could hopkins have beaten calzaghe had he been more agressive?

He didn't have the stamina to be any more aggressive, end of story.

 

To this very day I do not understand why BHop did not throw the right hand lead a lot more. It was there for him all night long, but he didn't use it.

 

No, he fought his fight. He knew he couldn't waste energy like that. Even with his low output, he needed to fake low blows to get a breather. If he had let it go more, he might've looked bad in the later rounds.

 

Hopkins fought the way he did for a reason. He knew Calzaghe was a volume puncher and figured his best way to beat him was to rough him up and smother his work, but in doing that he neglected to do enough to win the fight and lost the decision as a conseqence. He couldn't cope with the pace towards the end and had to look for breaks by behaving like an 8 year old girl.

If he had been more aggressive it would have played right into Calzaghe's hands and he would have lost comprehensively.

 

Watch B-Hop's two fights with J.Taylor - he didn't have the stamina to be active for 12 rounds anymore. When he did get busy vs Calzaghe, the gap in quality was clear, but he just couldn't maintain it against a guy who sets such a fast pace. In saying that, I still gave the fight to Hopkins 114-113, he landed all the meaningful punches, Calzaghe did almost no clean and effective work. Hopkins of 1997-2001 would have sorely outclassed Joe C IMO, the signs were all there.

 

No because he cannot sustain Joe's work rate no matter how aggresive he is .

 

Hopkins couldn't keep up with Calzaghes pace. Thats why he was hugging, and hugging, and hugging and faking low blows. Had he been more agressive he would have gassed and lost by a wider margin.

So the answer is no. Hopkins could not have beaten Calzaghe.


Edit: Sorry, didn't read the last page. Looks like I'm just repeating what everyone else says.

 

Bernard had not enough left to make it two or three excellent last rounds and take the fight, exception made to magoo Chuck Giampa. In short, Hopkins comes forward and he has to keep on blasting Joe or else he runs out of steam and then it's worse... That is to say that Hopkins style is the the one to use against a guy like Joe, anybody who saw the first round and that knockdown against Kabary Salem knows that.

 

bernard hopkins could not have beaten joe calzaghe at any point in his career.

if you can't beat joe in your own back yard, with a corupt referee, in joes 1st fight at a new weight, then you will never beat him.

 

Calzaghe didnt want the rematch even at Cardiff Ingland

Hopkins that turned up for Pavlik would have slaughtered calzaghe

 

True! The number one reason Pav was a 4-1 favorite was people thought Hops was shot due to the **** poor performance against Calzaghe.

 

Not sure where the hell that is :?

Same Hopkins, different opponent, simple as.

 

He stopped him pretty well in his tracks with one shot in the 1st round didnt he. Are you honestly this stupid, as every post of yours I read is a joke!:deal

 

For the record, I'm an American and I don't think Hopkins won. Strive for clarity.

 

whats the point of a re-match, no one gives calzaghe any credit anyway for fighting abroad, and beatin hopkins in his 1st fight at a new weight with a corrupt ref. what would be the point of him doing that again just for people to go on about hopkins being an old man. :deal

americans are that dumb that they would give calzaghe more credit for beating pavlik than they would hopkins or for beating over-rated gate keepers like tarver and johnson. nut:nut