Which of these fights decisions was the most disputable?

Precisely :deal

 

When have I ever said I gave Hopkins the first four rounds? When I scored it the first time I gave him the first three rounds but, sadly, I can't remember the rest of my card. I'll be scoring it again this weekend, as requested by Grant1, and posting on this thread.

 

I'm going to try and watch it as well if i get the time. To be fair to CHJ I know that sometimes when you watch a fight again you can interpret it differently than when you watch it at the time. That being said though, I'm willing to bet my life that the fight wasn't a clear victory for either man.

 

Froch Vs. Dirrell was the closest i think

 

Hi guys. I was hoping to get my Hopkins Calzaghe scorecard done this morning but, seeing as the sun's shining, I'm heading out instead. I will, hopefully, get it done later though; if not tomorrow.

 

1: 10-8 Hopkins. Knock down and good ring generalship.
2: 10-9 Hopkins. Close round but clean punches to Hopkins.
3: 10-9 Calzaghe. Very close but Calzaghe pushed the action.
4: 10-9 Hopkins. Calzaghe ineffective with aggression and Hopkins landed more power shots.
5: 10-9 Calzaghe. Nice short shots from Joe.
6: 10-9 Calzaghe. Clean left from Joe wins it.
7: 10-9 Hopkins. Close, but Hopkins punctuated round with some good shots.
8: 10-9 Hopkins. So hard to seperate, but clean shots were from Bernard.
9: 10-9 Calzaghe. Joe's workrate takes it.
10: 10-9 Hopkins. Sneak rights and a couple of lefts from Hopkins win it.
11: 10-9 Calzaghe. Best round of the fight. Joe's aggression takes it.
12: 10-9 Hopkins. Scrappy round, but the only clean shots were from Hopkins.

115-112 Hopkins.

And there it is. I have to say, some of the rounds were so difficult to score, the last two particularly. You could make a case for scoring those last two anyway you wanted. In the end, I had Hopkins winning 7 rounds and Joe 5 with the knock down making it look wider than it really was.

 

What he said!

 

OPunch stats don't prove anything, they are a gudie. This is PRO boxing not amautuer. Punchstats dont tell you about the effect of the punches.

 

Bernard v Joe. I thought it was tight and that Joe deserved no more than a draw.

 

Yeah except if you think Calzaghe was equally as effective (ineffective) as Valuev you really have to be a tool, or at least harbouring some kind hate for Calzaghe. Calzaghe landed a lot of half clean blows, they weren't as impressive as Hopkins when Hopkins threw but they added up to a fair amount over the course of the fight. In the rounds Hopkins did very little Calzaghe did more than enough to win them because unlike Valuev he was getting through, and even when blocked he was hitting some part of Hopkins which is more than Valuev could say.

Not even remotely similar as fights.

 

What did you think of my score card above, TFFP? I genuinely value your input.

 

Nothing more boring than a Calzaghe fan using bold, underlined text and punch stats to present his case than Joe won.

I base my findings on their faces.

Both of joe's eyes were black, his nose had been crushed and had a plaster over the cut.

Meanwhile B-hop was fresh as a daisy.

Joe Lost.

 

I thought Hopkins just beat Joe but it was close so fair enough,i thought the Froch fight was close as well.I watched Haye without comentry on German tv,and had valuev a clear winner as did everyone in the room,Haye looked short of ideas and only in the 12th was he in anyway effective.So i think that one is the most disputable.I think its good we have a decent,hard hitting smaller guy as champ again and certainly wont miss Valuev,i just wish Haye had been a bit more convincing,i cant see Vittali worrying too much after watching that.

 

The Joe punch stat thing is just plain boring,he threw lots of shots but lots were so light they would not have broken egg shells.He was a good boxer and a good champ,i just wish people would stop defending him with"he landed 2000 punches per round"

 

Cheers mate, I will dispute a round in detail at some point when I have sobered up.