghe is ****ing scandalous!!!

 

6-5-1 to Calzaghe in rounds, so factoring in the knockdown I had it all square at 114-114. Wouldn't argue with anyone who had it to either man by a point or so, but anyone who thinks it was clear either way is kidding themselves. The better, cleaner work came from Hopkins but he faded down the stretch.

No issues from me with Calzaghe getting the win, but given how bad a 43 year old with dodgy stamina and reduced speed made him look, I think there's plenty of evidence in that fight to suggest that a younger, prime Hopkins might well have run out a clear winner against Calzaghe.

 

I had picked Hopkins to win...and I scored the fight for Calzaghe by two points. What impressed me in this fight, was Calzaghe's core strength. Hopkins couldn't move him around...I think that surprised him.

 

I dont go with compubox. I go with what I see with my own eye's.

Hopkins has a style tailor made to age well. He was past prime in the fact he was slower than he was in his younger days. You can see this in his footwork. Like Floyd he became smarter and more economical with age but he had clearly lost a step.

 

Sorry but I dont believe those stats. The system is flawed.

 

I'm just pulling your leg. I'm only going with what I can remember and how I remember I felt watching the fight live.

I should really have watched the fight again before commenting on this thread. I just cant bring myself to watch that fight again though.

Hopkins and Calzaghe are not great to watch even though two of my fav schoolings were by those two. Calzaghe>Lacey and Hopkins>Trinidad.

Calzaghe and Hopkins have been in some really shitty fights, especially their fight.