Calz vs Hop-- Divided more or less along UK-US lines?

emphasis on trained. most of them dismissed him as a trainer. besides, im not questioning how good of a trainer he is, he's still an idiot of a commentator. roy jones was the best commentator

 

Unfortunately this is Hopkins "style". What he does best is take away his opponents best assets. Very good defensively but generally that means he doesnt have much of an offence himself.

Thats exactly why Joe's high output was enough to beat him.

 

British and i think Calzaghe won a close but clear fight.

All Hopkins did was hold. The reason he didnt open up was because he knew deep down he wouldnt have been able to keep up with Joe, hence the spoiling tactics.

 

Brit , Calzaghe won it

though I would consider myslef much more a Hopkins fan than a calzaghe fan

Hopkins proved he was the superior boxer but he just couldn't keep up Joes pace.

 

UK, had it even.

 

Brit. Calzaghe won, Hopkins didn't do enough.

 

+1

As a Hopkins fan, I felt embarrassed for B-Hop being reduced to faking low blows. As great as he is, B-Hop just couldn't handle Calz' pace as the fight wore on. No shame there, he was like 42 or whatever.

 

Ultimately, this is very simple: on Calzaghe's record it says he won the fight. End of discussion.

 

British,

Had alot of money riding on BHOP to win on points,

I had BHOP winning it by a couple a rounds.

 

[YT]BezCXwVfssQ[/YT]

 

How did Hopkins lose 2 this guy?

 

Calzaghe didn't land a clean punch all night long....... American judges really do need to stop placing so much emphasis on aggression.

 

British, had JC by 1 but could quite easily agree with the above or BHop by 1.

 

I'm an Aussie who says Hopkins won, but I'm mother****ing biased. I scored it 114-113 Hopkins. I think I was fair, but how can I be sure when talking about my favourite fighter? :conf

 

i had it amir kahn by split decision...