Hopkins Robbed.........Calzaghe Overated

I thought Hopkins won it. But it wasn't a robbery.

I do NOT think Calzaghe is overrated. His fight with Jeff Lacy pretty much sealed the deal that Calzaghe should be considered one of the best fighters of the era.

(Of course, to compare these guys with fighters from previous eras would be foolish. I'll leave it at that.)

 

Hopkins landed the more effective punches and his dictating movement made Calzaghe's work pretty sloppy, but his workrate, which slowed down to a crawl, let Calzaghe get the nod in all those close rounds - American judges tend not to score a round 10-10.

For Ted Spoon, Hopkins showed he was the better fighter in those first 4 rounds, but Calzaghe did well to change his style of engagement and get himself back into the fight. Knock a few years off of Hopkins and he seals the deal with a better work rate.

 

Dose it really matter that Hopkins was 43?

He was clearly the best light heavyweight in the world at the time whatever his age, and coming off two of the best wins of his career.

There have been ocasions throughout history when the best fighter in a given weight class was over 40, such as Archie Moore, and frankly it has not always been in weak eras.

In such cases a young challenger must go through the 40+ champion to estaablish his supremacy over the division and if he is sucesfull then it is still a legacy defining win because he has beaten the best available opponent.

I would also point out that anybody who picked Hopkins to win this fight ccan hardly deny Calzaghe credit for this win because he has clearly exceeded their expectations.

 

This has got to be one of the worst threads ever in the Classic section. There was no robbery IMO. Calzaghe won a close decision by being more busy down the stretch. Hopkins showed himself to be a canny tactician, even a throwback, but hell, I ain't a fan of his style of fighting. One of the reasons why Calzaghe failed to shine was because Hopkins tied up the fight at almost every opportunity. I won't even go into the low blow incidents. :roll:

Once again no robbery.

 

Hopkins really should have lost a point or two.

Cortez incompetence has been considerable throughout his career and he is only getting worse.

 

Aye, but what if this is Hopkins' last fight? That statiscally smells of 'past it'. Archie Moore did not just age well, he was the best 'old' fighter of all time.

Let’s toot Hopkins horn here a second:

Hopkins work rate has notably degraded in the last 5 years, Calzaghe gets full credit, but history should rightfully view it as a sloppy win - as Hopkins said "I made him fight my fight" - to win a fight so ineffectively is not admirable.

Americans score aggressiveness highly, which has not always helped Hopkins. Quality is the most important point to mark- one clean punch over 12 cuffs, every time. Also, defence counts in winning rounds, Hopkins was not commanding but dictating things - these are important aspects if one is to finely score a fight.

There are sayings like he ‘wanted it more’, but Calzaghe never found what he wanted in the ring, Hopkins did, even if it was very minimal findings in the long run, it was more than Calzaghe found. Ya dig?

 

It was a magnificent performence by Hopkins and yes it dose enhance his legacy.

I do however think peope are being a bit too quick to dismis this as a win for Calzaghe. Hopkins was still the best 175 pounder in the world and had beaten a pound for pound great in his previous fight.

You make the observation that Calzaghe won slopily against Hopkins but it should be noted that Antonio Tarver who has just dominated the man who was ranked No2 in the light heavyweight division lost slopily to a 40+ Hopkins.

I also wonder if anybody could look good against Hopkins winning or loosing.

 

I disagree with your assesement that Hopkins made Calzaghe fight his fight.

For the first 3-4 rounds, yes.

But after that, Calzaghe forced all the action. The only thing Hopkins did was coming in with his head low and clinching all the time (17 times in the 6th, the only round i bothered to count). Sorry but i don't think clinches, claiming low blows and throwing the odd counter shot equals making the fight. Calzaghe made pops work at a higher pace than he wanted to.

 

Hopkins lost clearly, if he was not fighting in America he would have lost points for excessive cheating.

 

Seems to me that neither of them are limited. Hell both are champions, how the hell is that limited? If you're going to start calling champions limited, especially one with a 10 year winning streak, then it seems to me, damn near everyone is limited.

 

Taylor landed much more on Hopkins yet Calzaghe must be considered to be on a much higher plane, skill wise, yet his success was very sparce.

 

Perhaps not in your eyes, and this is why B-hop's own American fan base has suffered, but Calzaghe was still hitting hips, shoulders and hands. The clinching upset his rhythm, and after Hopkins took his time with the 'low' blow he completed the round with the better work - it's ugly but a sound manipulation of modern boxing.

You could say Calzaghe tried to make it into his fight...but failed.

Should you win on effort despite your success rate? Boxing is an aggressively minded waltz of which all of the skill set should be under scrutiny. Hopkins should be credited for negating so much of Calzaghe's efforts.

 

People are being a bit harsh on Hopkins. At 43 you've got to win a fight however you can. If that means grabbing, holding, butting and thumbing then so be it. It's the ref's job to stop you and the other guy's job to out-manouvere you.

I think the early KD and fighting abroad really made Calzaghe think twice and once he started to do that he lost the initiative. Think about it... Hopkins says he knows how to beat his style, drops him almost immediately and suddenly Calzaghe is half way to believing Hopkins sales talk. I commend Joe though for finding his way back into the fight. He showed intelligence and mental strength to do that. I think that without the KD Calzaghe would have taken over much earlier in the fight.

It may have been a mistake to fight up a division and abroad (with limited time in Vegas pre-fight).

I had Calzaghe up by 2...

 

Great post.

 

It's cool that he negated much of Calzaghe's efforts, but Calzaghe still got through with a lot more punches. If Hopkins was so easily in control, then why did he have to cheat low blows twice to get a breather? Why the excessive clinching? Clinching is a part of boxing, but it shouldn't be a substitute, but for Hopkins it almost was.

What you say is pretty much true for the first 4 rounds, but after that, Calzaghe got most of the work done.

From round 5-12, Hopkins lost the vast majority of the rounds (and with that, the fight), so i would not say at all that Joe failed to make Hopkins fight his fight. He succeeded and the fact that Hopkins had to hold on all the time and cheat pretty much underlines that, if it wasn't clear already.