I just cant score it for someone with ineffective agression

What were the compubox numbers? Were they very much in favour of Calzaghe? They didn't show it on my broadcast.

 

The problem is that the ineffective aggression was countered with no agression at all. The Hopkins supporters (myself included) have to accept that our fighter didn't throw enough punches. Even when I wanted to score some rounds for him I simply couldn't find any reason to.

115-112 Calzaghe.

No, Hopkins wasn't in as much control as he would have liked to be. His movement was good in the beginning, but after that it was more backing away.

Somebody posted them somewhere. Calzaghe landed about twice as many (and obviously threw many more)

 

Calzaghe was effective - he landed some good clean shots and jabs here and there. And since Hopkins wasn't aggressive OR effective at all (outside of a couple hard rights) Calzaghe clearly deserved the decision.

 

It's incredible how little credit Calzaghe gets on here by the blatant haters. The same idiots who said, 'yeah, he'll get props if he wins, etc.' Then again I ain't too surprised, as usual.

 

Yup I found it.

Total punches:
CALZAGHE: 232/707 33%
HOPKINS: 127/468 27%


Power caterogry:
CALZAGHE: 187/483 39%!!!!
HOPKINS: 116/375

A very big difference in favour of Calzaghe, although a reasonable one. I was never a Hopkins fan but he won me over with the fights against Tarver and Calzaghe. The decision is correct though, Joe won this fight.

 

I thought Calzaghe clearly won but you have to wonder about Compubox. Did they really land 313 combined power shots? At most there are 100 punches in that fight that really mean anything let alone land cleanly.

 

I had Joe winning 115-112... Hopkins fell asleep the last 3 rounds..

 

Yup, I'm also not a blind believer in Compubox. I liked Hopkins in the beginning but Calzaghe was evidently doing better as the fight progressed and was just a bit too active for me to support the claim that Hopkins won.

 

Thanks for the figures (by the way last one is 31%, you forgot to put it!).

Even if the compubox is off, the proportions are not too far off.

 

Yeah he did that to joe and still lost. Everything went right on the night for b-hop yet joe still beat him. Only later in the fight when he knew the fight was close did b-hop even think about coming forward.
If b-hop did not score the first round knock down you would have seen him busier as joe would not have to chase the fight as he was already 2 points down after round 1. I mean joe didnt look good but he still won the fight.
B-hops knows how the judges score yet instead of trying to win the first few rounds and later rounds clearly he just got on his bike and ran, slowed the pace down and tied up joe.

Everything went in b-hop favour and he executed his gameplan yet still lost.
Joe had most things go wrong for him, had to press the fight made a few adjustments mid - late and won. Well done joe.

 

Its amusing to me how alot of people look at Calzaghe's work against Hopkins and are quick to label it ineffective, but fail to use the same criteria which lead them to believe that Calzaghe was ineffective, and apply it to Hopkins.


I'll put it quite simply. Joe Calzaghe took the best he could and landed what was there to be taken against a fighter in Hopkins who would have likely been embarrased by Joe Calzaghe had he tried to box him proper, without the holding and stalling tactics.

Quite simply, Bernard Hopkins game plan was flawed to begin with.
Hopkins did'nt implement, or even tried to implement a winning game plan.
The best he could hope for was to keep the exchanges to a minumum, and hope that the judges would'nt penalize him for his non-effort.

Hopkins fought very much within the gameplan that MAB fought against Manny Pacquiao, but instead of strictly running away as MAB did against Pacquiao, Hopkins used both his running shoes and clinching and stalling tactics to minimize the exchanges.


In a scenario where one would think that the judges are there to judge honestly and fairly, Hopkins gameplan was far from a winning one!


I for one was appalled to see the blind lady judge score it 114-113 for Hopkins.

I swear to God, before the fight, the pictures of all three judges were shown on the TV screen.......my brother who is an optician, one who makes and dispenses lenses for eyewear, stated in disbelief.....what the hell is that lady judge doing judging a fight.....judging by the picture of those lenses, she's got a severe impedement in her eyesight.

.....Lo and behold, he was laughing out loud when the decision was announced and that lady judge was the lone dissenter! :nut

 

Hopkins may have turned the fight ugly, but Calzaghe wore him down by keeping it at a pace Hopkins was uncomfortable keeping and beat Hopkins at Bernard's own style, something nobody's really given him credit for. He also landed the cleaner shots for 3/4 of the fight. And, most importantly, Calzaghe kept trying to force the fight, and as the fight went on, Hopkins couldn't counter clean- his answer was to just keep clinching.

If there was any ineffective aggression, it was coming from Hopkins because Joe kept coming forward non stop, and by the end of it, Hopkins was the one trying to avoid the fighting and wearing down. So, how effective could Hopkins' countering have been through the course of the fight if Calzaghe was getting more and more confident as the fight went on? When Hopkins is effective, his opposition gets gunshy and you can see him imposing his will on the fight. That never happened.

So it's not just that Calzaghe landed more and more accurately- it's that he set the tempo, showed the willingness to press the fight, and made the adjustments to take away Bernard's offense, which had been effective the first quarter of the fight. That Joe missed more punches doesn't mean Bernard was scoring off of them or that you get credit solely for that.

 

I gave it to Calzaghe because he was the one who pressed the action and was busier. People want to bag on him for missing a lot of punches, but he landed more.

 

You have a point

 

Hopkins was very effective at holding excessively, not throwing punches, and acting

However, he did absolutely nothing in the last 8 rounds of the fight. Calzaghe landed more clean punches than people are giving him credit for, including body punches which as usual are being ignored

And he was acting like a desperate fighter. He got hit with a borderline, glancing low blow and acted like he'd been kicked in the junk with a steel toed boot. Later he pretended that he'd been hit by a low blow that didn't even exist. These aren't the actions of someone who is controlling a fight or thinks he's winning. They are the actions of someone who is desperate and knows he can't do anything boxing-wise to turn the fight around so he has to resort to trying to get point deductions or a DQ