How did you score the Calzaghe vs Hopkins fight?

based on more stamin, no flop. anything else extra would have been lesser than berns.

u need a drink yes.

 

yes because he is wite man, i get your marking scheme.

 

glad to hear u laugh at yourself.

 

Have you ever considered following tiddly winks, or origami? Because as sure as eggs are eggs you know sweet fvck all about boxing. Hopkins did NOT out box Calzaghe for anything like half the fight.

All he did was show his frustration at being out boxed himself, by trying to get that tame, American flag waving, moron Cortez to DQ Calzaghe.

 

in your opinion.

your opinion means little to anyone, especially clearly and blatantly to the judges cards that show Hopkins ahead halfway through the fight whilst not too gassed to use his boxing skills.

but please do continue to write your opinions even if they are wrong like that one. free speech and all.

 

I have favorite fighter of every race and nationality Duran was my favorite and I love Pac, SRL and SRR and Joe Louis but I am not afraid to say a "wite"? ( I guess you mean white man) won or will or would win because it is not politically correct

I like Hopkins as a fighter but now that you mention as a person he is an ---hole just that comment " I will never lose to a white boy" if Calzage said he would never lose to a black boy he would be destroyed ...it was funny to see Hopkins crawling on the floor faking a foul for a cheap point and a rest to buy some time....yea and he lost to that "wite man =white man and pretty clearly

 

If your faulty logic and incomplete grasp of the English language did not disqualify your opinion, this statement surely did.

 

That you are a fool is well established, but yet again you insist on proving yourself to be a liar as well. You claimed that Hopkins out boxed Calzaghe for HALF the fight ( you further claim that the judges scorecards bear this claim out ) that is BOLLOX.

I think we all agree that the 1st round was 10 - 8 Hopkins, so lets assume he won the next 5 rounds 10 - 9 ( we all know for sure he didn't dominate any of them to warrant a 10 - 8 round again ) that would give him a 7 point winning margin with only 6 rounds to go.

Yet somehow Calzaghe wins by 3 points on one judges card, and 5 points on another judges card ( and granted, the other moronic American Adelaide Byrd has hopkins winning by one point ) so explain how he goes from 7 points down to scoring 9 points, on one card, and 11 on the other, when he didn't dominate ( 10 - 8, or 10 - 7 in any round ), in 6 rounds of boxing?

You wear your hatred of Calzaghe like a medal, which is why you are considered to be a dickhead on the subject. I personally find southpaws in general, and Calzaghe in particular UNEASY on the eye to watch. They just seem to have this natural clumsiness , as though they lack fluidity, but I face the reality that he was very effective at what he did. You on the other hand DON'T.

Let me explain the difference between your idiotic hatred of Calzaghe, and my detestation of Tyson. There was a thread on here recently Marciano v Tyson.

Try as I might I could not POSSIBLY see Marciano beating any version of Tyson, other than the one that lost to Danny Williams, and Kevin McBride, and EVEN THEN, I wouldn't bet a penny on Marciano until I heard the bell to end the 3rd round, because even that version of Tyson was still capable of taking Marciano's face off for those 9 minutes.

YOU on the other hand, are only interested in kunting off everything about Joe Calzaghe, which is why you are not to be taken seriously at all.

 

That you are a fool is well established, but yet again you insist on proving yourself to be a liar as well. You claimed that Hopkins out boxed Calzaghe for HALF the fight ( you further claim that the judges scorecards bear this claim out ) that is BOLLOX.

I think we all agree that the 1st round was 10 - 8 Hopkins, so lets assume he won the next 5 rounds 10 - 9 ( we all know for sure he didn't dominate any of them to warrant a 10 - 8 round again ) that would give him a 7 point winning margin with only 6 rounds to go.

Yet somehow Calzaghe wins by 3 points on one judges card, and 5 points on another judges card ( and granted, the other moronic American Adelaide Byrd has hopkins winning by one point ) so explain how he goes from 7 points down to scoring 9 points, on one card, and 11 on the other, when he didn't dominate ( 10 - 8, or 10 - 7 ) in any round, in 6 rounds of boxing?

You wear your hatred of Calzaghe like a medal, which is why you are considered to be a dickhead on the subject. I personally find southpaws in general, and Calzaghe in particular UNEASY on the eye to watch. They just seem to have this natural clumsiness , as though they lack fluidity, but I face the reality that he was very effective at what he did. You on the other hand DON'T.

Let me explain the difference between your idiotic hatred of Calzaghe, and my detestation of Tyson. There was a thread on here recently Marciano v Tyson.

Try as I might I could not POSSIBLY see Marciano beating any version of Tyson, other than the one that lost to Danny Williams, and Kevin McBride, and EVEN THEN, I wouldn't a penny on Marciano until I heard the bell to end the 3rd round, because even that version of Tyson was still capable of taking Marciano's face off for those 9 minutes.

YOU on the other hand, are only interested in kunting off everything about Joe Calzaghe, which is why you are not to be taken seriously at all.

 

in your opinion once again.


and what is the opinion of a fool worth? end of.

 

so you babble on trying to fabricate some new argument from my original one that you cant fault - BUT NO, noone wants to read your fabrications. Lets return to the argument at hand - are you denying my point that Hopkins was ahead in the first half of the fight?

answer yes or no. if no, you shut up now by self admission.

if yes, then find a link to the scorecards. and then, you will shut up and see the how much of a fool you have looked from the moment you denied hopkins didn't win the first half of the fight.

 

Read your own words you moronic lump of ****. You said, and I quote " Hopkins OUT BOXED Calzaghe the first half of the fight "

He didn't.

One judge had it 57 - 56 Hopkins, one judge had it 57 - 56 Calzaghe after 6 rounds, then you had the moron Adelaide Byrd who nobody other than a fellow moron ( you ) takes seriously anyway.

So where the fvck does that equate to Hopkins " out boxing " Calzaghe the first half of the fight? You just keep posting anti Calzaghe fantasies, and I, or others will keep correcting you.

 

obviously not in every second of the fight. Obviously Joe was landing too - they were sharing a boxing ring after all. But on average (ie for the first half of the fight, as opposed to the whole fight) he was outboxing joe.

are you stupid enough not to understand that? let me know.

Hopkins was outboxing joe BECAUSE he was leading. Hopkins was leading because he was boxing better than joe, and boxing better means you are outboxing your opponent.

Fox, you are really weird. Pay attention to this -You need to learn to admit when you are wrong. Enough now. Your face has been terminated enough.

 

I heard she was kicked out of the MMA for a terrible call as well.

 

Lets see power punch stats round by round from round 2 to 12th
Round 2 Hopkins-7/24
JC-13/30
Round 3 Hopkins-:9/35
JC 19/47

Round 4 Hopkins -6/25
JC- 13/43
Round 5 Hopkins-10/31
JC-11/32
Round 6 Hopkins-9/31
JC 16/38
Round 7 Hopkins-12/32
JC-20/45
Round 8 Hopkins-14/32
JC- 15/37
Round 9 Hopkins-11/32
JC- 18/41
Round 10-Hopkins-14/45
JC- 19/49
Round 11-Hopkins 10/40
JC-16/40
Round 12- Hopkins 10/44
JC-20/64

Every single round after round 1 JC threw and landed more power shots then Hopkins so how do you have Hopkins winning this fight?Based on what?