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

That's his unorthodox style.

It still gets the job done.

Did you see Lacy's face after they fought?

Did you see Kessler's face after they fought?

Just because B-Hop doesn't cut easy doesn't mean they aren't hard punches.

He has plenty of clues, which is why he's both the undisputed unified SMW and now, linear LHW champ.

 

Relax, I'm just talking about this fight. He was definately slapping in this fight, everyone could see that. He was also walking right into punches and it took him a while to figure out how to avoid that straight right. Calzaghe didn't look good out there and made plenty of mistakes. However, he still pulled out the victory. That's what matters.

 

So you're talking in circles now - you said in an earlier post that Hopkins lost the fight because he didn't throw enough, that Calzaghe was there to be hit.

You seen the Kessler fight? Calzaghe was there to be hit the first 4 rds then all of a sudden Kessler found he couldn't land his punches. In later rounds he also risked taking some big punches ebcasue he was confident his chin could handle them.

Maybe ol' Popkins wants to put a bit more starch on his straight rights, or maybe he couldn't :hey

Give the man some credit, Calzaghe won fair and square, Hopkins lost cheating like a gutter rat *****, which is especially sweet after his carry on in the build up to this fight.

 

Hey, here's the phone number for las vegas sport commision 1-800-shut-the****-offatsch

 

Calzaghe was there to be hit. However, when you only throw one pucnh at a time and only one punch at that, you're going to have a hard time winning.

I have given Calzaghe credit. He won the fight and made some good adjustments. I don't know what you want. I'm calling it like I see it. Nard threw one punch at a time and only threw that straight right. He didn't follow it up with the left hook and he didn't work the body. He was succesful in the early rounds when he was able to land the straight right. Once Calzaghe started avoiding it, he had nothing else to hit him with.

 

Great comeback clubby, just a shame you're still crying

You don't think excessive clinching and faking a lowblow is cheating - you must be a huge Ruiz fan :yep

 

If Hops had started hitting Calzaghe with other punches, Calzaghe would have adjusted and shut them down too.

But of course, in the world of the Hopkins hugger, Calzaghe didn't win the fight, Hopkins lost it by not doing enough :-(

 

That's a possiblity. However, that's not what happened. I can't comment on what a fighter would've done. I have to go by what they did or didn't do.

Some of you Calzaghe fans are too sensitive. Hopkins was throwing one punch at a time the whole fight. His lack of activity was a big reason he didn't win. Maybe he doesn't have the ability fight any other way at this point, maybe he would've lost even if he did open up more. However, he lost, and his lack activity was a big reason why.

 

114-113 Calzaghe

I didnt vote in the espn.com round polls so they arent accurate

 

But hang on man, you've said Hopkins lost the fight because he didn't throw enough punches, and that Calzaghe was there to be hit, so conversely you're saying if Hopkins had thrown more punches he would have won the fight - so who's commenting on what a fighter would've done now? :deal

 

Well there you go mate, you just killed your own credibility with the Ruiz stuff, so there's no need to proceed to suggesting there is racially-based biased on your part

 

Now you're making assumptions. Let's try a different approach. Hopkins' low punch out put was a reason that he lost. Calzaghe never hurt Hopkins and he didn't land many clean punches. However, he was still winning rounds. The reason he was still winning rounds is because his opponent wasn't landing or even throwing many punches. Now if he was more active he still may have lost, we don't know for sure. We do know, however, that him not throwing many punches did not help him win.

Let's look at another example. Let's say two sprinters are running a 200 meter race. Let's say sprinter A is beating sprinter B in the beginning of the race. Let's also say that sprinter A trips and falls after about 60 meters. Now if someone were to ask why sprinter A lost, people would immediately point to sprinter A tripping and falling as a reason. Does this mean sprinter A would have won had he not tripped and fell? Of course not, but him tripping and falling is certainly a reason why he lost.