Why is Calz vs B-Hop considered "close"?

You did not show the names of the fighters next to the scorecards. The way you wrote the sentence made it seem like all scores were in Calzaghe's favor.

You are asking a question that is a matter of opinion, but discounting everyone's opinion when they post them.

What are you looking for??

 

I think Calzaghe's style to be honest.

TV viewers have a better seat than the judges and could see - Especially in the slo mo replays and endless gifs post fight how many of Joes shots missed.

Bias undeinably is a reason also.

 

And also, many members of the press had Hopkins winning.

 

True, they are the pros at that ****, but how many times do they **** it up? I mean thats why we make our own cards I think and have our own opinions on who won what, or what was close or wide. If we all relied on judges all the time, than Valuev and Holy was the right call too.

 

for those who have problems understanding: no. i was attacking your statement that you were basing your 'belief' upon sound 'logic' and facts by focusing on the judge's scorecards. i'm saying judges in general typically do not judge the fight any better than any semi knowledgeable fan. Thus, the judges' scorecards in this particular fight may well not be an actual and perfect reflection of what actually occured. by way of further explanation that is apparently necessary, i already stated that i based my opinion that the fight was close (and shitty) on what i observed based upon my understanding of how a fight is scored. I observed with my own eyes that neither man outlanded and otherwise outperformed the other in any type of meaningful way. I also guessed that many others who saw the fight as 'close' also had similar rationale for their observation and opinion

 

Your looking at it from only one side of the coin. Like I said, if we had a clearer set of rules on how a fight should be scored instead as to why 2 judges had a similar scorecard and the 3rd one didnt we wouldnt have these questionable decisions. Just because 2 judges have the same scorecard doesnt mean the 3rd one is wrong. Maybe the 2 were influenced by the late surge, high workrate, etc. you dont know I dont know. Hops landed cleaner punches Joe barrage after barrage. Ive seen fights where fighter A wins first 7-8 outta 12 rounds, but fighter B still wins the fight because he won the "championship" rounds which I think is hogwash. Ask the judges see what they tell you.

 

hopkins didnt land a significant punch

 

Hopkins didn't want to admit he lost so started the conspiracy theory that he had been jobbed. After the 3rd round, Joe had Hopkins figured out. No one ever did that to Hopkins. He's usually the one doing the figuring. Hopkjns was so befuddled that he pulled the crybaby thing in the 10th in the hopes of slowing Calzaghe's momentum. sorry but it didn't work. Joe was a great fighter and would have fought evenly with any great champion in his weight range. Of course, the same is true of BHop.

 

I agree many people had it wide either way, but people are gonna rely on their own opinion over the judges for the most part, cause they've seen many robberies.