Jones Jnr Claims 20th September date with Calzaghe

the only chance jones gets of winning is an early round knock out.after that he ****ed.
​

 

Nice to see that someone doesn't buy into all the Calzaghe bull****.

 

Thats the first time i've seem somebody misquote themselves....you said 'near arse-kicking' which changes the meaning significantly in this context.

 

I still don't understand how you get your ass 'nearly-kicked'. It makes 0 sense. You either get whooped or you don't. To me Calzaghe-Lacy is a whoopping. Nobody got whooped in Calzaghe-Hopkins, it was a bad fight. Joe didn't land anything great, but did enough to outwork him clearly from round 4 onwards, and Hopkins did **** but hold.

How you find any ass kickings in that I'm astonished.

 

What makes you think I disagree with your other points? It was just the use of the phase "near arse-kicking" (inc. the subsequent misquoting and semantic wriggling out of it) and the fact you think the fight was close that I disagree with.

I'd much rather see a Pavlik fight but using woolly terms like 'professional blows' to try and justify the fight being close won't wash and neither will using imaginary punch stats that have very little bearing on the actual fight being discussed to illustrate a (theoretical) point.

 

Punch stats can be misleading but I don't think Hopkins landed enough punches to win the fight, if you want me drag this explaination out for 2 paragraphs I will but thats the bottom line. If Hopkins had of landed one decent shot to 5 Calzaghe flurries then I agree you could make a case for giving him rounds but even that wasn't happening.

IMO after the 10-8 in the first the only way Calzaghe could have lost on the cards was if the judges were too fond of scoring even rounds.

Oh, BTW don't ****ing patronize me. If you wrote what you meant to get across I wouldn't have to 'unpack' the meaning of your posts but actually nailing down your opinions would leave you less wriggle room I suppose.

 

This is the crux of the matter. Too many people seem to think you can win a round by scoring one clean punch, and getting outworked the rest. That is what happened from about round 4 onwards.

 

For the past three years, Hopkins has been trying to win all his fights by throwing one punch at a time and spending the rest of the round holding, butting and otherwise fighting very negatively.

I thought Joe looked liked a declined fighter but still won 10 rounds. Maybe that's a little high (certainly, most don't have it that pronounced), but Calzaghe made the fight and landed more shots, while Bernard had a showy counter here and there.

Easy fight to score, I thought, especially the second half.

 

He's 43 and thats the way he has to fight these days but he shouldn't be scoring points with it under the guise of "old school ring generalship", which seems to be happening a fair bit.

 

Right. He's amazing for his age, but you can't score rounds in his favor just because he's old.

 

I wasn't "banging on" about terminology, I was making the point (once!!) that to say Hopkins was scoring with "professional punches" is pretty meaningless. The same as not doing much but holding and fouling shouldn't be confused with ring generalship.

Its true that the fight was largely fought at a pace dictated by Hopkins', and he deserves credit for that, but thats not enough to allow him to win rounds with the punch output he was capable of.

I'm not a 'mardy' poster, but it comes across as pretty arrogant when somebody tells me that I need make the effort to 'unpack' the meaning of his posts like he's handing down pearls of wisdom sent from on high. I'd have probably made a bit more effort if you'd have just swallowed your pride over that ridiculous 'near arse-kicking' remark and admit you were wrong instead of trying to bluster your way through it.

Jones isn't anywhere near as an interesting fight as Pavlik would have been, but Internet fans don't get to pick the big fights very often......unfortuneatly!!!

 

Yep, thats the internet for ya!! Full of mardy, arrogant *******s!!

TBH I don't think Pavlik has 'broken out' of just being known to the boxing crowd but RJJ still has a massive name with general sports fans.

I'd love to know which fight would gross more money, JC-RJJ in Vegas, JC-Pavlik in Vegas or the same fights at Wembley /the Millenium?

My guess is the gate in the UK would be a lot better for a Jones fight but maybe the PPV and casino site fee would offset this for a Vegas fight with Pavlik???

I suppose the fact that a Jones fight (as well as being easier) means that Calzaghe can split the promotional profits with Jones rather than involve Arum would be attractive to JC?

 

No worries mate, I guess it was 6 of one, half a dozen of the other!!

I listened to Jay-Z on Radio 1, he seemed to go across pretty well. He came out to Wonderwall, pretty funny!:good

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/boxing/article1383441.ece

Well Frank hasn't wrote anything bad about Joe for leaving him In that article anyway.

 

Maybe Frank has been on holiday :rofl

I was very surprised at the lack of anti-Calzaghe sentiment in the column, I must say.