Moral victory is what it's all about in Hopkins vs. Calzaghe!

I am somewhat surprised to see that many here debate in earnest who the victor in this fight will be or whether or not the judges will score the fight fairly. To me, it's obvious who the winner will be and irrelevant whether the judges will give the nod to the actual winner.

I am baffled, however, when I see knowledgeable boxing fans proposing to take a scant interested in this fight, citing as reason the difference in the level of performance that the two men are likely to display on the night. Some are even thinking so far ahead that they campaign for a Calzaghe fight with Dawson, because he displays elite skills, implying that Hopkins no longer does. Incredibly short-sigthed, in my opinion!

Surely everyone must realise that the real victor of Hopkins vs. Calzaghe will not be he who hits more whilst being hit less but he who turns out to be the more competent ring-general, the superior and more flexible strategic planner and implementor and the mentally stronger, more intelligent and artful operator. Are these not "skills" too?

The reason why Calzaghe was so impressive in his performance against Kessler - his most significant victory to date - is that he dominated the young, likable and brave Dane mentally, through sheer strength of will, showing supreme stamina and speed, tactically, enforcing a superior jab, reacting well and working around his gameplan, and morally, by fighting a cleaner fight than he was expected to or could have gotten away with. Had Calzaghe been knocked out in the last round by Kessler's punches, he would still have been the moral victor in that fight. To me, this is clear!

Similarly, if Hopkins wins the mental battle prior to the fight, managing to force Calzaghe to enter the ring with an inappropriate attitude, if he proves to be the better ring-general on the night, implementing and asserting a winning strategy that catches Calzaghe by surprise and outwits him regularly, if he employs artful tricks of gamesmanship successfully to make Calzaghe lose his nerve and draw him into fighting scrappily, if he shows more will to win in the crucial moments of the fight, certain to be showcased with typical aplomb, Hopkins will be the moral victor in this encounter, irrespective of the number of effective punches thrown by Calzaghe in comparison, or the decision of the judges.

I am surprised to notice that quite a few knowledgeable fans fail to consider these aspects of the sport important. At this stage in their career, given the age difference between them, these facets are all important to me. However, they are all important in and of themselves too, because boxing is not just about speed, strength, endurance and precision. The mental and moral aspects of the sport are crucial, I would argue.

I would also like to add that whilst I agree that the referee might play a salutary role as Hopkins' accomplice in this fight, I will expect Calzaghe to use his youth and freshness, stamina and strength, fitness and especially speed to overcome that imbalance and assert himself within the limits accepted by the referee.

So, if you are still uncertain why Hopkins has taken this fight, think how important the moral victory would be to him, against Calzaghe, and question yourself whether a fighter who competes for the moral victory against the odds stacked high by such a formidable opponent doesn't deserve our unstinted praise and admiration.

 

You're wrong, kid.

Kessler needed the knock-out and Calzaghe could have danced around him in that last round. Instead, he decided to put the last nail in Kessler's coffin by holding true, taking his best punches like a man and getting out alive.

 

It seems to me you are arguing Hopkins could beat Calzaghe, because it's likely "he has Calzaghe's number". I, on the other hand, am arguing that although Hopkins won't beat Calzaghe, because he doesn't have enough in the tank anymore, due to his age, he could end up convincing everyone that had he had as much as Joe in the tank, (had they both been to an equal extent in their prime), he would have beaten Calzaghe, because the extent to which Hopkins "has Calzaghe's number" is greater than the extent to which "Calzaghe has Hopkins' number" i.e. Hopkins finds, implements and enforces a flexible, responsive strategy that would have beaten Calzaghe had he had enough in the tank.

 

Physical aspects include: speed, strength, power, endurance, agility, etc.

Mental aspects include: depth of concentration, length of time for which you can concentrate deeply, speed of thought, analytical skills, etc.

Moral aspects include: courage, resolve, resilience, nerve, etc.

All these are tightly linked.

In my post, I suggested that the mental and moral aspects of sport are as important as the physical aspects.

I used "moral" in two separate ways, however: figuratively "Moral victory" and literally, to refer to moral aspects of the sport.

In that case, how would you explain that Hopkins has taken this fight? His physical skills, because it seems you are referring to these, are considerably inferior to Calzaghe's. He would have no chance to win the moral victory. Fortunately, this is not the case. Hopkins can win the moral victory by proving that his mental and moral skills are superior to Calzaghe's, and, had his physical skills been as close to what they once were as Calzaghe's presently were, he would have won.

 

I think that as long as the referee doesn't altogether throw the rule-book out of the window, Hopkins could be the moral victor. You are right, however, when you suggest that by killing the fight completely, Hopkins would have no chance to prove his superior mental and moral qualities.

 

A moral victory over Calzaghe could still help Hopkins climb back up into the pound-for-pound top ten, whilst dropping Calzaghe to fourth or fifth, depending on each fighter's performance on the night. Surely that is some incentive, wouldn't you say?

 

Yes, they are, McGrain...if not particularly smart.