Bernard Hopkins said Jermain Taylor was a harder fight for him than Joe Calzaghe

...and the elephant in the room continues to be ignored...:yep

 

Y'all seem to score fights the same way I do. Imo defense, ring generalship, and smart punching are better than activity. I admit I'm a fan of some high-action fighters like Fighting Harada but when I score I look for effectiveness always. Due to the way I score, the guy who lands less still can win just as long as his punches are more meaningful and/or he's being the better ring general. Fights like Toney/Griffin 1 or Mosley/DLH 2 can go either way depending on if you look for the better ring general(Toney in Griffin 1) or the more damaging punches(Mosley in DLH 2 and Toney in Griffin 1). IMO effectiveness & ring generalship are the most important but I can understand if people score for damage & the guy landing more punches.

 

It's just the way it is. I think nine judges out of ten wouldn't be able to give us any reasonable definition of effective aggression, and yet one quarter of their job is to identify it.

I've seen the slow-mos from this fight and laughed at them just like most Hopkins fans, but obviously he had some difficulty with Joe's pressure down the stretch. I don't begrudge Calzaghe diehards the official scores, because it's clear to me from seeing these two do battle past their primes who would have won in their primes. It sure as hell isn't Joe. But that's beside the point of this thread, so I'll just drop it.

Bottom line, I'm not very surprised that Bernard would make the statement he did.

 

What do you expect.

Apparently effective aggression these days means throwing **** all punches, letting your opponent throw a bazillion punches at you, faking low blows, and looking for all the stoppages and breaks you can bull**** the ref into.

What I want to know is if Hopkins was never in danger of being stopped, or never in trouble, why did he need all those breaks?

Without them, would he have been stopped, or been reduced to leaning on the ropes? If so, I'd say that's a pretty strong case for teh other bloke being effective.

This fight really meant about as much as Tyson-Lewis, both guys were past their best, and it was all about money.

 

Answer me a simple question.

If I throw 30 punches at you, and 10 land. The other 20 land on arms, shoulders etc. But I'm throwing them purely to limit YOUR punch output (you land 6 out of 10), who's the most effective fighter?

 

I heard that B-hop hired an army of genealogists after the fight to try and prove that Calzaghe really was a black man.

 

What, that Hopkins was in his 40's when he fought Taylor and Calzaghe?

 

I didn't say he landed one clean shot the whole fight, I'm saying the only decent shot he landed, the only shot of significance, was landed in the first round, and if Calzaghe hadn't been off balance no one would even be talking about that.
Sure Hopkins limited Calzaghe's aggression by clinching, but at the same time he limited himself, he reduced himself to holding and therefore was unable to get off shots himself. So that's a moot point really.

And I have watched this fight more than most, as I actually like it :huh. I've watched it so much, cause you have 2 highly skilled top class p4p operators in a chess match rather than an all out brawl and because it still generates much debate it's good to re-watch. And as many times as I've watched it, I can't see what Hopkins did to win. Still both great fighters though, regardless of who we thought won.

 

He was a hell of lot more washed up than Lewis was and still managed to get in on him at times, especially the first round and Tyson was only 3 round fighter by that time. Lewis would of gotten KTFO by not only a prime Tyson, but even the post prison Tyson that fought Holyfield the second time.

 

wether or not yall think bhop is a racist.

he was right Jermain Taylor did more to him than Calazaghe

 

Calzaghe made him embarrass himself, Taylor two close fights.

Honestly from Hopkins history of remarks he just wants to discredit Calzaghe any way he can (and it probably is because he's white).

 

Says the man who would never lose to a White BOY !

 

All you have done is show selected highlights, doing that someone could make a case for any fight atsch.
I think it must be you who is in denial as the majority felt Calzaghe won, and most of the people who say they think Hopkins won are Hopkins fans and have trouble accepting Hopkins loss.
Calzaghe did flap alot, no doubt, but he also landed solid shots, more so than Hopkins. Hopkins put Calzaghe down with a well placed shot when Joe was standing square on, but Joe wasnt hurt, got up and pressed the action. People try and use that as some sort of example , which is daft, remember Mercado put Hopkins down twice.
Joe bossed Hopkins around and defused Hopkins, landed more on Hopkins than anyone ever before and looked a clear winner. Two of the judges had Joe a wide winner, the other scored round 11 to Hopkins a clear Calzaghe round, that even the Hopkins nuthuggers tend to score for Joe.
I made it 117-112 for Calzaghe a clear winner. If Hopkins thought he was winning, he wouldnt have been looking for time out and points deductions to be taken from Calzaghe. He didnt in his fight before or after.

Hopkins was finishing stronger against Taylor but was and winning alot of the later rounds, but against Calzaghe he was losing.

Just a note. In Hopkins 2 fights with Taylor, Taylor overall was scored 6 points higher than Hopkins on the official scorecards, but in Hopkins 1 fight with Hopkins he was more points up than that overall on the official cards.

Now accept it, learn to live with it and move on. Hopkins LOST to Calzaghe

 

BHOP's physical prime ended as the 90s ended.



david starie = joe calzaghe = omar sheika = sven ottke = robin reid


immaterially more or less

 

he's just saying that because he's still bitter that he lost the fight. let it go bernard, close but you lost, accept it.