the truth about bhop and calzaghe...

Here we go again, you all just sound like them...:roll:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf9-trei8ro[/yt]

 

You're obsessed. And frankly, a very scary and weird person. Back on ignore you go, freak-boy!

:hi:

 

dont ignore me im talking to you fool...

 

In which case I seriously question your ability to call a fight. It's clear, however, you're a Calzaghe zealot and, arguably, trolling anyway.

 

Well done Einstein,i have a Calzaghe avatar so i must be on the bandwagon atsch
Calzaghe beat Hopkins and beat him convincingly enough for those at ringside (commentators and judges) to be in no doubt as to who won.
As for my ability to score a fight ? well ive scored a few in my time,and not on internet forums.:good

 

I don't have a problem with you suggesting Calzaghe won the fight. But suggesting that Calzaghe "dominated" Bhop (or vice-a-versa) is just nonsense.

A good example of a fighter being dominated is Jones-Lacy, or Hamed-Barrera. Not Calzaghe-Hopkins.

 

Not only is it a Calzaghe avatar but it's one depicting Joe landing one of the few clean punches he landed on Hopkins in that fight. I've no problem with people having favourites but please don't attempt to patronise knowledgeable fans by accusing us of blind hate if they don't think Calzaghe "dominated" Hopkins.

 

no. hopkins at no stage would have beaten calzaghe with ease.
in his prime he couldn't have finished a finished joppy.
just remember that around 7 years ago , calzaghe was younger also , stronger and more agressive than the one who fought hopkins.
i don't think that the fight would have gone very differently.
hopkins was 160 then , and if that fight happened there , and hopkins lost , then he could have use the size thing as a reason.
there is also a chance that hopkins could have gotten a sd12 or a 2 points edge decision , but no EASE for sure, that's all i say.

 

Calzaghe beat Hopkins because Calzaghe had better stamina and workrate.

The Hopkins of 2001-2004 had no stamina or workrate issues, he would have comfortabley out-pointed Calzaghe.

 

:good - I thought that the 43 year old Hopkins beat Calzaghe.

 

I scored it to Hopkins by a point. I have zero problem with people scoring it to Calzaghe by a similar margin though.

I just think people who suggest that Calzaghe would have beaten a prime Bhop, haven't really thought it through properly

 

atsch
if you read what i write and understand what you read - you must not come to the conclusion i said that one or the other won or would have won , all i say is that it would have never happened with ease , that's all.

 

You don't start faking low blows for no reason.Hopkins knew he was starting to lose the fight and needed a breather.

 

...thats about right:good

 

When did he fake a low blow?