Hopkins would have beaten Calzaghe decisively in a rematch. Yes/No?

This quote and your very last post reinforces exactly what I've been saying. Your judgement is erred with a definitive bias (whether knowingly or subconcious) that commonly stems from some kind of geographic or cultural kinship. Others here are quite blatant about it, but here you are trying so hard to mask your tainted subjectivity it's actually quite pathetic to read. Just look at the amount of words and effort you put above just to emphasize Hopkin's "foul play."

No one is pissed off but you, just look at your responses (especially the first few). The very idea of someone insulting your hero Calzaghe riled you up so much that you resorted to childish, fanboyish garbage remarks like all the other Calzaghe nuthuggers (like assassin), precisely the purpose of this thread. Now you want to put your face down between your fanny and cry about not having a serious debate? :roll:

That's funny, that describes exactly the Calzaghe fanfare around it (of which it is much more rabid). Naturally, you don't have a problem with that for obviously biased reasons. :roll:

You agree this was a close fight yet don't believe there was nothing Hopkins could have done to adjust a second time around, despite Hopkins showing a clear improvement in his last couple wins. This is why the fallacy in your logic clouds your judgement. Reread my first post in this thread, and if you agree with the improvements he made (that others clearly see as well), then you cannot logically believe a rematch would have been more of the same.

I've also mentioned this before, those who scored the fight for Hopkins (and there is ALOT of them) did so because bottom line it was Hopkins who threw the more effective punches while Calzaghe simply flurried. This isn't the consensus of a bunch of armchair forum posters like you, this is the consensus of MAJOR boxing media outlets and analysts. INCLUDING your own British presses (I've yet to see you post a BBC sports analyst scoring the fight for Calzaghe like I asked).

If Calzaghe didn't deliberately resort to low blows just to "get even" for a legitimate first round knockdown then perhaps Hopkins wouldn't have gotten the chance to exploit it in the first place?

No fighter "deserves" to lose, that right there shows what a ignorant ****-all you are about boxing. Regardless of these silly antics that you only seem to care about, Hopkins still landed the more effective punches, hurt Calzaghe, countered him throughout the fight, and emerged the victor on the majority of press row scoring. INCLUDING BRITAIN'S OWN. There's a reason why Calzaghe dodged a rematch, he didn't want to risk his legacy against a fighter that was more than able to beat him in an ugly rematch.

Teach me a lesson in humility? . It seems riling up and embarrassing the Calzaghe troup touched a nerve, did it?

Like I noticed prior, you spend all this energy and ****-about arguments only emphasizing on Hopkin's reaction to low blows. How about the rest of the fight? I don't care nor judge the foul plays from either fighter, I look at the effectiveness of each throughout the entire fight. What's a travesty is that in this case, volume and ineffective aggression by Calzaghe is what won him a split decision, and you're too ignorant to see through your bias. In fact, let's expose that further...

Who did you have winning between Devon Alexander and Kotelnik? Kotelnik threw the harder, crisper punches while Alexander threw volumes of pitty patty flurries a la Calzaghe. Yes, let's see your pick in this one.

Yes, because that's exactly what this thread is about. :roll: This is thread is about Hopkins (with Nazim Richardson as trainer) rematching Calzaghe.

Hopkins had a point because the majority of press row scoring agreed with him. It was a simply a matter of volume (where Calzaghe's pitty patts were counted as "power punches", a minor annoyance with Compubox methology where anything but a jab is considered a power punch) vs cleaner punching.

More posts about Hopkin's low blow reactions? How surprising. :roll: You seem to have an infatuation with nuts...whether it's Calzaghe's in your mouth of Hopkins groin. I've said all there is to be said on this, I don't even take the foul play into consideration...it was an ugly portion of the fight yes, but that's not what fights are based on.

Spoken like a true nuthugger. Then there isn't a fight in history that you have a problem with, because you just accept the results as is...everyone else is in denial. Hopkins - Calzaghe was a close fight, yet I doubt all in press row, including British media outlets, that had Hopkins winning were in "denial." In fact, nutsuckers like you who don't believe a rematch wouldn't have solved anything is in denial.

 

Why was Calzaghe throwing far less than normal? Because he was cautious of Hopkins right hand counter. Hopkins didn't fight his best either, he also had a **** performance against Jones before showing improvements in his gameplan under Nazim Richardson. This is the point I've been making all along...Hopkins continually improved while Calzaghe would have likely gone downhill if he kept fighting, thus a rematch would have been in Hopkins favor in all likelihood. Hopkins has shown a remarkable ability to adjust, and the loss was probably what he needed to get to where he is today. JoeC and his father more than likely knows this as well, choosing to retire with an unblemished record rather than risk a defeat.

Show me exactly the "3 or 4" times where Hopkins blatantly headbutted Calzaghe on purpose.



If Hopkins fought Calzaghe like he fought Pascal, he would have KTFO Joe. He improved his right hand's timing to throw a more powerful, faster opponent off guard. In a rematch I see Hopkins choosing his spots and landing that right hand over and over without tiring as fast, and emphazing specifically on hard body shots to literally suck the wind out of Calzaghe, or the very least, drop his guard for more opportunive counters.



And there you go again with the ****ing fouls. It's rather quite obvious you dislike Hopkins because of your perceptions. Get over it all ready, foul or no foul Hopkins took Calzaghe to school.

If all boxing fans voted on polls with true utmost knowledge and without bias, then polls would replace judges. In reality, a poll is just that... a popularity contest.



The "neutrals" overwhelmingly thought Calzaghe won? Ok, put up or shut up...name these "neutrals" and their press row scoring. Please, I'll wait.

you are a hater of Hopkins because you failed to see any way Calzaghe could lose to him. I could just call you naive, but I like the term hater more.

Spoken like a true nuthugger (again). Emphasize the positive subtleties of your hero while completely ignoring obvious positive traits of the other.

And you're judgement is clouded by this sentiment. In your own words, he deserves to lose. You've shown your true colors, no one can take you seriously.

No **** he wouldn't fight Calzaghe again like he fought Pavlik. JUST LIKE HE DIDN'T FIGHT PASCAL like he fought Pavlik. Did you just figure this out? No wonder you're so dense and blind.



Hopkins realized his mistakes in the Calzaghe fight, he fought the wrong fight under Freddie Roach (who was only with him that one fight). Under Nazim Richardson, he improved tremendously, fought each fighter differently, and knew what changes needed to be done to beat Calzaghe on the scorecards...and was willing to go all the way to Wales to prove it. Too bad your hero didn't want to take that risk.

Quite squeezing Calzaghe's **** then.