Hopkins vs. Calzaghe: Punch By Punch

Corrected for you sir :good

 

My thoughts exactly! Btw, it seems like it's all still pretty crazy....

@San
Nice work, keep it up!:good

 

This thread should be DQ'd just like Bernard should've been. Give us Smoger next time.

 

Close fight, AP had B.Hop winning.

I had it a draw

 

The only significant punches calzaghe landed were the low blows.

 

:rofl I don't think I've seen a more pathetic thread in my life. Classic!!!

 

Calzaghe UD 9 rounds to 3

 

or a 10-9 if the fighter that was knocked down dominated the rest of the round. 9-9 can only happen w/ a point deduction.

lol @ some of u on here.

 

San I appreciate this thread and may re-watch the fight using it if I have time. I'm Welsh and I thought that B-Hop won. The Compubox numbers for this fight were a joke. Those who have Calzaghe winning by a clear margin show a complete disregard for the finer points of the sweet science. It was a close fight, but B-Hop nullified almost all of Calzaghe’s work and landed the much cleaner punches. His lack of stamina stopped him from taking a clear decision.
What pisses me about Joe is that he completely dismisses a re-match. He never 'beat' B-Hop, he just got the decision. The fight clearly warrants a re-match and would be a perfect final fight for him at the Millennium Stadium. B-Hop gives Pavlik such a bad licking that Pavlik looked like he was about to burst into tears, and that jerk-off Kellerman asks Joe about a fight with Chad and doesn’t even mention B-Hop. What was the deal with that? Joe is not going to take the re-match because he knows deep down that B-Hop is a sphinx without a riddle.

 

The desperate obsession in this thread is pathetic. Not so much the OP but the responses hungry to lap it up because they want so badly to believe that Calzaghe lost.

Impressive work by San though, but I find it hard to accept that with his history of posting on this subject that he can be fully subjective, and that he is not seeing what he wants. But fair play to him for the work.

Calzaghe knows that it was a horrible fight, did not make him look good and thinks that a rematch would be more of the same, spoiling, clinching and probably another contested decision over an older Hopkins from which he would take little credit. Why Hopkins gets so little criticism for his antics in that fight I do not know, Calzaghe gets it for his ugly showing but Hopkins not so much even though he was the main reason why it was a shocking fight.

As a purist I would like to see a rematch to see how both men would approach it.

 

I thought Calzaghe won.

 

Well said.

As I've said before, the reason Hopkins gets a free pass for the way he fought is because people cared more about seeing Calzaghe lose than seeing Hopkins win. As such, Calzaghe's mistakes get thrown under a microscope while they could care less about Hopkins' tactics.

How quick most of the same people put him to pasture going into the Pavlik fight tells you all you need to know about what they really thought about how Hopkins looked vs Calzaghe.

 

if calzaghe's punches are so weak and ineffective then why did the x-cuse resort to feigning a low blow and trying desperately to get calzaghe disqualified. the x-cuse was knackered and struggling to defend himself. legend? he showed himself to be a cheat. a very skilled cheat but a cheat nevertheless.

 

lol because he was tired, joe never had hopkins hurt for a second... hell, tell me when if ever youve seen hopkins hurt.

 

tired? from what? hitting calzaghe all night with colossal punches? wow calzaghe must be awesome to withstand such an onslaught.
and since when is being tired a reason to cheat so shamelessly?
merry christmas.