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

It was a split decision, that in itself would indicate a close fight.

Secondly, scorecards can read 9-3 or 8-4 but that doesn't necessarily indicate how close the fight was either. Not all 10-9 rounds are equal(and it follows that not every 8-4 or 9-3 decision is equal either), there some ridiculously wide 10-9 rounds that threaten 10-8 with no KD(a few rounds from Mayweather-Gatti come to mind as well as round 9 Martinez vs. Pavlik) and there are razor thin rounds that cut pretty thin and comes down to what the judges prefer. Perhaps there were a few really close rounds. If theres a close round with conflicting styles such as high volume with less clean punching vs. low volume with more clean punching it falls into the judges subjective hands. Say there were 2 or more rounds that were pretty much even and let's say these judges are not schmucks and don't score even rounds. Those 2+ close rounds can be a critical swing one way or the other because even though 8-4 decisions seem wide....thats only 2 rounds....and if there are several close rounds that makes the fight seem even closer.

I didn't have a scorecard for the fight. I remember that there were a few rounds that were tough to score, but didn't have a problem with a Calzaghe win.

 

Yes 116-112 like Lederman is fair, but could have been a bigger lead by Calzaghe. BHop, who we now know was NOT washed, certainly was made to look washed up by Joe. And they were saying Joe was afraid of Pavlik. What a joke. Joe would have totally schooled Pavlik and done the boogoloo right in his wheelhouse with impunity.

 

Dude, you are being an *******, and you know it.

Anyone that says they had BHOP winning, and explains why, you say it isnt based on facts.

But the fact (as evidenced in the video of the actual fight) is that Calzaghe's offense was not as effective, as he was missing many punches and never landed anything that hurt or bothered Hopkins, while Hopkins blows staggered Calzaghe on numerous occasions and dropped him.

These are all facts, that cannot be disputed due to the fact that the fight was recorded. Some people had Calzaghe winning on points due to activity, some had Hopkins winning on effective punching.

These are also facts.

Many people disagreed with the official scorecards. As fight scoring is subjective, your "adherance" to facts is insignificant, as the scorecards are only the official judges opinion.

 

It was a terrible, shitty fight in which neither man was able to what they normally do. I thought Calzaghe won fairly easily but it was largely because Hopkins did next to nothing for many of the later rounds. He let Calzaghe control the pace of the fight and looked almost feeble at times. It wasn't a close fight the way it played out, but it would have been closer if Hopkins had been more active. I'm not saying Calzaghe didn't look like ****, but he looked a lot better than Hopkins.

 

Because the only relevant metric is points and not "rounds awarded"?

 

calzaghe landed more punches, even though, many seemed like slaps. hopkins didnt throw enough and land enough to win the fight

 

Joe won, but it was indeed close... Even though Joe barely landed a clean punch, he still won most of those rounds... there were some rounds where BHOP only even threw like 10 punches.

 

What? Really?

 

This was Joe's first fight at LHW.

The fight was in America with three American judges and an American referee.

They scored it 9-3, 8-4 and 6-6.

Bernard won two rounds on all three score-cards.

Joe won four rounds on all three score-cards.


Of the remaining six rounds, Joe won five by a 2-1 majority and Bernard won one by a 2-1 majority.

Alltogether, nine rounds to three.


Three US judges.

A US ref.

And a US location.

Harold Lederman: 9 rounds to three for Calzaghe.

Manny Stewart: "This wasn't a hard fight to score."

And he spoke the truth.

 

what i meant was that he didnt land enough to win the fight. he hardly threw any

 

atsch it's not about me having 'no faith' in any of them, but rather you having total faith in them (or perhaps 2/3). tell us why you believe calzaghe clearly won the fight (for example you might say that in the 3,4, 8, 9, and 11th calzaghe definitely did good work with such and such punch and had hopkins retreating and almost hurt and he edged so and so rounds, or you might simply argue that jc's volume of punches means he clearly won the fight etc) don't tell us that calzaghe dominated by virture of 2 of the 3 judges scorecards, b/c those scorecards aren't 'gospel' (not saying they were paid off or anything) and most judges are barely more qualified to score a fight than most of the posters here