Those who think Hopkins won would probably say that a punch that lands is worth more than several that don't. A punch that lands with the knuckle part of the glove is worth more than a punch that lands with the inside of the glove (which is illegal). One guy is waving his arms all over the place without landing, and even looking like he's doing doggypaddle on occasions, while the other is landing clean counter shots. Don't you think there is a very strong case to be made that Hopkins won?
I don't want to see another fight with these two despite the first fight being so close, On this occasion Joe is absolutely right, Styles make fights and this was a terrible styles clash. I'm not sure it would be too much different the second time around. Hopkins had to fight the way he fought against Joe, it was not that he was underestimating him or under performing, If you come into the ring and go straight at Calzaghe and pressure him then he has the speed and the brain to counter that strategy easily. Hopkins would have watched the Lacy and Kessler fights and Freddie Roach would have too and determined that a more sneaky and roughhouse tactic would be better advised for a fight with someone with the speed and workrate of a Joe Calzaghe. In a lot of peoples eyes Hopkins tactics won him the fight so what would make him change in a second fight, one big factor could be the return of Nazeem Richardson to the Hopkins corner but i think the same tactics would be employed only with a little more workrate from Hopkins thus making for another **** fight.
Haha, what a load of mince. Manny Steward has said of Calzaghe numerous times - "very accurate puncher". Watch the Roy Jones and Kessler fights. I suppose Manny Steward, a world class analyst and trainer doesn't know an accurate puncher when he sees one then?
:happy:happy:happy I concur! I'm glad I don't seem to be the only one who knows the difference between what SHOULD score and what shouldn't. BTW In amateur boxing, there's a reason the knuckle part of the glove has a white stripe and the inside doesn't - it's called the scoring area.
Manny Steward is overrated as an analyst, he always says he knows what's going to happen - after it's happened. To be honest, in recent years I think he's overrated as a trainer too. Anyone who thinks Joe is accurate needs to actually watch what lands and what doesn't. If you throw 10 punches and land about 3 LEGAL SCORING shots, you aren't very accurate. Bottom line. Most of the judges just get blinded by flurries and watch his flailing arms and just award him points on assumption. It staggers me to think people believe he landed over 200 punches on Hopkins when there wasn't even a slightest little graze on him at the final bell. I don't care how light or hard you punch, 200+ punches are going to leave some tell tale sign - if they're landing.
Ninebar, I see where your coming from but I have to respectfully disagree. I think Hopkins can raise his game and perform a lot better than he did first time, but I don't think Joe can do much better. That's my opinion. Also, people believe going straight at Joe would be playing right into his hands, which to some extent does carry weight as an arguement. However, nobody with the craft and skill of a Hopkins has done this, mostly only one dimensional or far less skilled fighters have used this approach. Hopkins is a different class. I do not think Hopkins would just steam right into Joe anyway. I just think he will be far more busy with his counters, instead of single shots he'll be throwing punches in combinations, setting them up with his counters, etc. Hopkins held back in the first fight, where as Joe didn't. Hopkins can hit hard enough to hurt Joe, and Joe can be busted up too (see Bika fight for prime example) and I think Hopkins slamming in those right hands and left hooks to Joe's head will eventually have an effect. Basically I think Hopkins can land on Joe more than he did in the first fight, where as I don't think Joe can land anything too effective to deter Hopkins. Just opinion - we'll never know unless they fight again.
Yes, but it marked Joe up terribly. If somebody were to land excessive punches on him, it shows that Joe can be busted up. If Hopkins puts his punches together with the vigour he did against Pavlik, I think it will mark up Joe. Most people have only tended to hit him with one punch at a time instead of putting them in combinations.
He put his punches together against Pavlik because Pavlik stood right infront of him caught between going forwards and back. He was scared of being countered, but he can't fight going backwards either. He had no footwork, no speed, no angles, just plain lack of athleticism. It's a completely different ball game against Calzaghe.
If you watch everytime somebody stuns Joe with a decent shot, his head rocks back and he's vulnerable if someone were to capitalize and jump straight on him. It's just nobody has tried yet. They catch him and then stand off him like Robin Reid did and even Hopkins did. If you were to attack him at the right moment and not stand back and admire your work, you'll have some success. Joe Calzaghe is not Superman.