I think at the time I gave the fight to Joe based Hopkins whining like a ***** ..I also thought he out worked Hopkins down the stretch .I will have to rewatch it
Calzaghe fans say the darnest things... From what I've learned in this thread, Calzaghe was old and fat and Hopkins was in his prime. :hey
How is it a ridiculous and contradictory statement? The judges are seated at ringside and know what they are looking for in scoring each round. You brought up a list of fights that have had disparity in the scorecards where a card is in each of the fighter's favours and one is a draw. The Calzaghe vs Hopkins scorecards were 2 in Calzaghe's favour and only 1 against him, by a single pioint due to the KD. Do you understand that the same judge scored 6 rounds of the remaining 11 rounds in Calzaghe's favour? That means he scored the fight 6 rounds to Calzaghe and 6 rounds to Hopkins, one of those rounds being a 10-8 round to Hopkins due to the KD, hence the single point differential on his card of 114-113 to Hopkins. The KD has everything to do with it because it happened and was scored accordingly. Your opinion of it being a terrible fight is just that - your opinion. Show me a defined scale for measuring the 'terribility' of fights and you may have a case, but until then, stop trying to force your opinion onto me - stick to the facts sonny :deal
As others have Stated Joe won on activity and agression, it wasn't effective agression, but it was agression. Hopkins wouldn't let his hands go after round 1, and Joe refused to sit down on his punches. As Teddy Atlas would say, it seems as if they had a silent agreement not to hurt each other. Therefore the fight was a boring snoozefest. I scored it for a Joe C by a hair.
I think its only controversial because of hopkins being adament he won the fight and that influenced people, hopkins was very poor for a lot of the fight and thats why he lost, people argue that a lot of calzaghes punches were not top quality but they still landed and counted in the scoring, hopkins also landed very few decent shots and a lot less of the other ones
Show me a video of calzaghe being hurt. He wasnt hurt or rocked. Th knockdown was a flash knockdown and he got up fine. Calzaghe being rocked in this fight is a load of bollox.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this - Hopkins being so vocal in his complaints about the result of the fight plays a big part in it. Look how vocal he was after Pascal 1, and JT 1 and 2 also. I think Hopkins sounding off has a lot to do with peoples perceptions of how his losses actually went - I'm sure many people have initially accepted each of the above 4 loss decisions and then reviewed their opinions after Hopkins started banging on about them.
It has been explained to you over and over again that even officially registered scorecard eventually relies on opinions. If your point is that you are better at intellectual honesty compared to the other poster you are wrong. Truth is, several other ESB-members offers you education on 'facts' because it is evident for everyone that you need it. Mate, you are so wrong. If you want to put the word fact through a scientific analyse I can tell ya that eventually there are no such thing as absolute or unbiased facts, only pieces of information we human beeings percieve and chose to focus on. How can you ask for a rational debate when you on purpose misunderstand the other poster in order to feed your own ego? I have observed your failed attempt to be arrogant, and you should know that more resonable and intellectual posters here on ESB right now look at you with pity. :hi:
Numerous people scoring all of those bouts live had Hopkins winning, and numerous people had his opponents winning. This idea that everyone is simply engaged in revisionist history because Hopkins whined is laughable. Yes, the fine rhetoric of Hopkins tricked the deluded masses and sheeple into thinking those fights were close.
You're obviously not one of these 'more resonable and intellectual posters' judging by your spelling and grammatical errors I'm not trying to be arrogant or to deliberately misunderstand anyone here - I've asked for rational explanations as to why the fight is considered close and controversial by some. I've yet to see an answer that doesn't rely on drama, hyperbole, personal opinion, or the overall undermining of the official judges scorecards. What you and others who try to take the moral high road fail to do is address my question - instead you either post your own opinion on the fight or call me arrogant because I don't subscribe to your point of view. Yes, judges scorecards are based on each judges interpretation and application of what scoring consists of, however, why is it that the denigration of the judges only seems to apply to the 2 judges who clearly scored the fight to Calzaghe, and not the 3rd judge who scored the fight to Hopkins? Why was he right and the others wrong? Bear in mind that the 3rd judge scored it 6 rounds a piece and therefore would have scored it a draw if not for the KD.