Joe Calzaghes win over Hopkins

:good
Ah, intelligent life here!
If it wasn't corrupt Joe Cortez in there, people forget that the rules demand that points be deducted for what Hopkins pulled on 2 or 3 occassions. Trying to get rests--which he achieved--by faking that he was hit low and going to all fours (for that beautiful smilated anal **** by Calzaghe [a "white boy" no less]). I only cite the white boy thing because BHop had made a big deal of "never gonna lose to a white boy."

Bhop should have had several points deducted. Indeed an honest ref would have either deducted a point for the first time he stopped the action, or started a count! And for the second or third time Bhop pulled that ****, an honest ref would have DQed him. It's happened many times before for excessive holding when a fighter is trying to take a break.

Nonetheless Calz won an admittedly close fight mainly because of the KD in the first round.

In recent fights, most people agree with the ref counting out Judah for this same antic, but the BHop lovers give their guy a pass on any **** he did and does. Similarly the ref counted against Haye for repeatedly going to the floor. BHop would have had pts deducted or DQed if an honest ref had done that fight.

How anyone, including BHop himself, harps on this fight as anything to be proud of with what Bhop did is amazing!

Right afterwards I thought BHop would hide from the human race for a long time--esp. since this chicken**** tactic was with a "white boy."

Bottom line, the win was clear, if close, for Calzaghe, and BHop is lucky he wasn't DQed for his shameful, illegal, chicken**** acts in the ring.

That being said, BHop deserves all the credit in the world for beating Pascal and winning the title at his age. A remarkable feat. And against Dawson, I say may the best man win, and hopefully in a legal fashion. If the best man is BHop, that's OK with me.

 

I have witnessed some very important championship fights live and later seen them on video. There is a major difference. Sorry. I am not about to take anyone here's opinion over Steward, or to a lessor extent Kellerman's. Get a name in the field if you want to qualify over these two.

In this case, Calzaghe's fight plan beat Hopkin's plain and simple. He outlanded him, stalemated him, and I dare say- if not for Hopkin's stalling ***** bull****- would have stopped him. Hopkins simply could not match Calzaghe's pace over the final 5 rounds.

I really think that people on this board do not understand the withering effect of pace and output in a fight. I find it a bit surprising.

 

The thing with Calzaghe that people do not get is that he was very smart and very intuitive.

Calz is like what Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park, "Life finds a way." Calz always found a way to beat his opposition. The better the opposition, the better Calz needed to fight and did. (And the inverse was also true alas on occassion.) One can make fun of his swarming tactics but they frustrated all his opponents. And people also forget that he was a KO artist earlier on (admittedly not against the best opposition) and broke his hands many times, which forced him to change his style a bit. Hell Kessler said he was about to go down from a body blow when the ref halted the action unfortunately.

Ali was very smart and intuitive and (almost) always found a way. With Ali sometimes, in his 2nd carnation, that included illegal tactics like holding down his opponents head. But if refs stopped that, he'd have found another way. Didn't need to do that in his first reign of course.

No one out there in SMW or LHW looks unbeatable to me. I'd wager if Calz were really serious and took the proper measures, he could still whup any of them in a comeback. Not that I would advise that. No need.

 

I listened to Kellerman's radio show back when it was on 1050 ESPN Radio, and I remember him and Brian Kenny talking about how they both scored the fight 114-113 for Hopkins.

 

You dont like facts :think, because that is what has been put forward

They are just facts

Pathetic. Make a petition. Weak. So if somebody puts facts forward you want them banned atsch

No they didnt. Due to Hopkins having success after Calzaghe, some like yourself would love to rewrite history. At the time most felt Calzaghe was the winner and many called for Hopkins to quit.
The reason Hopkins was considered an underdog to a fighter 2 divisions lighter is because of how bad Calzaghe made Hopkins look.
I think it was about 7 times, went to walk to the wrong corner after the bell

 

Whatever makes you happy

Calzaghe can sleep tightly knowing his legacy is secured after SD Hopkins and refusing to give him a rematch.

 

Maybe they did but the overwhelming favourite was Calzaghe, as the 3 American commentators scored clear for Calzaghe aas well as Ledermann and the British commentary.
There was a magazine article I read how this journalist scored closely for Hopkins, so he called in I think it was 9 other opinions. I seem to remember M Steward and S Muhamed being 2 of the opinions and all of them scored for Calzaghe, thats 9-1 in favour of Calzaghe

 

Why does Calzaghe owe Hopkins anything. Hopkins wouldnt fight Calzaghe originally aqnd backed out. Hopkins has to live with the loss and Calzaghe scored a good away win in his first fight at a new weight, in America with 3 American judges and Cortez as ref

 

The overall fight was easy to score, because for Calzaghe, you can find 7 clear rounds he won and Hopkins, you can only find 3 clear rounds he won.

The thing that made this fight seem closer than the Round by Round eventuality that it was, was how dominant Hopkins was in the rounds he won vs how unpretty and ugly the rounds Calzaghe won were.

When you throw less than 15 punches a round in eight rounds of the fight against a fighter with a notoriously high work rate, you won't win many fights unless you knock him out.

So yes, Hopkins landed the better shots and did so throughout the night, but he went to sleep in too many rounds and no impartial judge can give him a round he threw and landed less than half the punches the other guy did.

 

Hopkins did land the best punch of the night at the end of round 7 a round Hopkins lost, but that fight was made to look better by an illegal headbutt. The KD punch wasnt that hard and just caught Calzaghe square on. Other than that Calzaghe landed better throughout, just people remmeber Hopkins punches because they were potshots, but the were not clean shots and Calzaghe landed more and better overall

 

With his boxrec style analysis he'd soon get laughed out of the forum.

 

The funniest thing for me is when you get people who believe Hopkins won to break down their round by rounds - they generally give rounds to Calzaghe that the judges gave to Hopkins.

 

To address the ts I think it's obvious really. If you believe joe deserved to beat hopkins then you have to say it's his greatest victory.

If you believe hopkins beat joe then the greatest victory would easily be kessler.