If you think Cotto won AND Calzaghe beat Hopkins...

Hopkins faked low blows, grabbed and only had one move: The Right hand and then grab for dear life.

He was being outworked by Calzaghe so needed to slow the pace by faking low-blows.

He overacted when he apparently got hit by a one (re-plays show it wasn't), if Joe Calzaghe slaps then why was Hopkins trying to win an oscar with his over acting as if he'd been hit with a sledgehammer in the balls. It was embarassing.

That's not how you win boxing matches. Take away the knockdown in the first round and it's Calzaghe all the way.

 

Good post.

 

Sorry, remind me again who you are, and why we should give a **** what you think?:huh

By the way, Hopkins and Cotto won :deal

 

GTFO! :rofl

It was a point, no more, either way.

 

'If Hopkins would try "fighting to win" rather than "fighting not to lose"'

Wow I've never heard it put like that but it absolutely sums up most of Hopkins fights up to the Pavlik fight (where he really did come to win)

 

I'm not offended. I'm just amused by you going around labelling people idiots. How about you just stick to talking about boxing, and leave the childish stuff for some other time and place.

 

so arum robbed clottey?

cotto lost clearly ?

 

Stfu noob

 

Tell him get lost Noob.

 

sadly he just call idiot to the mayority of boxing fans becasue the vast mayority saw Cotto winning the fight and the vast mayority saw Joe winning the fight. sadly He was rooting for both losers, and both fights where very close so why not say is a robbery, something that almost everybody exept a few haters known.

 

Boxing is scored on the 10 point "Must" system. To win a fighter Must fight. Must throw scoring punchers. Must control the action. This usually means taking control of your opponent and outboxing him, either on the back foot or front foot.(strangley in the US it predisposed to score more towards the front foot). The title is not won by covering your face with your hands, blocking a combination with no lateral or head movement, throwing one right hand then clinching and trying to smother your opponent for the rest of the round. I thought Hopkins against Pavlik was awesome. Sadly this is a rarity and not the norm with him. Calzaghe pressed forward, landed more (not just threw more) and dominated the action. Hopkins believes he only has to turn up and not lose to be considered the winner. For once the judges sussed him. For me though it wasn't even close.
As for Cotto, he will beat Clottey 5 times out of 5. The cut clearly worried Miguel and put him off his game plan. He has too much power and heart for Clottey,who's best chance to win has just passed him.
As for opening a thread by calling people who may disagree with you "idiots", mate forums are about discussions explaining why you agree or disagree. Its not Kindergarden.

 

I'm pretty sure Cotto and Calzaghe both won, maybe i'm just remebering it wrong

 

What is the point of this topic?? How are both fights related - apart from both being close and both being a split decision??

How can you call somebody an idiot for picking a winner in two very close fights??

Hopkins v Calzaghe was extremely close and either fighter could have easily picked up the victory that night. In the end, it's all about personal opinion. Hopkins used his defensive and counter punching skills well, whereas Calzaghe was clearly the one taking the fight to Hopkins.

Cotto v Clottey was also close. However, with the knockdown, I had Cotto a couple of rounds up. Clottey may have landed the cleaner punches, but Cotto finished the last few rounds looking the better fighter.

Of course, all the above is just my opinion on the 2 fights. I would'nt call somebody an idiot for picking the other 2 fighters as the winners.