Extracts from a British magazine article on B-Hop written BEFORE Saturday's fight...

Well said. ^ Top shelf.

 

Defensive styles, and hit (very little) while not being hit may be the name of the game.... but boxing would surely go down the drain if every fighter became a fighter for the "purists"...

 

Don´t bother with JAck he is only a hater.

Great article btw. Thanks for sharing, also I don´t agree with everything.

 

Just for fun... :hi:

 

...to state the obvious, if he did that in 5 rounds after rd 1, it was enough to win. I scored it 114-113 Calzaghe, tho didn't bother to rewatch again closely to see how much of each [in]famous Calzaghe flurry was actually landing.

 

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

 

This is such a bad argument...B-hop landed some very good, flush shots against Calzaghe early in the fight, but it was obvious to most who watched the fight that Calzaghe had figured out the living enigma and started winning the fight rather easily.

I agree that B-hop is an ATG and would give anyone throughout history a tough fight at middleweight, but he did not do enough to come away with the win against Calzaghe.

He ran and clinched, delivering the occasional pot-shot during the second half of the fight. I think that has to do a lot with the Style and athleticism of Calzaghe...you guys need to start giving Calzaghe a little more credit for winning the fight.

 

atsch

 

Napoles did nothing at middleweight and came in 153lbs for that fight, and despite being a clearly greater fighter, he was a very small welterweight where as Trinidad was big for that division and in his prime where as Napoles was past his when he met Monzon.

 

It's fully eye-opening to have a hard second look at this fight. Calzaghe landed so few punches it's literally shocking. Not just in terms of the outcome, but in terms of the implications. Joe Calzaghe is unquestionably a tremendously skilled offensive fighter. What Bernard Hopkins did to him is just as impressive as what we saw last night, or back in Spetember of 2001 against Felix Trinidad in terms of defensive showcase. Offensively, of course, Hopkins was just incredibly sparing. As has been said here; Calzaghe landed so few punches that BBC Wales, ESPN, and HBO (holder of the master copies from all camera angles) could not find more than 1 or 2 sequences featuring Calzaghe actually landing punches to feature in various highlights. It was that few. If the professional editors with the best equipment on this planet can't find them, nobody can.

 

C'mon, of course he will... but it's SO perfect... I barely changed some names and a few words... you gotta have some sense of humor. Read the whole thing, everything fits so perfectly! SOMEONE had to do that!

Guys, don't disappoint me... don't you have the sense for

This content is protected

? :rasta

 

"So there you have it. Hopkins is not a myth"

You! Are you that ****ing stupid? That quote above, hints that what the guy wrote is absolute fact.

Honestly, you are a terrible poster. I usually don't bother with people like you, because I realise that if I made a long post, ripping up your every argument to shreds, you'd still keep coming back with more ******ed posts. But, for whatever reason, you keep trying to goad me.

Until you have proven you're worth my time, like certain other people are, don't try and get me to react to your awful posts, by lacing it with insults.

****.

 

I agree with you. I'd certainly pick Napoles to beat Tito at 160lbs, even if he isn't as proven

 

I actually had a guy on here tell me that Calzahge is just as good defensively as Hopkins, and that Calzaghe exposed Hopkins' defensive liabilities.