Whitaker beat DelaHoya worse than Mayweather

I had B-Hop by just a point, I think he tired badly down the stretch, as a 43 year old man is bound to. What was your card?

 

Not a fight I'd use the term 'whooped' to describe

 

Me neither, but I'm sure I've seen you using similar terms to describe what Mayweather did to Oscar, and that's just as silly.

 

i think Duran's footwork is being underestimated in this thread a little

 

The Oscar who fought Mayweather was creaking; did well but got beat by a couple of rounds. The Oscar who fought Whitaker was on-point, but won a decision that Ted Spoon likened to be more of a Barrera/Morales III-draw/win situation in favour of 'Sweet Pea'. Politics of course ensured the 'Golden Boy' juggernaut kept going by a good margin on each card.

Whitaker contended tremendously well, but De La Hoya's semi-effective salvoes ignited the crowd, and that's where the line is generally drawn in America.

 

A good 5 points.

 

Whether posted in reply to this thread or by PM direct to me, I'd really like to see your card amigo. I had it to Hopkins by just the one, but I'd definitely go back for a second look with your scores to see how you saw it. Up to you man. I'm not asking this to try and dispute anything with you, far from it, I greatly respect your opinion is all.

 

I had Joe handily beating Hopkins. One fighter was throwing punches, and the other wasn't. That's how I'd sum up proceedings.

 

I'd say that verges on an absurdly reductive assessment of a rather complex fight.

 

Cool. :good Not a fight that deserves any type of investigation. Almost fell asleep.

 

The thing is, I thought the same upon first watching it live. I was a bit drunk at the time, granted, but it just seemed to me that Calzaghe turned the tide of the fight in the second half, with Hopkins doing little outside of spoiling in the later rounds.

For whatever reason I decided to give it a re-watch, and came away with a very different impression. Yes, Hopkins spoiled in the later rounds, but even then it was difficult to give rounds to Calzaghe. Hops landed the cleaner, harder shots in just about every round, while forcing Calzaghe to miss about 80% of his punches. He also hurt him with counter punches on 3 seperate occasions. Calzaghe was throwing a lot, but he wasn't landing anything of consequence. Even in the latter rounds when being thoroughly outworked Hopkins was landing the cleaner shots and making Calzaghe miss consistently. Based on clean punching, defense, and ring generalship I gave him the clear edge, and given that Calzaghe's aggression was hardly effective I found it hard to score in his favor there, either. I was really struggling to give Joe rounds in this fight.

As for my score-card, I don't keep cards. I either score fights at the time or just watch and give my thoughts based on who I generally thought got the better of it. I did score this one, though. Hopkins was well ahead at the end is all I can say.

 

Now that's one assessment I do agree with! What a snore. An exhausted fighter willing the clock to run down vs a flailing amateur with no concept of how to throw or land a punch on an opponent who knows how to defend himself. Not a good recipe.

 

I commend you on finding the courage to watch that fight again, El.

 

Much appreciated :good

 

I don't care to ever watch a Joe Calzaghe fight again in my life, Popkins. I can appreciate his career, the longevity, and his undefeated record, but he's so ugly to watch. :-(