Man, what a great weekend. Bumped into Bruce Willis, had a few beers with Gavin Rees, had a photo taken with MAB, generally had a great few days. As for the fight, blimey that was close. Firstly, I was proud of Joe's support - an amazing turnout for him and the respect shown to the American national anthem was a great relief for me. Hopkins looked strong but I think he was a bit naive. If he had stepped in and tried to end the fight in the early rounds, he possibly could have ended things and left the decision in no doubt. His reluctance to do this ultimately lost him the fight. Joe's tactical preparation left a lot to be desired. Against Kessler, we saw the same thing for the first few rounds. Against Hopkins, it could have very much been worse. As soon as Joe worked out what he was up against, he had the measure of Hopkins. It makes me wonder why they don't study the tapes more, look for the weaknesses beforehand like Hopkins blatently did over and over again. If Joe had done that, I think we would have been looking at a pretty undisputable UD. He didn't however and what was more alarming to me was that his speed just wasn't there. Whether it's the age or extra weight I don't know, but he's slowed considerably. Anyway, from where I was sitting and singing I thought Joe did enough to win because he was the one trying to take the fight forward. Hopkins was wily but I would give him more credit for trying to put Joe under some pressure of his own because the right hand was as big and prominent as I feared. Calzaghe just finds a way to win though and he won the fight by fighting Hopkins way. Joe constantly looks average against defence first fighters as I've said previously so it's no surprise that it was a struggle. But a win's a win and I'm glad to say that I was there.
Its often easier to see on TV than live whether someone is there to be finished. Joe wasnt. The punch that floored him was a ******* but it hit him on the nose. Joe's eyes were clear and legs never showed signs that it affected him. Benard knew it too otherwise he's been all over him like a bad suit. EDIT: I got bleeped to calling a punch a c racker! Hahahaha
I haven't watched it on TV yet but Hopkins was the stronger puncher and had the ability to hurt Joe. But then again, Joe's been in that situation a few times now. I bemoan Joe's lack of preparation for this. Just sit down and study the ****ing tapes man! I think he could have made things easier for himself.
That's interesting. I recall a number of posts saying exactly the same thing about Kessler after people rewatched the fight. The logic behind it is probably that Joe's style leaves him open for (heavy) punches from round number 1. Obviously opponents have their peak power in the early rounds. Put together it's probably not bad tactics going all out from the start. Risky? Yes. Having watched both the Hopkins and Kessler fight it leaves you with: What if? Personally I really wanted Kess to follow up his flurry in rnd. 1. Why didn't Hopkins follow up?
But then again, Sheika, Mitchell (arguably bigger punchers than Kessler/Hopkins) amongst others have tried that tactic and have been stopped early themselves. Obviously Kessler and Hopkins are better boxers than those two and tend to fight more to a gameplan. You put all your eggs in one basket and if it doesn't work (See Jeff Lacy), you're in for a very long, tough fight against Calzaghe. Hopkins didn't follow up because Joe punches back. Hopkins game is not to trade but to counter.
I was wondering about that myself. Is this true? Why would someone not do that, it makes no sense. Thanks for the report.:thumbsup
Enzo Calzaghe doesn't believe in it and discourages his boxers from watching tapes. He had his success with Joe because of Joe. Calzaghe has the ability to change his gameplan naturally and change the way he fights. But sometimes against good boxers, it takes him a few rounds to do adapt. It's completely mindless really. Enzo believes that if one of his boxers has trained to their peak, that should be enough.
