Horrendous fight to be honest. But I liked Hopkins cleaner punching better than Calzaghe's winging. It depends what you like more I guess - clean punching or workrate and aggression. It was clear, despite Hopkins' cleaner blows that he was trying to hold and was very negative throughout the fight. Judges have never really liked that. Look at De La Hoya vs Trinidad. If Calzaghe won then it was 114-113 not 115-12 that was rubbish. It would have been a point either way. It is also evident I think, that whilst I regard Calzaghe is a great fighter, Hopkins would have destroyed him circa 2000. Hopkins is a ring legend. Calzaghe is a Hall of Famer. There is a difference.
No he didnt. Calzaghe may have flapped his arms and hit air at times, but he also landed more solid shots in most of the rounds than Hopkins managed, and was manuvering Hopkins round the ring and all round outlanding and out working Hopkins. Clear Calzaghe win 117-112
Negative captain. You prize workrate. This is not the only, and not the best, way to score boxing. Hopkins did the better work. There can be no doubt of that, if you are (a) not blind, (b) not an irrational fanboy, and (c) aware of the rules and principles of boxing.
Wrong again, which you must be aware of. Thats why so many have Calzaghe winning. Calzaghe landed the more shots more often. Remember he beat Hopkins in America with American judges and Cortez as ref . You arent going to change anyones mind, as to how you wish the fight had gone. Except it Hpkins lost. 117-112 Calzaghe
I defy you to watch the fight again with this card in front of you, and disagree with it. If you score on clean, effective work this card is correct: :smoke
We agree on 8 rounds. But I do really think Joe won round 7 and only scored it even to give Hopkins some points.
I had Calzaghe by the thinnest of margins but it could've easily gone the other way. I've never rewatched the fight. Calzaghe was a shade busier while Hopkins landed the more meaningful punches. Always tough to score those affairs. I think its fair to say that old man 'nard gave Calzaghe his toughest fight.
You are one of the following. 1. Someone with an agenda who cannot stand that after the first round it was mostly Calzaghe. Still upset about it, crying in their milk. 2. Someone with the two boxers mixed-up. 3. Somone who is vision problems. Which one are you? I am guessing #1.
Don't be a *****, hiding behind your shitty attempt at jokes, man up and tell me which round(s) specifically I have called wrong, and why??? :good
I told you earlier. We agree on 6 rounds (think I wrongly wrote 8 earlier atsch) the other 6 are up for debate, in my opinion. I did say I could see an arguement for round 6, but thats it. The other rounds we vary on, I felt Joe was landing more often and doing the overall better work in how he was outworking and out manuvering Hopkins :smoke 117-112 Calzaghe
You did indeed tell me earlier, but I was asking that other chap. What you told me earlier was that you are irrational and do not understand boxing or how it is scored, and are very probably a very biased individual. Hopkins did the cleaner, more effective work in more rounds. 117-113 Hopkins. :smoke:smoke:smoke
Totally agree with your scorecard. I just dont see how anyone could score one of the 1st 7 rounds for calzaghie. I can count on two hands how many punches joe landed in the 1st 7 rounds. Hopkins landed more and the cleaner effective shots. Listen inbetween the 11th round and tell me joe and his dad think they r winning.