I had it a close win for Calzaghe, but wouldn't have complained if Hopkins had got the decision. Quality of shots landed v quantity of shots landed... the age-old question. Knockdown v blatant cheating... pick 'em. Anyone who says it was clear & decisive either way is just not looking at the same fight.
Great fight and imo Cotto's best win. I'm a big fan of both but a HUGE Mosley fan and thought Cotto won. I think I scored that too but just in case I didn't I'll score it soon.
Bull****! I understand that it wasn't an action-packed crowd pleaser, but some of us appreciate tactical battles between technical bad-asses who can adapt, adjust, and counter-adjust. I ****ing loved the fight, and I do not think I am alone here, even if I am in the minority. It was an intriguing battle between two of the best in the game. What more can a die hard boxing fan truly ask for? This one will get more respect with time when people start realizing just how great both Calzaghe and Hopkins actually were as fighters. :smoke
I strongly disagree with you, David. I think it was a very close fight that was very difficult to score. Hopkis definitely did better earlier in the fight, where as Calzaghe finished stronger, but it was an interesting match-up and I know a lot of people see the fight the way you did, but I honestly just don't see it that way.
I agree, calzaghe didnt look great in the fight but hopkins was just terrible, how you could award that fight to him is amazing, after the first few rounds he did practically nothing
Calzaghe won, except it and move on. For some reason people hate it that Calzaghe beat Hopkins, yet dont complain as much about Hopkins losing to J Taylor twice. Just a point but in Hopkins 2 fights with Taylor, Taylor in the 2 fights won the fights with overall 6 points higher in the judges scorecards. In Calzaghes 1 fight with Hopkins he was 7 points higher on the judges scorecards combined. Total dominance. Hopkins had his best chance to beat Calzaghe by making him fight in a division he hadnt fought before, having the fight in America, with Cortez as ref letting Hopkins foul and having 3 American judges, and he still lost. The judge which scored for Hopkins even gave Hopkins round 11 a round which was clear for Calzaghe but the other 2 judges scored it correctly. Move on Calzaghe won
This was a messy, ugly fight... but to say Hopkins was robbed is ridiculous IMO. And I say that as a relatively neutral fan of world-class boxing, not as someone who supports British boxers above all others. I had Joe winning by a point in a fight that was so bad that I have only ever watched it twice and I had the same score both times. Does a prime Roy Jones beat Calzaghe? Yes pretty much for certain at 168 or 175. Do prime Hopkins and Toney beat him? IMO they don't. Both are close fights - especially Hopkins - but Calzaghe's speed, workrate and footwork ensure that he wins both fights in my book. The proof that Hopkins struggles with speedy fighters is on tape in four fights (Jones, Taylor I, Taylor II, Calzaghe). And yes Hopkins narrowly lost both Taylor fights too - he didn't do enough in either to even scrape a draw. I can understand why people some people may not like Calzaghe on a personal level. But give the guy his dues. He was an exceptional fighter who never lost in the ring (I have him winning the Reid fight narrowly also).
We're having a big argument over whether Calzaghe beat a 40+ year old version of Hopkins and you say he beats a prime version?
As always you then have to try to define what is a prime Hopkins (or indeed Prime Calzaghe). If you ask people to name his best five wins, you'll generally find two or three of them were by the 40+ year old version. Hopkins who lost to Calzaghe was a harder opponent to beat (and would himself beat) the Hopkins that lost to Jones, imo.