Which of these fights decisions was the most disputable?

Couldn't have put it better myself. My scorecards for the 3 fights were:

Froch 114 - 113 (Would have been a draw but for the point deduction)

Hopkins 114-113 (Knockdown in round 1 won the fight)

Haye 116-113 (If Haye had thrown an extra 10 punches a round he'd have won a shutout)

 

C'mon Sir Jon of Oli, you're smarter then that.

 

Well I scored the fights to JC and Haye where as I scored the Froch fight to Dirrel by 2 points so I have to go with that don't I.

I do think the ref should have warned Dirrell more though, especially when he threw himself on the floor to avoid getting hit!

 

I am a big froch fan, im from nottingham.

But in all honesty. Dirrell won that fight. but he did it in a **** way. falling over etc. didnt deserve to take the title because of that fact

 

The Dirrell fight by a mile.

Haye was in danger of losing a decision due to being on the backfoot, but he landed more punches.

Calzaghe hammered Hopkins, constantly had him on the back foot, landed more punches and was actually more accurate than Hopkins. I could cheerfully murder people who scored that fight for Hopkins.

 

froch - dirrel

when watching in the arena i thought he won easily, but i watched it back and think it could of gone either way

 

Froch Dirrell was the worst but hopkins calzaghe was pretty criminal too.

 

:? No way was that fight easy to score. For a start, Hopkins clearly won the first 4 rounds, do you care to dispute that? The fight was very, very close and I had the knockdown making the difference. If you think Calzaghe won then fair enough, I wouldn't dispute it if you scored it 114-113 in his favour, but there is no way in hell Calzaghe won more than 7 rounds in that fight.

 

Not seen the fight in a while, but will be having a look soon.

I don't think there is anyway Hopkins won the first four though.

CHJ will probably stick the videos up from Youtube.

 

Hopkins gets too much credit in the Calzaghe fight for not doing very much under the guise of scoring for "Ring Generalship" or "defense" IMHO.

He just didn't land enough punches, Calzaghe was the aggressor (yes, it should count for something in a lot of fights) and Hopkins just didn't throw or land enough punches to win the fight.

Having the savvy to muddle your way though a fight because you can't keep up with the pace set isn't ring generalship and shouldn't be enough to win a fight in that situation IMHO.

 

I dont any of them were that debateable really:nono

 

CHJ is just an attention seeking troll, ignore him. His act got old ages ago and he's most likely some joker's alias anyway.

 

Punchstats from Calzaghe - Hopkins

Hopkins - 4/16 8/28 10/45 7/28 10/41 12/33 12/41 15/38 13/41 14/54 11/51 11/52
Calzaghe-7/35 13/45 23/70 16/56 16/58 19/58 24/64 22/65 25/61 23/63 20/57 24/75

Which 5 rounds did you score Hopkins? Not one judge scored all of the first 4 (not even Byrd) Hopkins.

So which of the rounds where Hopkins was outlanded nearly 2:1 and constantly on the backfoot doing nothing but holding did you give Hopkins.

Everytime Hopkins went forwards, Calzaghe countered him with hell, meaning Hopkins got hammered even worse in the rounds where he was active.


The first time i watched this fight I scored it overly wide for Calzaghe, since then after several viewings I have actually decided to give Hopkins more than just a 10-9 (10-10 without KD) round in the first and a shut-out there after and can now give Hopkins 2 or 3 rounds.



I will give you the benifit of the doubt and assume you are yet to watch the fight again yourself.

If you have actual watched the fight since the night, I would like to see you justify scoring the first 4 rounds all to Hopkins.

At that point I will then debate an individual round of the four and expose your incorrectness to you youself. you will agree with me and we will all be friends.

 

I dispute those punch stats, troll.

 

They all could of gone either way for me.

No robbery, no dispute.