Hopkins won ROUNDS 1-6 vs JOE

Yet it's ok to win rounds with ineffective aggressiveness?

If someone throws 100 punches in a round and doesn't a single one, while the opponent lands a few clean, effective punches that guys deserves the round. Using the judging criteria he should be rewarded on defense and clean, effective punching. The other guy only provided ineffective aggressiveness. It's a simplified example but it could definitely be applied to certain rounds of that fight.

 

"Hopkins won ROUNDS 1-6 vs JOE"

No he didn't and Hops was hugging more than Ruiz. BTW, you're about a week too late w/ this ****. Hopkins got beat by a white boy :rofl

 

if you give hopkins points for hugging then he won.

 

Hopkins out-hugged Calzagne at least 10-1 on my scorecard. He gets extra credit for the faked low blows.....................:rofl Pathetic!!!! And he calls himslef a legend, ****in' brilliant!

 

woo woo, boxing is about landing clean punches, when your scoring it rather. B-Hop landed more solid punches on Clazaghe. So if this was to be scored like how they score fights in amateur bouts or the olympics calzaghe would have lost. But in professional boxing, judges sometimes reward a fighter for just trying to press the action even if he isnt landing. All those punches compubox allegedly said calzaghe landed he didnt.
People need to ask themselves if this was scoring based on how amateur fights are scored, would calzaghe have won?

 

This isn't amateur boxing. And no matter what people try and argue, taking three minutes after faking a low blow is grounds for a DQ.

Call it what you will-- bad karma after years of bending the rules to win fights.

 

Calzaghe landed plenty of punches..Hopkins were cleaner and stood out more..mainly because he threw so few. He's also a cheat for bying time when he was tired so no sympathy for him.

 

lol judges are suppose 2 score based on fighters landing punches. How do you win when you dont land punches? Just b/c Hopkins huged and grabbed doesnt negate the shots he landed. Yes it mayb an ugly fight but thats why judges get paid to score, there are suppose 2 score on landed punches, clean shots.
throwing and not landing doesnt merit me giving you a round IMO. Fans that never boxed or understand scoring say give it to the other guy b/c he atleast is trying to push the issue. But if this were an amateur fight Calzaghe wouldve lost. B/c only thr clean effective shots that land are counted. Not throwing a whole lot of punches and stealing round due to entertainment

 

not saying he didnt land any punches, im just saying that figure the compubox had him landing was wrong. If you went based on who landed the more cleaner shots or landed shots period, then you g2 give it 2 bernard. Thats all im sayin
Calzaghe got the W, so it is what it is. But going off punches landed B-Hop was suppose 2 win, yes it didnt look pretty but he did land the more effective shots

 

This is rich coming from an englishman, one fron essex even better, the capital **** hole of the country. The xanadu of thick, ill educated, morons.

 

Like I said, I favor punches landed since the goal of course is to hit and not be hit. That's basically what Hopkins did. I only place aggression into the equation when the round is otherwise even as far as punch quality. Then the guy pressing the action deserves the nod.

 

Punching the way Joe does is also illegal. As for the fight i had Hopkins winning the first four and ten, with a few very hard to call's in between that could have gone either way.

 

I saw it exactly the same way. But I copped a load of ridicule for giving the first 4 to BHop.

 

:huh :rasta

 

Yes, you are absolutely correct - Hopkins outclinched Calzaghe throughout the fight, and shutting down an elite fight so effectively should count.

Unfortunately the judges were nutz, and don't rate low workrate, no jabs, low punch output, nor clinches very highly; utter failure from the American judges.