Calzaghes Resume looks even worse now!!!!

Hes certainly more of an ordinary fighter now, that cant rely on his speed to get himself out of tough situations. That mis step will show its ugly head if he finds himself in a tough fight.

 

I'm not a massive fan of either man, but I still don't understand how so many people can think that Hopkins deserved to beat Calzaghe that night. He grappled, elbowed, headbutted and used any number of dirty tricks to admittedly slow the fight down, but Calzaghe was still able to hold his own on the inside even if Hopkins' lateral movement partially offsetted him. He didn't land the amount of punches he did against Kessler or Lacy, but at least he threw them in the first place. And he was catching a lot of the Hopkins overhand rights from round 6 on with his left glove.

The non low blow incident in round 10 summed it up perfectly for me. Hopkins had been landing less and less from the 5th round on and was clearly struggling with the pace and the fact that he couldn't dominate Calzaghe on the inside. Hence the embarrassing overreaction to the 'low blow'.

Don't get me wrong; Calzaghe looked very much less than stellar that night, but Hopkins looked horrible and subsequently made the fight look horrible. He may or may not have beaten Calzaghe had he been a couple of years younger, but that isn't the point. Much gets made of Hopkins exposing Calzaghe's shortcomings, but it works the other way around too. If Calzaghe's slaps were ineffective, then why wasn't Hopkins able to walk through them and take greater control?

Hopkins LOST fair and square. Other than the knockdown, he did nowhere near enough. Even though the subsequent schooling of Pavlik, where he threw a lot of punches at a very good pace for the full 12 rounds, showed that he had plenty left in the tank including the ability to fight 3 minutes per round. In spite of his age, a little bit too much gets made of the slowing down factor often used to explain away the defeats to Taylor and Calzaghe. Especially Taylor. Hopkins came up against two awkward styles and wasn't able to impose himself to the extent needed to be annointed as the undisputed winner. Like Toney, he is/was a great fighter that will nevertheless be troubled by certain styles. Just as much as Calzaghe.

And it was a **** fight anyway.

 

I agree with your take on it Tin, though i did have it close in the end.

Pure spoiling, punch and foul Gianfranco Rosi **** from Hopkins, that when combined with Calzaghe's untidy sloppy style made for one of the worst notable light heavy title fights i've witnessed.Nard should have been docked points for his persistent fouling and holding in this and the Wright fight.In fact if i ever bother to score those fights i'd be tempted to take a few points off for it anyway.

the one positive thing i will say is both showed their adaptability in it even if it wasn't easy to watch.there were a few different shifts in tactics throughout.

A lot of the general forum comments on Hopkins performance make it sound as if he was sliding and countering around the ring like some uber Canto/zapata/Pep hybrid.

 

I had it to Calzaghe by 3, I think. A rematch may have helped, but I get the feeling that it would have always been an inconclusive stinker if they'd fought a dozen times.
Call me unreasonable, but I don't think that Hopkins deserved another shot by way of his bratlike behaviour before, during and after the fight. Calzaghe isn't exactly what I would call classy (he's a dick at times), but Hopkins excelled himself in the 'acting like a prize *****' department.

 

Fighting a guy like Pavlik who is one dimensional and only comes forward is no comparison to fighting guys like Taylor and Calzahge. Its like Roy Jones fighting Jeff Lacy or Tito Trinidad, sure he can look great against those guys, but put him in there with a guy who can box and move, and his shortcomings are exposed. To not factor in Hopkins age is absolutely ridiculous.

 

The adaptability on display was the one good thing about the fight actually. Both men were very good in this respect. Calzaghe developed into a very intuitive ring general in the later stages of his career, and Hopkins was always good in that respect, except against Taylor when he wasn't quick enough to pull the trigger or set a good pace.

There are a few too many comments on here, never mind the general, regarding Hopkins' alleged Locche-like abilities. He depended on great fundamentals and old school craft rather than pure defensive nous of the savant-like style used by Canto and Lora etc.

 

Thanks, you've just proved my point. The Pavlik fight showed that Hopkins could still fight at a high pace when allowed to. Indeed, he looked about 10 years younger against Pavlik. Calzaghe took away his ability to counter on a frequent basis by hurling his trademark flurries and catching the overhand right on his left glove once he'd figured Hopkins out a bit.

Calzaghe's ability and oddball style nullified Hopkins more than what his age did. The Pavlik fight showed that in retrospect. It's only JC and Taylor fights where his age gets brought up.

 

Hopkins was giving Calzaghe the title shot not the other way round, it was a stinker, but 1 where Hopkins landed the better punches round on round in a close affair, in a way neither fighter won that night, but Hopkins made Calzaghe look an amateur

 

You clearly have never watched a younger Hopkins if you think he was anything like as good and fresh as the younger version. Its also unlikely you've ever boxed if you believe any man can be as good at 43 as he was at 30

 

No the Pavlik fight showed he could fight at a fast pace when a fighter is coming forward to him, which is a lot easier for an OLDER fighter to do. You really dont think Hopkins faced fighters of Taylor and Calzahges skill and ability when he was younger?
Calzahge utilized lateral movement and speed to keep Hopkins off of him, because at his age it was more difficult to get close. You see the same **** happening with Holyfield since the late 90's, reason he looks so inconsistent. Again to not factor in the age of 43 is ridiculous.

 

I agree largely mate. Hopkins was great without any doubt, I'll never dispute that. His ability to switch from defence to attack via those little shifts of posture and positioning of body and foot is as good as I've seen in a long time. And his best displays do show some of the instinctive traits of the defensive geniuses, including an innate sense of timing and the ability to read an opponents intentions.

Put crudely, I see more of Giardello and Archer in him than Canto or Benitez.

 

Hopkins had all the advantages when he fought Calzaghe at home in the United States, Calzaghe fought one of his worst ever fights even taking into consideration that Hopkins makes everbody look bad, Calzaghe put in his worst performance for years against Hopkins, Calzaghe's family was interviewed a few hours after the fight in their front living room, by local tv back in Wales.
Joe had spoken to his Sister by telephone and told her that he was disappointed with his performance !!!, his Sister was only interested to know that he was not hurt, this was not boxing trash talk, Joe had told his own Sister {who clearly knew nothing about boxing and was only interested that he was ok} that he was disappointed with his performance, although he had arguably won the biggest fight of his life.

I had Calzaghe winning the fight by 2 points, if Hopkins could not beat Calzaghe when holding all the aces {It was said Joe did not train well for the fight, he was already retired in his head} then Hopkins was not going to win a rematch, if there had had been a rematch it would probably had been in Cardiff, Hopkins would have had no chance, I personally thinks that Joe beats Bernard prime for prime, too fast, too quick.