I just cant score it for someone with ineffective agression

I score according to clean punching and effective work. In my opinion there was nothing clean or effective about Joes work and when you watch some of the replays Joe was hitting the air Hopkins back and punching like a dog trying to paddle in deep water. It was a horrible performance.

 

I give Hopkins the edge for two reasons: the knockdown (outside of it, both guys won 6 rounds each) and the fact that the fight was dictated by Hopkins. Calzaghe didn't start winning rounds until Hopkins started slowing down and effectively let Joe do what he does so well.

All together, that was enough for Hopkins to win by a SLIGHT margin. - 114-113

 

Hopkins outclassed Calazage who punched air and gloves all night. It was very rare to see Calazage land a flush punch. Most fans don't appreciate the suttletities and mindlessly score to a fighter walking forward missing punches and getting smashed on the way in

 

Joe won and say what ever you want those "slapps" wins fight! Thougt B-Hop was kinda punkish when he was complaning all the time about stuff he does all the time low blow, rabbit punches, head butt...

 

Id rather a guy threw punches and missed than a guy who doesnt throw punches at all. End of the day, Calzaghe landed nearly double and if you look towards the end of the fight, had it been 15 rounds the odds would have been very strong for a Calzaghe KO. BHop lost.

 

Guys, you gotta see the WHOLE fight not just what Joe couldn't do. Hopkins did VERY LITTLE to win close rounds after the first big one. At least between the two, Calzaghe tried. He looked mosty ineffective only because he was at least active. You can't look ineffective if you hold and spoil instead of throwing. How can you give a round to a guy who just doesn't throw punches just holding and killing the fight? Hopkins maybe never looked ineffective because he never was active with his fists.

But Compubox shows how effective he was: he did land some crisp shot especially in the first half, but Joe landed not only more but at a HIGHER CONNECT PERCENTAGE and not only with jabs but also with power punches...

You might not believe it, but Hopkins landed VERY VERY few punches and with a LOW CONNECT PERCENTAGE! When you look at how hard is to land on Hopkins clean, why don't you look at how many Hopkins landed after the 1st? Not much... He was the clean puncher, but still barely landed. And in close rounds, while he kept killing the fight, Calzaghe kept throwing and throwing. How can't you give credit to that?

I see what you are saying but let us see the 2nd Pavlik-Taylor fight. Most who picked Taylor argued that he was the more accurate puncher and Kelly didn't land much clean. But it's mainly because Taylor did land occasionally and Pavlik kept throwing so when he connected with 3 medium-hard it didn't look as good as 1 good Taylor shot. And still I have to agree with you: Taylor was MORE EFFECTIVE according to compubox. But according to Compubox, Calzaghe was more effective than Hopkins! Bernard landed only 27% of his punches, that's very low especially when the other guy thows twice as many.

Kessler, a good, accurate and effective puncher himself landed more on Joe that Hopkins. So I just want to say if you can look how ineffective Calzaghe was (still landed TWICE as many as Hopkins), how come you don't see how ineffective Hopkins was - especially in the 2nd half? The KD is a KD, a 10-8 round. But after the, Hopkins was always holding and spoiling and sometimes throwing. Calzaghe was always throwing. Big difference.

 

Hopkins style will always lend to an ugly horrible match. Its hard to look good against him.

joe clearly won imo, Hopkins wasnt doing enough.

Hopkins also should have had atleat one point taken off of him for cheating.

 

Wether you agree with the decision or not, even die-hard Calzaghe fans must recognize that the only guy doing any kind of damage whatsoever in this fight was Bernard Hopkins, and that's gotta count for something. In fact, it counts for a lot IMO and that's why i thought BHop did enough to shade it.

 

i was more dissapointed with hopkins not throwing anything, i do agree the aggression looks ineffective and cal was open a lot of times, his guard even down but **** it can't stand bhop for not throwing ****

 

This content is protected

 

I remember Max Kellerman saying that if he doesn't know who won a round, he asks himself who he would rather be at the end of it.
Now, i don't know how many of you folks on here actually box, but when i box i feel a whole lot better when i'm the guy landing 1 or 2 clean hard shots in exchange for 3 or 4 love taps that don't even come close to hurting me.

 

You have to give a certain weight to how effective the punches were. If I through 1000 jabs to your gut, it's still just 1000 jabs. If I bust you and are able to knock you down, you have to give that creedence too.

It's all a matter of what you value most - lots of punches that land, but don't do too much / or minimal - but more damaging - output.

Hopkins did more with the little that he accomplished, punch numbers wise than Calzaghe did - to the tune of 6 rounds for him. Calzaghe did more when Hopkins wasn't landing effectively to garner himself 6 rounds. At that point, I give Hopkins the edge for the knock-down and the fact that he hurt Calzaghe. IMO, the punch stats don't offset that enough to give the decision to Calzaghe.

That's my perspective on how to score a fight though. Feel free to disagree.

 

You prefer the ineffective passivity of Hopkins?

Hold, hold, grab balls, hold hold, fake low blow, stall for 5 minutes, hold, hold, hold, *****, whine, moan.

 

I prefer a fighter control the fight (Calzaghe didn't fight his fight, he fought how Hopkins was dictating the fight to be) and do damage when he lands. There's a reason they don't give championships to guys for working the bag - it's about inflicting punishment. Hop did enough of that to offset Calzaghe being busier - enough so that they both won 6 rounds by my count.