Joe Calzaghes win over Hopkins

Was a Damn close fight

 

Thats why you are quoting my posts whilst ducking my questions, and once again more insults from you. You really do keep shooting yourself in the foot .
After saying you dont want to trade insults, you are the only one that has been insulting. A sure sign of someone who cant debate and is backed into a corner.
Facts are facts

 

:good Tell yourself whatever man. This is the Classic. Have a nice day. Cut and paste some of your old classic Calzzzzzzzzzzzzzzaghe posts.

 

Not really. Not according to the vast majority of experts at ringside.

Hopkins got in the ring with a better athlete, got taken into deep waters and floundered. It was pretty apparent to the unbiased and astute observers.

 

Saying Hopkins looked negative is as obvious as saying Floyd loves bling, his middle name is NEGATIVE, the undisputed , undefeated KING of boxing negativity, cunning? yes, spoiling? yes, entertaining ? **** no!

 

Yes. Hopkins looked shaky in this match. He wasn't aggressive because he could have been stopped. Clazaghe's corner picked up on this during the fight.

 

true, Enzo said to Joe between rounds, trust me on this you got to trust me, he is hurt and ready to go.

I believe B-Hop was feeling the pace and was getting hit too much at that point...Joe flashes a few punches then sits on a few and he has power when he does.

There would be no other reason for Bernard to pull out his bag of tricks and fake ploy for a foul but to gain rest and take Joe out of his momentum. The low blow at 2:21 of this below does not deserve a 5 minute rest....It was a B-Hop ploy for rest

http://youtu.be/Iny-JzuL1s0

 

My apologies for repeating these respective posts but I just wanted add and didnt want to edit

Where you have written for the WBO vs limited competition.
I just wanted to highlight some details to you.
The SMW divisions first world champs were WBC 1988, WBA 1987, IBF 1984 & WBO 1988.
Now for a start it is a new division so no belt has any more prestige than the other as they were all started at a similar time. So the WBO SMW title has no less prestige than the others.
Consider also that the WBO at SMW has been involved in 4 unification bouts.
The IBF has been involved in 2
The WBA in 3
WBC in 4 also
This shows that the WBO has been as willing to make top fights at SMW as much as any other governing body.

Now look at the list of champs in each and who they defended against and you can see that the WBO SMW title has produced the best defences overall better than all of the other govening bodies in this particular weight division so far.
Consider how much critism Bute gets now for his IBF defences.
Consider M Beyer defending his WBC title against 26-14-5 fighter who was coming off of a win against a 0-2-0 fighter
Or that Mundine when defending the WBA title against a 24-13-5 fighter who was the same fighter that WBC champ Beyer was defending against above.

People bring up Eubank who helped mould the belt that was good enough to give T Hearns a slice of history making. Out of Eubanks 18 WBO SMW title fights 14 of those fights were against fighters who were, had been or became top 10 SMWs. One was a unification and another was against the undefeated former IBF SMW champ (relinquished his title). In fact 6 of the fighters he faced had been or became wold champs

 

i scored it for joe but it was close. with many extremely difficult to score rounds

 

Hopkins being "in a competetive fight with Howard Eastman".:nut

 

Like with all fighters I try and look at all angles.

I give Calzaghe credit as the fight was
- His first world title fight at a new weight
- In America
- 3 American judges
- Cortez as ref
- Against the #1 in the weight above, who is #1 again years after Calzaghe beat him

There were many other positives in that it was a win sandwiched between arguably Hopkins best wins and how Hopkins was trying desperately hard to get points deducted off of Calzaghe etc

As for how much credit, I dont know, it was just a good win. But Calzaghe was also like Hopkins a top rate fighter.

A fighter that I have to give credit to is Pacquiao as I felt Marquez beat him both times and underestimated Pac. Since then he has pulled off 3 victories that I doubted he would win, especially when he beat Cotto

 

I do feel sometimes a common misconception can be made between a fighter having a good run of victories and a fighter being prime. For example since turning 40, excluding joe for the sake of argument, by my cards I have b-hop going 1-1 with taylor, beating wright, pavlick, orneleas, jones and going 2-0 with pascal. Whilst that's a very good run considering age and rankings, it's all a clearly past prime hopkins imo.

I think wright put up a competitive losing effort also against hopkins as did taylor in the 1st, so from that point of view he gets as much credit as say wright did from my perspective.

Regarding pac-jmm I actually had pac winning both by 1 point so conversely would be amazed if jmm pulled out the victory against him.