If Hopkins had fought as well as he did last night, he would have beaten Calzaghe

I think the level of performance was the same each time. The difference was the opponent.

 

Hopkins had a good strategy against Joe, but I think he underestimated Calzaghe's ability to turn a fight, to adapt. Remember that Calzaghe was smiling, clowning, having fun out there will B-Hop towards the end of the fight.

For Bernard's part, he was on the canvas massaging his balls wondering where it all went wrong.

To answer the original question, Bernard will not beat Calzaghe by becoming more aggressive and leaving himself more open. Calzaghe isn't Pavlik, and that would be suicidal against someone who can throw with volume and speed (and SMARTS) from any angle they like.

I don't think B-Hop has the style to beat Calzaghe, and I would love to see them fight again to be proved right.

 

Did you listen to BHOP after the fight he said styles make fights and their styles did not gel well. JC is better at judging distance and bouncing in and out than Pavlik so the fight have been a little different but not by much.

 

While I was watching the fight, what seemed to be the deciding factor to me was the corner,

I think Roach is a great corner guy, but obviously Hops and Richardson have the chemistry,

I just think Nazim richardson understands Hopkins' fighting style better and is a better corner for hopkins, keeping him on track and doing the right thing . . .

 

I think it's still acurate to say that BHop showed his age and faded in the Calzaghe fight. He did ok for 5 rounds, but the more it went on he switched fighting for hugging. Against Pavlik Hop just used his foot work to stay in a position where Pavlik couldnt hit him properly. Calzaghe is much better at closing the gap so that fight wasnt so much about footwork.

 

I think so, B-Hop's footwork was supreme tonight and footwork was partly where the Calzaghe fight was won and lost, plus Bernard was far better conditioned - KP was the one looking tired - and he didn't hug the whole time.

 

maybe i'm reading this wrong but...

I agree with some of the criticism levelled at calzaghe on this board but this is getting insane.

I had a feeling that hopkins would school pavlik which would dampen all those "calzaghe is ducking pavlik" screams. i hadnt accounted for the uber deniers who would then detract from calzaghes win and say it was a different hopkins on the night and start screaming for a rematch.

what does the guy have to do! if hopkins came into the fight in the wrong state of mind that's his fault!

at least now it would be hard to deny the reality. Pavlik is a young, talented guy who can bang but currently lacks the experience and the smarts to mix it with the very best. Hopkins is still a wily campaigner and master boxer who hasnt suddenly become a bum but will lose when faced by someone who has the skill to frustrate him (there arent many fighters who could do this) especially now as age dictates his ability to adapt. and calzaghe is still an extremely skilful boxer whose style and career decisions will **** off a lot of people but when push comes to shove could and should have mixed it with all the boxers people criticise him for not fighting. (leaving aside the why and how some of these fights didnt happen) he may well have lost some but unlike pavlik i doubt he'd have been on the end of a one sided drubbing like last night even against RJJ in his prime.

yes pavlik should be given his dues for taking the fight. but taking the fight has exposed some brutal realities about where he has to go to be a top fighter. let's hope he's better at taking that on board than some of you lot!

 

He can't fight like that against Calzaghe because Calzaghe sets a faster pace and B-Hop is tired by the 8th round, Pavlik let Hopkins set the pace so he didn't tire at all.

 

No,Calzaghe is a better fighter than Pavlik and a bigger fighter physically,that should tell Pavlik and other people he can't go more than SMW and when he doesn't have a size advantage he is just ordinary

 

No. It was a different fight on a different night. Also, Cazlaghe was not at his best either.

 

The RIGHT answer is no.

 

We all saw your scoring in the round by round thread. Youre opinion is to be forever ignored.

 

I don't think he would've won because the biggest key for Calzaghe's win was still there- he could fire before Bernard. Calzaghe continually kept Bernard off balance and never let him get in the rhythm Pavlik did. If Joe fought like Kelly did last night, of course Hopkins would've won- if you try to fight conventional, he'll shred you. Calzaghe knew he'd have to fight ugly and unorthodox to win, and his willingness to do it surprised Hopkins; Pavlik didn't, and that's why Hops was 2 steps ahead of whatever Pavlik wanted to do. As an example, looked how rarely Hopkins clinched last night- when someone does something he doesn't like or he doesn't feel the openings are there, he'll initiate clinching much more often. There was no variety there, so Hopkins didn't need to.

Against Calzaghe, the clinching was alot more prevalent because Bhop didn't like the angles Joe was throwing punches from and Joe's theory was that if you throw enough, he can't counter all of them and so Hopkins spent more time in his guard than initiating exchanges like against Kelly. I'm not so sure those aspects would've been different had it been Joe in there last night. Call me a masochist, but I'd still check out a rematch between JC and Hops if that's how it goes down because I'm eager to see if things would go down any differently.

That's not to take away from Hopkins' performance, though. :thumbsup