And like others, I could easily jumped on the bandwagon and say Hopkins won the fight, but he never. I'm not biased. Amsterdam, you are. Not because you had Calzaghe winning, but how you had him winning.
116-111 Calzaghe (rounds 1, 2 and 10 for Hopkins) Victory by way of "workrate" That said Hopkins looked impressive considering his age - but as versus Taylor, he simply works too little...
Not a joke, you picked Bernard to begin with, 9-3 is also a fair score, you can't possibly give Hopkins more than 3 rounds here.
115-112 Calzaghe There seems to be this phenomenon where a knockdown can really effect people's scoring of an entire fight. Calzaghe got knocked down in the first round and apparently there was a carryover effect into the other rounds, which I find to be amazing. Instead of isolating that one round, people let the knockdown blend into the rest of their scoring when Calzaghe clearly made up for the early deficit.
I'm making a pap of myself? All of the proven good scorer's here scored it wide for Calzaghe, that was in no way close.
Calzaghe winning 115 - 113 RD1: 10 8 Hopkins RD2: 9 10 Calzaghe RD3: 10 9 Hopkins RD4: 10 9 Hopkins RD5: 9 10 Calzaghe RD6: 9 10 Calzaghe RD7: 9 10 Calzaghe RD8: 9 10 Calzaghe RD9: 9 10 Calzaghe RD10: 10-9 Hopkins RD11: 9 10 Calzaghe RD12: 10 10 Draw
I picked Hopkins, but he lost by 3-4 points. He won more than 2 rounds. Bottom line is, both were poor. And for you having Calzaghe winning so wide, that makes his performance look even worse. You can't always win good, sometimes ugly. Calzaghe won, no question.
I had it 6-6. With the knockdown, 1 point for Hops. My card was probably biased. I knew Calzaghe deserved it. He performed brilliantly.