114-113 Hopkins, so says the Associated Press, ESPN.com and many ESBers.

General concensus, Joe was not very impressive, Hopkins was not dominated. Granted JCC was 36 but Hopkins is also 43. I don't know of any fighter who has a career definer fight against a 43 year old. This win did not catapult JC ye into the leauge where Toney, Hopkins or RJJ belongs. He may get there but not with this fight.

Furthermore, it was a split decision, the fight could've gone other way.

 

This content is protected

 

exactly, as i have ben sayin 4 the longest. This proves 2 me, that 1. the idiots who say that Calzaghe could beat RJ in his prime need to jump off the nearest cliff, 2, a prime B-Hop makes calzaghe look foolish. I have to rewatch the fight be4 I post who i think won. I wanted B-Hop 2 win so I was tryin to score whatever I could for Nard. But I will watch it again and score accordingly, For the record good win for calzaghe, give him respect 4 gettin the W. But this just proves what I have been saying forever. HE ISNT THAT GOOD. He looked like an amateur against a 43 year old man. Respect for winning. But this is for the idiots who think Calzaghe is God and couldve beaten any1 in their prime that could of fought at 168.

 

...and 2 of the 3 American judges picked Calzaghe. That should matter more to you.

 

:think Interesting statement which implies, among other things, that blacks from the U.K. had a bias towards Hopkins, as if they can't possibly be Britons.

 

I say it like I see it - if those viewer polls are accurate than its definitely because of bias be that American or black, there can be no other reason because any fool can see joe won the fight. Hopkins was the one playing the race card remember; not me.

 

Mastercalzaghe - I wonder if you were one of the Round 1 27.25% dumb Welsh white people who said Joe won the first round after getting dropped?

 

No actually I wasn't I gave the 1st 2 rounds to Hopkins; I scored the fight 116 - 112 but I shall state it again because I fear you don't actually read nor understand my post and just reply for the sake of it:

Any fool who judged that fight 114-113 like the ESPN poll HAS bias be that cultural or racial. Comprende?!?
Simply parrying my statement or throwing the accusation my way is a coward's response.

 

Your excuse is almost as lame as Bernards for making the white boy call - "Black" isn't a "cultural bias" OR "racial" you dickhead.

Simply parrying the comment when there were a bunch of ring side scribes - White, brown, yellow and mabye a hue of the three getting mixed scores from what was an ugly fight - Is called having an opinion. Woe to anyone that didn't score it 8-4...

When your user name is "master calzaghe" - I would hardly expect ANY bias from you now would I?

 

Hopkins did what he had to do to make the fight close, else he would have been dominated. In that he did the best he could achieve. It's very simple.

 

The said fools might also have a bias towards boxers who land the cleaner punches though, in this case, that would be stretching it.

Still, your theory of blacks (American or not) having a bias for Hopkins while white Americans wouldn't have a bias for Calzaghe doesn't hold water.

 

He actually denied it!

 

You only have to look on this board anytime there's a Euro v USA fight to know that Americans on this board are completely and utterly biased. You've just shot yourself in the foot there and proved my point mate.:thumbsup

 

Says "Master Calzaghe" - Hilarious! Just shows bias depends on where you're looking at it from!!!!

I like how classy EVERYONE is when their guy wins/looses - The whole board sucks at class!

 

I agree with this 100%. The fight was close and tough to score, but I knew those close rounds were going to go to Joe. Vegas will award close rounds based on who throws more every time... never mind even land more. If you come forward and throw more punches than the other guy, unless one guy just does serious damage Vegas will award the agressor, regardless of effetiveness.

Using my personal criteria, I had it 114-114, but that has one round even. If you threw that round to Joe, then it's pretty damn close to the judges cards. I think people who just act like this one is an obvious pick don't know much about scoring fights. There were lots of close rounds that a judge could score either way. No robbery. It wasn't a dominating performance from either fighter, and as shown by the judges, you can make a case for both guys.

This happens all the time. If they were younger, I'd like to see a rematch. As it stands now, just hang 'em up. Joe has nothing to be ashamed of other than being taken 12 tough rounds by a relic, but that relic has done it to plenty of other people, too.