Calzaghe beat Hopkins straight...

Amusing... This is the sort of logic being used by the people saying Calzaghe won, isn't it? No offense to all out there, because this sort of stuff goes both ways and everyone has made it clear how they see things - but you would have to be an absolute novice, ****ing moron, or self serving scum intending to backup your pre-fight pick to rob Hopkins entirely of the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th rounds (which a considerable number of those picking Calzaghe did). If you didn't give him one or several of those rounds either you don't know how to score professional prizefighting, or you are utterly thick, and/or completely ****ing biased (these truths expose themselves when you hear them react to hearing about someone who picked Hopkins - there's geniune loss for understanding). The truth has it's own voice, however, because there has never been any answer for the argument of Calzaghe's phantom punches, let alone any sort of in depth analysis of events from those claiming that Calzaghe won. It's a ****ing joke, completely. Hopkins won the fight. Again, this isn't the ****ing amateurs.

 

so you give hopkins the fight for effective agresiveness??? in order to do that you have to throw punches which hopkins never did, now calzaghe does have power,he's not a ko puncher but is not for us the fans watching at home to determine if he can punch,hopkins wouldn't be faking low blows and buying time if those punches didn't bother him, also ask roy jones if those were "pitty pat" punches. there's no way hopkins won that fight, joe outworked him down the strech,hopkins fought in spots and not enough activity.

 

It's not true that Calzaghe had "completely ineffective aggression" - it's just that Bhop handled the aggression very well compared to other opponents of Joe who just get swamped and hit a lot. Joe didn't land many clean punches at all. The better punches were landed by Bhop and these mostly came in the first half of the fight. Joe's aggression in the second half of the fight was effective and won him the rounds b/c it lead to Hopkins tiring and not being able to attack.

Calzaghe by a point. Anybody who sees it differently is a biased ******* who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground and should be ****ed by Satan in the afterlife.

 

If it were ineffective aggression Hopkins wouldn't have had to resort to faking lowblows to get a desperately needed rest period. You're right, Joe's aggression was constant; that's what made it effective. Hopkins was not only soundly beaten by Joe in that fight but also humiliated. He cracked like a school girl under Joe's relentless attack and repeatedly looked for a way out. In contrast, Roy Jones simply retreated under the constant pressure, covered up and took his beating like a man.

 

yeah im amazed that people think it was close much less had bhop winning?
:think

 

oh not another one of these threads :roll:


calzaghe won,pretty clearly in my view,it was an horrendous fight and one i dont want to see again particularly.

 

Your not grasping the essence of the art of boxing my friend. It is thus: to hit your opponent and not get hit. In fact Willie Pep once won around solely for the brilliance he demostrated in the latter. Hopkins may have landed a few SINGLE shots, one of which resulted in flash knockdown. This is, when you take off your blinkers, simply not enough to win a world title fight. In Calzaghe's favour he made the fight all night, and landed many more punches on Hopkins, 'significant' or not.


your so engendered with your own bias and stupidity it leaves you defunct of rationale and reasoning,this calaghe v hopkins **** like you is waring very thin now,it always makes me laugh when people say hopkins won (he just didnt) but when so who is right there at the front hiding behind the excons scrotum? san rafael cheering his love toy on like no one else.

dont exspect a reply im doing brunch.

 

Listen, shitcrates, if you're going to try and say something ****ing say something. Don't repeat the same pathetic empty **** I refer to in the post you responded to, ya dumb ****ing twit. Make an actual argument and ****ing say something. "Calzaghe won the fight" - that's it? That's it?? Say something or STFU. In case this crap is the best you can genuinely come up with, STFU.

 

You could make a case for Bernard in any or all of the first four rounds.

I gave him two of them on fight night. On re watching, I gave him three of them.

However, there is no credible case for giving Bernard any of the last eight rounds.

And neither one of the two competent judges gave him any after the fourth.

 

:good