Hagler/Hopkins/Leonard/Calzaghe

Some of it i can agree with but the fights were completely different. Calzaghe wasn't on the move for 2 and half minutes each round then trying to steal it with flurries, Calzaghe was trying to fight but Hopkins was doing the spoiling.

 

Neither. I just saw the fight differently from you. I had Hopkins winning a close decision. But that's not the point in this thread, the point is I expected an almighty performance from Joe, I had almost begun to believe the hype (#2 P4P etc) after his superb performance & win over Kessler, and this was his big US debut against an American legend and fellow P4P top 5-er, and I was bitterly disappointed. Even if you think Joe nicked it on sheer quantity of punches thrown and workrate, he was ineffective to the point of impotent.[/quote]


So you acknowledge that Cal was making a debut in the US, fighting an "American legend and P4P top 5-er" (and fighting up at LH, BTW), saw the fight as close and competitive and STILL you were bitterly dissapointed? Tough fan.

 

that's exactly right - and why calzaghe never fought hopkins when it mattered.

calzaghe, although an excellent fighter, has made a habit of avoiding the biggest fights and fighters available to him. he adopted frank warren's philosophy of "business first", and that's why calzaghe snubbed a pavlik fight so he can close his 'career' with jones and declare himself a living god.

the man's an excellent fighter, but you can't call anyone a 'great' - or compare him to one - when he's never fought one in his prime.

 

I doubt Hopkins would win by a massive score. If the fight was 5-10 years ago, yes, Hopkins would be in his prime but so would Calzaghe. If it was 5 years ago Hopkins would be up against a faster Calzaghe who could actually put full power into his punches with out fear of breaking his hand's.

Im not saying Joe would win but i highly doubt it would be a landslide victory for Hopkins.

 

I don't think you can consider the Hopkin's fight close.

Ultimately, he didn't throw enough, was outlanded majorly and anyone who knows how to score boxing in accordance to the rules had Joe winning the fight. There wasn't controversy, over 80% of people polled on several sites all stated Joe won.

 

Sorry to break this to you bro, but the VAST majority of people while thinking it was a close fight, thought it was a clear fight to Calzaghe.

Unlike the Taylor vs Hopkins fights where the press row gave the fight to Hopkins and polling after the fight was around 50/50 - this was somewhere in the 80-85% vacinity for Calzaghe to have won.

Don't revise history.

 

I watched Hagler vs Leonard this morning and I scored it for Ray. :good

 

This content is protected

 

hops- calzaghe was close and it depends what you like..me i score on ring generalship defense and clean effective punching i never give credance to the aggressor as it puts the counter puncher at a disadvantage in your own scoring even if its only subconscious...i had the fight for b-hop
i would say this though calzaghe is fooling all of you with these 5 6 punch combos because if you flail your arms out of course you gonna hit something this is law of averages but its not effective and most were landing on shoulders arms etc...i saw he did this sometimes out of desperation...take the ends of round 6 and 7 for example both close rounds bell for last ten seconds goes calzaghe flails arms out

 

Perhaps you should learn how fights are actually scored then rather than making up your own criteria.

 

I thought Calzaghe won 7-5, or even 7-4-1. But you make a good point regarding Calzaghe's strategy for the fight.

 

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/scoring.htm
aggression should only counts if its effective and calzaghes wasnt dont let his flurries fool you

 

:good