Hopkins vs Calzaghe (Observations on second viewing)

We can't get to the 3rd part because it's embedded.

 

I thought at the time that Hopkins won the fight and Calzaghe just won the boxing match.

It's the performance of Calzaghe which, as a fan, I'd most like him to have changed. It is the one performance visible to a load of people (unlike some of the other stinkers in Wales) that people point to to question Calzaghe - fairly or unfairly.

If Calzaghe did win, it wasn't convincing. I thought at the time Hopkins had done enough as all the hurtful work seemed to come from him. That's life I guess.

 

That's a factor that never gets mentioned. Hopkins was a big middleweight which shows how much of a teetoal clean living guy he was to maintain that weight for so long. He then filled out to light heavy with no probs whatsoever with the expert guidance of Shilstone. Calzaghe underestimated this and whilst he held his own on the inside, Hopkins looked the bigger and stronger. However, Hopkins knew he couldn't engage for too long and that he couldn't knock Calzaghe out so the holding and spoiling tactics ensued.

That said, Hopkins was also surprised by how difficult it was to bully Calzaghe on the inside and once he lost control of distance all we had left was an ugly match-up between two guys continually countering each other; Hopkins it has to be said with the help of a very lenient Cortez who was the complete opposite with Hatton against Mayweather. Bearing in mind the ease with which Hopkins went on to dominate Pavlik in this regard, it shows the difference between instinctively great fighters and the merely good pot shotters at world level.

And even though Calzaghe was on the slide when this fight happened, Hopkins going on to do showboat press-ups in between rounds against the likes of a youthful Pascal shows how fit Calzaghe was. And that stamina is what would've seen him home against Ward too. Not even Conte could've got the Son of God out of that one.

 

I scored it to Calzaghe by one originally, but after watching Calzaghe over the years and seen his arrogant showboating slappy ways, I now hate him.

Therefore I now score it by 4 rounds to Hopkins.

 

I scored this 116-113 to Calzaghe, one thing i generally notice is that alot of people believe that hopkins controlled the fight but it was more calzaghe that controlled the fight with his footwork and pressure. They were both in a way trying to cancel eachother out but calzaghe won that battle over the long run.

 

Steward's commentary was very good in that fight - he called most of it spot on.

 

I havent even watched the fight with the American commentary, maybe i should

 

Yes Hopkins is a thinker like Jones Jr also Chad Dawson, this i s why i blab on that Cleverly will beat Dawson

 

Also go check out the Classic forum im sure you`ll find my 2 part write up on Calzaghe

 

I remember the Setanta commentary was very negative towards Joe. McGuigan, as usual, had it right IIRC and pointed out the flaws in Joe's style that lead to him getting decked beforehand. But he also scored it pretty accurately too.

The HBO commentary, particularly Kellerman, is very pro-Hopkins other than Steward. That does change around as the fight goes on.

It's a grabby, dull fight in some ways, but I really appreciate what Joe did that night. He showed he was better at adapting than Hopkins - I actually thought he briefly looked like stopping the old man.

 

Kellerman always changes his mind after knowing hes got it wrong Calzaghe - Jones is a tipical example.

Yes Joe certainly showed he could adapt well , but i think he did make the fight harder than it should have been, in one way he cut Hopkins space off well but also he stood still too much after throwing a punch letting Hopkins grab and hold, but like woodall said if he`d have jabbed and step back constantly he`d have frustrated Hopkins big time. Even on a bad night Joe still found a way to win.