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

There was a lot of close rounds as the poll indicated. I thought Joe won it because I felt going into the last round Bernard needed to win it and he didn't. I can see how a judge could have it for Hopkins by a point. If they were giving him credit for the clean hard shots landed. Joe hit some good clean shots but a lot of shots grazed or slapped. I guess the judge that had it 116-111 must've given hi m credit for a lot of slaps or grazing shots.
I kind of think Joe 114-113 or 115-112 would be the most correct.

 

You're quite the glasshouse dweller BigReg :yep

I know you fancy yourself as a smarty, but don't be so blatantly hypocritical, eh?

That's twice you've accused me of something you're doing :hey

 

Now you're being ridiculous. You said that even if Hopkins threw more punches that Joe would've figured him out and won anyway. I responed by saying that I can only comment on what a fighter did or did not do, not what would've happened. You're completely changing my argument and adding in **** that I never even said. The track example clearly illustrates what I was saying. However, you pretty much ignored it and attacked an argument that I never made. Hopkins lack of activity was a reason he lost. Pretty much anyone that watched that fight will tell you this. Even before the fight people were saying Calzaghe would win based on activity.

 

and slapping is not cheating, eh... :-( not a fan of hopkins but i will never be a fan of calzaghe either after this fight.

 

The track example? Why did trunner A lose? Because runner B won, not because runner A fell over. I didn't think I had to answer that because, like all your other examples and explanations, it's based on a falsehood - ie: your opinion of what the general consensus would have been on why runner A lost the race.

You said:

Admit it BigReg, you're sore because your boy lost, and trying to discredit Calzaghe's win with hypotheticals (if Hopkins had thrown more punches) and even drawing comparison to Hopkins' controversial loss to Taylor, and now you're trying to hide behind many words but it's still plainly obvious.

 

and excessive holding is not cheating, eh...:-(

 

Yeah, but why did he win? Maybe he's just a faster runner and won anyway. However, the other falling guy was a big factor in him winning. No way in hell the other guy can win if he's on the ground. By your logic, why even analyse these fights. When asked why someone won we should just answer, "because they won".

What's obvious is that your paranoid and looking for **** that isn't there. I scored this fight 115-112, and never once tried to discredit Calzaghe. I described what I saw. I saw one guy landing the harder punches, but doing it far and few in between, I saw the other guy landing less effecive punches and but doing it in greater frequency. Plain and simple. Calzaghe did not look great in this fight and it wasn't a great performance. However, he won the fight and made some good adjustments. Props to Calzaghe. You need to put your man love for Calzaghe to the side for a minute and realize that every fight isn't going to be a great one.

 

Bitter U.S. of A. homeboyz are not in the majority, pal.

 

I did not say they are.

 

...........This is a ridiculous post. Why is it so hard to understand that a cornerman wants to keep the sense of urgency up for his fighter, particularly in Vegas, where bad decisions are all too common? Did that honestly never occur to you?

And so what if the blows never raised a mark on his face? They still landed. To hear you talk, a blow should only count if it raises a welt? How long have you been watching boxing, exactly?

Ring generalship can only be claimed if it prevents the opposing frighter fom doing what he wants to do, and Hopkins can't claim that in any way, shape or form.

Your man got beat and you're mad about it. Just like him, you show little class in the wake of defeat. I'm sure he's very proud. Perhaps you should write him a letter telling him all about it.

 

Where were you clowns when Hatton is fighting?

 

yes, hopkins was booed by the crowd

 

are you delusional? hopkins was on the verge of getting hammered the last three rounds and did the low blow routine to save his pathetic ass (although that is questionable also ). that routine gave him five minutes of rest, equivalent to five one-minute breaks between rounds, which is huge for a fighter! that is what gave 'nardo' the ability to finish standing. calzage had him figured out in the fifth, it was just a matter of time and clazaghe was slowly wearing him out.

head butts holding cheap shots faking injuries I mean come on, you don't win fights by not fighting. hopkins didn't throw more cause the pressure got to him. he couldn't throw more and he still couldn't man-up at the end. The worst ****ing crybaby I have ever seen. :yep:yep

 

Where was the same ref's attitude towards clinching in the Hatton Mayweather fight? :think

 

more words - you talk too much, but you ain't sayin' NUTHIN :yep

You were bagging out Calzaghe before the fight, now you're trying to take the moral high ground but you still can't bring yourself to give Calzaghe full credit.

You're a sore loser, just like Hopkins