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

It was close, I would give it to calzaghe for hopkins being not active enough even though I score rounds mainly by clean punches landing because hopkins was really innactive some rounds..... I think he could have gotten a pretty clear decision if he would have let his hands go more, because calzaghe was landing **** all, hopkins was slipping, blocking and smothering most of the shots and was landing the cleaner counters, it just wasnt enough.

 

You got me on that one. My english is certainly flawed, since it is not my native language. In my home country (Sweden) I work as a journalist, by the way.

Pointing finger at bad language, with a laughing emoticon added, can be understood as trying to be arrogant. But I'll try and stick to the relevant issue.

You want the numbers on the judges scorecards to be the only frame for the discussion. What you fail to understand is, that there is absolute nothing rational about that. The judges scorecard are eventually a second hand opinion, which needs to be compared with what we have seen with our own eyes, and the opinions we have formed about the fight. This combination might improve our understanding of what happened during the bout.

I mainly disagree with the way you inaccurate throw around words like "fact" and "personal opinion". I agree with the official outcome of the fight.

To answer your question, other posters must bring up with what they saw with their own eyes, and the conclusions they came to.

If a professional judge can come to the conclusion that they won 6 rounds each, the KD excluded, this suggests that the fight was close. This however does not mean that the other two judges necesserily were wrong. The fight boiled down to personal understanding of the scoring criteria, which might differ.

The fact that the scorecards where different also suggest that the fight was close. In a more one sided bout, like Wladimir versus Eddie Chambers, there is less space for personal taste to play a role.

 

I'm sorry, it seems you have quoted the wrong post. I said absolutely nothing about Hopkins "schooling" Calzaghe. My post was questioning the idea that the primary reason people think the fight was close or that Hopkins won was because he said so. You have not really responded to my comment at all.

Beyond that, as far as I can tell, your post isn't even addressing the main topic of this thread. Asking how anyone could have the fight close(or even have Hopkins winning) is signficantly different than asking how anyone could see Hopkins as having schooled Calzaghe. Yes Hopkins declared that he thought he took Calzaghe to school, but that claim has hardly come up at all in this entire thread and I rarely see people simply parroting his view of the fight.

 

cause it was close. pitty pats dont mean much

 

I couldnt watch that **** again if you paid me & to answer the question in the thread title, the reason its considered close is because **** all happened, it was a terrible styles clash.

I had Calzaghe a close winner but both guys stank the place out.

 

dirty tactics of hopkins didnt work against joe.

joe ***** slapped hopkins.

 

slap being the operative word.

 

Let me take a wild guess your English and pro England fighters :shock:.

 

You'd be wrong, dude.


And you might get a serious ass-kickin' if you slandered him like that to his face.:yep

 

I've yet to meet a black guy who thinks that Calzaghe won...which he did of course.

 

Im black and I believe Calzaghe won. What does race have to do with it?

 

Oh, you're the first. Congrats:happy

 

Manny Stewart is still black.

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