How did you score the Calzaghe vs Hopkins fight?

Calzaghe 8-4. Hopkins uglied up the fight as he always does, which made it look closer than it was IMO. The tip-off on who was winning came when Hopkins pulled his protector cup over his head and spent 10 minutes writhing on the canvas looking for a sponny DQ or point deduction.

 

WTF??WTF??
WHY YOU WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT A POINT THATS NOT BEEN RASIED BY ME?
Typical Caltard. Beating yourself up with your own points.

You sure will be waiting a long time for a reply because the only person who has written that argument is you, and you cant reply to yourself without showing everyone what an utter cret mistake you made. As to what I said if you cared to read it properly, I SAID PEAK OF EXPEREINCE, NOT PEAK OF ABILITY. You cretin, learn to read English.

two good examples of when a Caltard cant raise a counterargument, they invent a new argument and argue with that instead.

 

Drinking much today?

 

I never contended that Calzaghe had an amazing skill level. In fact, the meat of my argument is that his style and success is much more based on his physicality, the capacities of which were fairly tapped at 36… which brought me to ask the question you continue to elude… which is fine, because the answer is that there is no volume punching champion in the history of the sport who was at his peak at 36.

"You cretin. Learn to read English," a great man once said.

 

I don't. FAIL reply.

avoiding answering much? typical caltard reply.

 

why are you still pretending that anyone is claiming joe was peak at 36?
typical caltard same response - when they have an argument that doesn't work, they carry on with regardless.

 

Little short on sleep but I'm not real certain on your post's relationship to mine. If it is merely to attest to Kazakhstan's boxing program or progress then that's good to hear.


This is the post I was responding to:

 

It really didn't need a response but for your repetition.

Name me fighters PERIOD that are prime at 36?

There is no discernible or material difference between the attribution of "volume action fighter" for Calz in his prime or Hopkins in his. Do you have punch stats on Hopkins in the 90s? Can you name opponents that out hustled him? Can you show tape of him in his prime wasting rounds and resting? Both threw more and landed more generally than their opponents. Probably why they tended to be pretty successful.

 

It was a leading question. My point being that certain types of fighters diminish quicker. Action/volume guys tend fade quickly and early in their careers. Careful operators who enforce a slower pace and know the kind of tricks that BHop knows (and there aren't many of those) can extend farther to horizon.

 

but no one is claiming that Joe is peak.

so why ask an unrelated leading question in reply to an unrelated point?

yes, answer - you are giving caltard reply, one that doesn't work, yet you keep on going with it.

Are you an alt of Failey? u r displaying his tendancies.

 

****in' pervert:yep

 

That is an answer sought to fit a preconceived question more than the reverse.

It is inapplicable to Calzaghe. He is not unlearned or uneducated in the ring. He is not without a jab. He never relied upon great defense and elusive movement. He never used speed to generate great power. He is not slower or less quick than Froch or Kessler even while older. He remained much quicker than them even at 36.

RJJ is 45 and still fighting larger men than himself. Many doubt his technical prowess and attribute his success solely to the time limited benefit of athleticism. Holyfield, who was never a large heavyweight in which his size was an advantage, was certainly an active fighter that outworked his opponents. He fought until he was 48.

In fact, a variety of fighters with differing styles like Toney (45), Tarver (45), Johnson (45), and Thompson (43) are still fighting. Or, off the top of my head, Donald, Biggs, Rahman, etc. fought into their late 30s and 40s.

They are not all "careful operators". It is simply a lousy era in which the reason you say "there aren't many of those" that know any subtleties or "tricks" is due to a paucity of athletes pursuing boxing for several generations. It makes these old men ABLE to continue a career ("extend farther to the horizon" as you say) rather than be forced out of it to protect their very health. Athletes will stay if they can avoid getting embarrassed and physically debilitated. Put their life at risk in every fight and they will quickly recognize the practicality of retirement.

It has been the lack of substantive competition that has allowed these long careers. No "bag of tricks" can mask old age in a normal competitive environment.

That Hopkins has persisted is as much a lack of strength in the competitive landscape as his hard work. However, HE and OTHERS were able to fight into old age. Calzaghe being unable to is indicative of one that needed those seven plus years versus the 43 year old Bernard Hopkins to narrowly edge the fight in '08. In no way is AGE an excuse for Calzaghe in relation to Hopkins.

If he was 33 (forget 43 as I will make it fit your thesis) and Hopkins 29, he would have been beat down by a better action fighter.

 

That Caltard thing is hilarious. You really should use it more often.

The leading question was in response to the statement that a younger Hop would have certainly beaten Calzaghe. The question was asked to illustrate that a younger Calzaghe would also have performed better, that in fact, based on Calzaghe's style, he might have performed quite a bit better. Now that I have explained a line of logic that seemed rather obvious, I think I will have a drink.

 

I had Calzage ahead by a clear margin and was in agreement with most of the announcers and judges, Byrd has been known to be horrible. I really got turned off by Hopkins faking the foul (looking for rest) it was a cheap tactic to bide time and break JC's momentum

for me a clear Calzage win

 

R1 - 10-8 Hopkins
R2 - 10-9 Calzaghe (Close)
R3 - 10-9 Calzaghe
R4 - 10-9 Calzaghe (Close)
R5 - 10-9 Calzaghe
R6 - 10-9 Calzaghe
R7 - 10-9 Hopkins (Close)
R8 - 10-9 Calzaghe
R9 - 10-9 Calzaghe
R10 - 10-9 Hopkins
R11 - 10-9 Calzaghe
R12 - 10-9 Calzaghe