Hopkins beat Calzaghe. Dirrell beat Froch. Clottey beat Cotto

Gus Johnson and Antonio Tarver had it for Dirrell, not for robbery. FFS.

Also, I'm sure if you asked them they would probably say it was a close fight that could have went either way.

 

Calzaghe raped him don't forget ;-)

 

There really isn't an issue with Calzaghe vs Hopkins.

Calzaghe clearly outlanded and out worked him, even after getting put down in the first.
What Hopkin's face looked like at the end has no bearing on the way the fight unfolded.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Dirrell vs Froch?
Dirrell was a complete disgrace. He ran and ran and fell over and complained in what was one of the most disgusting performances ive seen. In the last few rounds (barring the final one) he actually started to perform like a real fighter, but too little too late.
Did Dirrell and his team really think they were going to be able to beat the champion in his own backyard with those bizarre tactics?
Froch didn't win that fight. Dirrell lost it. And he thoroughly deserved to.

 

Calzaghe did not land a single effective punch on Hopkins.

Everything Hopkins threw was effective: all 5 punches.

 

Hopkins feigned low blows to steal time. A bannable offence surely. He was also holding like a wrestler, and was using his head as a battering ram. The indefatigable Calzaghe peppered him with crisp jabs and left hands and cantered the fight for the good of boxing. Hopkins = racist disgrace. His best wins are against blown-up Welterweights. :rofl:roflatschatsch

 

so basically your saying that over a 12 round fight a person who lands 200 small punches should rightfully lose to a guy who lands 5 big punches?


do me a favour.... define ''boxing'' for me please because i must have the wrong idea :huh

 

:roll:

 

I think the closest one out of those to being a robbery was Dirrell / Froch , Then Clottey / Cotto. I think them two could of gone either way tbh and the home towners (Cotto was , wasnt he?) would of always got the close fight. Calzaghe won.

 

Your sarcasm detector needs an ovehaul.

 

Calzaghe clearly outthrew AND outlanded Hopkins. That fight is really not in any kind of question.

Dirrell showed great athleticism and quite clearly showed that if he fought his best he could clearly beat and perhaps even stop Froch. The problem is that he fought so un-smartly for so many rounds. Running and trying to pot shoot didn't really work against Froch, but when Dirrell tried to be the aggressor and stay close he looked far better. I think he showed he was the better boxer probably, but he just used his talent like a noob. Anyway - despite Dirrell almost trying hard to look bad, there is a case for him winning.

Dirrell - froch may be a bit similar to alexander - kotelnik, but calz - hops definitely isn't.

 

Dirrell won.I agree with the other two decisions.

 

You cant compare hopkins to kotelnik mate hopkins landed literally one or two punches every so often kotelnick bossed that fight

 

ain't that the truth.

 

outstanding post full of irrefutable scientific facts from an elite ATG ESB poster :happy:happy:happy:happy:happy

 

You're a joke, mate.