the truth about bhop and calzaghe...

I know, right! Those biased Yank judges, awarding Calzaghe the decision - disgrace!

Seriously, beautiful logic, aren't you glad you subscribed to it, just 'cause you thought you could argue the toss. Probably should have thought that through a little better, your bravado got the better of you, now you look a little bit foolish.

 

EVRYBODY listen Calzaghe is a overrated fraud and will always be one,he lost to a past prime 43 year old B-hop,evryone says it,he has never faced a great fighter in there prime,His whole carreer is based on beating bums in europe

 

The only real factual truth is that Calzaghe has an SD over Hopkins in his record.

 

OK, here it goes.

No, Calzaghe didn't only land slaps. He did land some clean punches, but those were very few, mate. Hopkins landed more clean blows. Maybe that's the reason quite a few people and even one of the three judges scored it for Hopkins, rather than just because they're haters, biased and American. I'm not American. Btw, I don't think Calzaghe used illegal tactics in this fight, not more than Hop did, anyway.

I'm not going to argue with this since I don't think Calzaghe used illegal tactics. And yes, Joe did land more on his opponent, but in my opinion most of those blows were glancing blows, touches and not very hard punches in general. I hope you won't crucify me or claim I'm "fraught with conjecture" for believing that!

Calzaghe was the more effective aggressor. That said, he wasn't very effective, as he landed 33% of his punches and many of them weren't clean. But yes, in this aggression department Calzaghe was definitely the victor.

As for Hopkins' lack of aggression, it's a fact that in the last few years he fights only as a counterpuncher and he's been very succesful at that, because he is a master at using the space around him to his own advantage. Calzaghe managed to limit that space greatly in the second half of the fight (which comes to ring generalship, an aspect of the fight in which Joe was also the victor), which is the main reason Hopkins couldn't go off.

To be exact, Calzaghe did control the tempo of the second half of the fight, not the whole fight. But yes, Joe's strategy in the second half was the main reason Hopkins got tired and couldn't fight the kind of fight he wanted to.

This is a faulty statement. As I posted earlier, the four elements of judging are: 1. Clean, effective punching; 2. Effective aggression; 3. Ring Generalship; and 4. Defense. The first of those elements is of greater importance and as far as clean punching is concerned, I thought Hopkins did better overall in the fight.

In addition, although Calzaghe pressured him and limited the space around him, which means he was better at effective aggression and ring generalship, Hopkins did fairly well in the defense department, hence Joe's 33% of landed punches. That was my logic for giving Hopkins the fight by 1 point, but I don't really have a problem with the official decision and with people giving the fight to Calzaghe.

 

Some people will believe what they want to believe no matter what is staring them in the face. Fact is Calzaghe beat Hopkins bad enough to have BHOP looking for the exit. So in my mind Calzaghe did all he needed to do to better Hopkins. 20 Years from now Hopkins will be just another "W" on the undefeated Calzaghe's record.

 

Would you describe that fight as a domination of Hopkins by Calzaghe?

 

I've already explained to you where you went wrong in misinterpreting pugilist64's posts about judging. Unfortunately your eagerness to belittle pugilist64 caused you to leap before looking which resulted in your downfall. Harping on about it only highlights your mistake and perpetuates your ignorance.

Stick to facts instead of trying to force everyone to share your hatred of Calzaghe :yep

 

Yes.

Hopkins barely threw a punch while Calzaghe threw plenty.

The 2 judges who scored the fight in Calzaghe's favour reflect that with scores of 116-11 and 115-112.

I'd say that's domination.

 

Ill buy that

 

Only an idiot would go around suggesting that a disputed split decision is any kind of "domination", losing on one card, and being a 3-4 rounds ahead on another is nothing like "dominating" an opponent.

My advice to you would be, look up the meaning of the word 'domination', and then go watch some more boxing. Perhaps then you'll gain some kind of understanding of when and where that word can applied correctly - because this is not it.

I suppose rabid Calzaghe nuthuggers like yourself have to peddle such nonsense, because if you stick to sensible interpretations of his career, it comes up seriously lacking in many respects.

Anything less than a wide UD is NOT a domination.

 

My friend, its obvious to anyone who reads this thread what exactly has occurred. You started to make an argument that Hopkins ducked Calzaghe, because you read some rumour on the internet, which you then repeated ad nauseam - as if it was some kind of "proof".

Then, you decided to jump onboard some idioitc assertion that Calzaghe/Hopkins was a good example of biased American judging, because you wanted to engage in some egotistical tit-for-tat argument with me.

Making any negative comments, or giving an objective opinion on Calzaghe does not make a person a "hater." And not being a rabid Calzaghe nuthugger who can't do anything but praise the man - does not equate to "hatred".

Another person for my ignore list :hi:

 

Maybe we should be questioning the judges for "gifting" Calzaghe a decision ?
On reflection Domination may have been a little strong,but maybe it wasn't.?
Calzaghe was the aggressor,he threw and landed more punches,he made Hopkins fight "his" fight, etc etc.
Hopkins did not avoid punishment with slick movement and counter punching,he spent the night going backwards,then rushing Calzaghe throwing one or two punches and then clinching.
Its been done to death,but the fact is 30-40 pitty pat punches are still 30-40 punches that have found the target,now how can three punches in the last 10 seconds of the round be considered more effective ? If Calzaghes "slaps" were nothing and not hurtful why did Hopkins fight like a turtle ? why didn't he just take a few pointless slaps and KO Calzaghe ?
No version of Hopkins would have stopped Calzaghe,but maybe the younger more reckless (and heavier handed) version of Calzaghe would have stopped him ?
Hopkins had no answer to Calzaghe,he wasn't fast enough,he wasn't elusive enough,he wasn't powerful enough,and he certainly wasn't fit enough,they were both past it remember.
When he realised he couldn't mix it with Calzaghe,he tried to hold,spoil,headbut,and cheat his way to a decision.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing,but i was in no doubt before the fight that Calzaghe would beat Hopkins,and the record books will show that Calzaghe did indeed beat Hopkins.
Most of the press (American and European) predicted a Calzaghe victory,quite a few said it would be controversial because of Hopkins style of fighting,and after the fight most agreed with the decision,the only question mark was why one of the judges had it for Hopkins,yet the other two had it a clear Calzaghe victory ?
People should rewatch the fight carefully,you'd be gobsmacked at how few punches Hopkins actually finds the target with.Whilst he may have dropped Calzaghe in the first round,count how many punches including the one that dropped Calzaghe he actually landed during those first 3 minutes,its laughable.:good

 

Bernard Hopkins is one of the greatest defensive masters in boxing history. He has only been knocked down once, and that was a flash knockdown in a fight at altitude. The idea that guys like Tarver, Trinidad, Pavlik and a prime Roy Jones couldn't even knock Hopkins down, but Calzaghe could knock him out - is pretty ridiculous!

The reality is, that Calzaghe edged the fight because he had better stamina and was able to outwork a 43 year old Hopkins. Hopkins fought the exact same way he has always fought. His style is based on smart and efficent movement, tight defense, and accurate and economic punching.

Calzaghe deserves credit for overcoming Hopkins' difficult style - which is something many others have failed to do.

If this fight took place several years ago, Hopkins' stamina issues would not be as acute, and there isn't much chance that Calzaghe's ineffective volume punching strategy would be enough to earn the decision.

 

Thats a very bold statement (no pun intended) Cagey,awkward,sneaky i'd agree with but i don't like how he fights.Hopkins toughness has a lot to do with his record of never being stopped.
When someone throws a question into the mix,why do others think this is the posters oppinion ? At no point in this thread or any other have i said i think Calzaghe had the tools to KO Hopkins,i simply posed the question for others to debate.:good

 

I doubt you'd find many people who disagree with it, even on ESB.