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

TheChump · May 26, 2011

It was simply a case of what hopkins did in the fight did not outweigh calzaghe forcing the fight in a positive way from round 1 to 12 in those two judges minds.Either that or boxing is corrupt and the judges were picked to favour calzaghes workrate over hopkins surgery.

dubace · May 26, 2011

IrnBruMan said: ↑

Yes, another Calzaghe vs Hopkins thread, but it's a legit question.

I'm sick of seeing people claim Calzaghe vs Hopkins was "close" or "controversial" simply because it was a split decision win to Calzaghe.

I would like those who believe the fight was close and/or controversial to explain why in reasonable and logical terms.

My reasons for believing the fight was not close or controversial are as follows:

The final scores were 116-111, 115-112 and 113-114 in Calzaghe's favour.

Taking into account Hopkins' KD of Calzaghe, making round 1 a 10-8 round to Hopkins, the above scores show:

1. The first judge scored the fight to Calzaghe 9 rounds to 3.

2. The second judge scored the fight to Calzaghe 8 rounds to 4.

3. The third judge scored it 6 rounds apiece, with the KD in round 1 making the difference - taking round 1 out of the equation, you are left with a score of 105-104 for the remaining 11 rounds in Calzaghe's favour i.e. 6 rounds to 5. If the KD hadn't occurred, this judge could either have scored round 1 to Hopkins (making it a draw at 6 rounds each) or to Calzaghe (making it 7 rds to 5 to Calzaghe).

I just wonder if all the people claiming it was a close and/or controversial fight are aware of what scenarios actually make up the scorecards?

How can a fight where fighter A wins by 9 rds to 3 and 8 rds to 4 according to 2 judges cards, and win 6 rds to 5 for 11 of the 12 rds in the 3rd judge's eyes be considered "close" or "controversial"?
Click to expand...

it was close because unlike dumbasses like you who can tell if a punch lands or not, those who actually no how to fight say hopkins won

13Black · May 26, 2011

Joe should spar with bute and get him ready for b-hop! Then we can have joe vs b-hop 2.

mattress · May 26, 2011

cuchulain said: ↑

Manny Stewart is still black.

He said it was "an easy fight to score."
Click to expand...

Did he??

Anyway, isn't his father Welsh?

RobertV77 · May 26, 2011

IrnBruMan said: ↑

Yes, another Calzaghe vs Hopkins thread, but it's a legit question.

I'm sick of seeing people claim Calzaghe vs Hopkins was "close" or "controversial" simply because it was a split decision win to Calzaghe.

I would like those who believe the fight was close and/or controversial to explain why in reasonable and logical terms.

My reasons for believing the fight was not close or controversial are as follows:

The final scores were 116-111, 115-112 and 113-114 in Calzaghe's favour.

Taking into account Hopkins' KD of Calzaghe, making round 1 a 10-8 round to Hopkins, the above scores show:

1. The first judge scored the fight to Calzaghe 9 rounds to 3.

2. The second judge scored the fight to Calzaghe 8 rounds to 4.

3. The third judge scored it 6 rounds apiece, with the KD in round 1 making the difference - taking round 1 out of the equation, you are left with a score of 105-104 for the remaining 11 rounds in Calzaghe's favour i.e. 6 rounds to 5. If the KD hadn't occurred, this judge could either have scored round 1 to Hopkins (making it a draw at 6 rounds each) or to Calzaghe (making it 7 rds to 5 to Calzaghe).

I just wonder if all the people claiming it was a close and/or controversial fight are aware of what scenarios actually make up the scorecards?

How can a fight where fighter A wins by 9 rds to 3 and 8 rds to 4 according to 2 judges cards, and win 6 rds to 5 for 11 of the 12 rds in the 3rd judge's eyes be considered "close" or "controversial"?
Click to expand...

They disagree with the official scorecards Einstein.

You've seen enough Calzaghe fights to be familiar with bull**** scorecards.

cuchulain · May 26, 2011

mattress said: ↑

Did he??

Anyway, isn't his father Welsh?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Welsh or Sottish or something like that.

elmaldito · May 26, 2011

I totally agree, the fight wasnt even close. Bhop clearly won the first 7 rounds and knocked him down.

bailey · May 27, 2011

IrnBruMan said: ↑

Yes, another Calzaghe vs Hopkins thread, but it's a legit question.

I'm sick of seeing people claim Calzaghe vs Hopkins was "close" or "controversial" simply because it was a split decision win to Calzaghe.

I would like those who believe the fight was close and/or controversial to explain why in reasonable and logical terms.

My reasons for believing the fight was not close or controversial are as follows:

The final scores were 116-111, 115-112 and 113-114 in Calzaghe's favour.

Taking into account Hopkins' KD of Calzaghe, making round 1 a 10-8 round to Hopkins, the above scores show:

1. The first judge scored the fight to Calzaghe 9 rounds to 3.

2. The second judge scored the fight to Calzaghe 8 rounds to 4.

3. The third judge scored it 6 rounds apiece, with the KD in round 1 making the difference - taking round 1 out of the equation, you are left with a score of 105-104 for the remaining 11 rounds in Calzaghe's favour i.e. 6 rounds to 5. If the KD hadn't occurred, this judge could either have scored round 1 to Hopkins (making it a draw at 6 rounds each) or to Calzaghe (making it 7 rds to 5 to Calzaghe).

I just wonder if all the people claiming it was a close and/or controversial fight are aware of what scenarios actually make up the scorecards?

How can a fight where fighter A wins by 9 rds to 3 and 8 rds to 4 according to 2 judges cards, and win 6 rds to 5 for 11 of the 12 rds in the 3rd judge's eyes be considered "close" or "controversial"?
Click to expand...

Terrific post that the Hopkins nuthuggers wont want to see, another thing that they wont want to see is that if you go on Google and type in A Byrd, just read what comes up about some of her scoring atsch.

Clear Calzaghe win

eagleskins · May 28, 2011

Not close at all. Joe destroyed the racist. Hopkins tried everything in the book to get out of the beating.

Kittikasem · May 28, 2011

IrnBruMan said: ↑

Yes, another Calzaghe vs Hopkins thread, but it's a legit question.

I'm sick of seeing people claim Calzaghe vs Hopkins was "close" or "controversial" simply because it was a split decision win to Calzaghe.

I would like those who believe the fight was close and/or controversial to explain why in reasonable and logical terms.

My reasons for believing the fight was not close or controversial are as follows:

The final scores were 116-111, 115-112 and 113-114 in Calzaghe's favour.

Taking into account Hopkins' KD of Calzaghe, making round 1 a 10-8 round to Hopkins, the above scores show:

1. The first judge scored the fight to Calzaghe 9 rounds to 3.

2. The second judge scored the fight to Calzaghe 8 rounds to 4.

3. The third judge scored it 6 rounds apiece, with the KD in round 1 making the difference - taking round 1 out of the equation, you are left with a score of 105-104 for the remaining 11 rounds in Calzaghe's favour i.e. 6 rounds to 5. If the KD hadn't occurred, this judge could either have scored round 1 to Hopkins (making it a draw at 6 rounds each) or to Calzaghe (making it 7 rds to 5 to Calzaghe).

I just wonder if all the people claiming it was a close and/or controversial fight are aware of what scenarios actually make up the scorecards?

How can a fight where fighter A wins by 9 rds to 3 and 8 rds to 4 according to 2 judges cards, and win 6 rds to 5 for 11 of the 12 rds in the 3rd judge's eyes be considered "close" or "controversial"?
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was all that close. I had Hopkins by 4 or 5 points. My criteria is only landing punches count. If that is your criteria, it wasn't a particularly close fight, Hopkins controlled the fight and did the superior work in the majority of rounds.

Joe.Boxer · May 28, 2011

dubace said: ↑

it was close because unlike dumbasses like you who can tell if a punch lands or not, those who actually no how to fight say hopkins won
Click to expand...

Epic post on so many levels.

Ted Stickles · May 28, 2011

From how i saw it Joe basically with his faster pace,speed, and higher punch output took over the fight from the 5th on....Bernard was exhausted,so much so that he was taking breaks and making all kinds of excuses ....ive never seen him so gassed.Joe's style was just all wrong for Bernard,once he figured Bernard out by the 4th he had him...Bernards kryptonites are speed and fast paces...

Kittikasem · May 28, 2011

Ted Stickles said: ↑

From how i saw it Joe basically with his faster pace,speed, and higher punch output took over the fight from the 5th on....Bernard was exhausted,so much so that he was taking breaks and making all kinds of excuses ....ive never seen him so gassed.Joe's style was just all wrong for Bernard,once he figured Bernard out by the 4th he had him...
This content is protected
...
Click to expand...

Those are the 'Kryptonites' of every fighter who has ever laced them up aged 40+, obviously.

Joe.Boxer · May 28, 2011

Kittikasem said: ↑

I didn't think it was all that close. I had Hopkins by 4 or 5 points. My criteria is only landing punches count. If that is your criteria, it wasn't a particularly close fight, Hopkins controlled the fight and did the superior work in the majority of rounds.
Click to expand...

This content is protected

splatter69 · May 28, 2011

WatchfortheHook said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

This right here pretty much answered your question.

Log in or Sign up

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

TheChump Active Member Full Member

dubace Well-Known Member Full Member

13Black Member Full Member

mattress Boxing Addict Full Member

RobertV77 Boxing Addict Full Member

cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

elmaldito Skillz Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

eagleskins Active Member Full Member

Kittikasem Guest

Joe.Boxer Chinchecker Full Member

Ted Stickles Boxing Addict Full Member

Kittikasem Guest

Joe.Boxer Chinchecker Full Member

splatter69 Well-Known Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

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

TheChump Active Member Full Member

dubace Well-Known Member Full Member

13Black Member Full Member

mattress Boxing Addict Full Member

RobertV77 Boxing Addict Full Member

cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

elmaldito Skillz Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

eagleskins Active Member Full Member

Kittikasem Guest

Joe.Boxer Chinchecker Full Member

Ted Stickles Boxing Addict Full Member

Kittikasem Guest

Joe.Boxer Chinchecker Full Member

splatter69 Well-Known Member Full Member