Nominate your top analysts from the other camp vis-a-vis Hopkins v. Calzaghe!

Again, why must you always resort to name calling? I haven't seen a pro Calzaghe argument that I really liked. Therefore, if Brooklyn made a pro Calzaghe argument, and if I actually read it, then I didn't really like it.

 

Hopkins would perhaps have the stylistic edge were he in his prime.

However at 42, after a year of inactivity, being a counterpuncher against a fast fighter with a terrific work rate does not give you any kind of stylistic advantage.

 

Whatever Reg :roll:.

 

While I have enjoyed and respect the pro-Hopkins posts, I think most are operating under a set of false assumptions.

First, I agree he will trouble Joe, and rough him up, and exploit Calzaghe's sloppy footwork, and land regular and clean right-hand connects.

Problem is, that won't be enough to win seven rounds. And that's really the key: Unless the bout goes to cuts, we're looking at a decision.

The faulty assumption is that Hopkins' good work will be enough to carry rounds, because it won't be. He lacks power at 175 and is unlikely to badly damage Calzaghe's renowned chin. He also will be throwing one punch at a time in order to conserve energy. The pitty-pat he tossed at Winky Wright for volume was available to him because the faded, bloated Winky lacked the speed and agility to make him pay for meaningless shots.

Calzaghe will be throwing more punches than Bernard, and probably a lot more, even if not to his usual pace. He'll also be fighting each round, whereas Bernard as usual will be forced to give at least a couple away.

And in a fight where power is unlikely to be the story, activity likely will be. Those partical connects adds up. Those blocked combos, even though blocked, still get scored to an extent by judges.

Look at Dawson/Johnson. One guy throws in combination for 12 rounds, while the other guy pressures him and consistently lands right hands, hurting his opponent very badly on a couple of occasions. And yet, he lost 8-4.

Now, in this fight you won't have Calzaghe landing cleanly on Hopkins the way Dawson did to Johnson, but you also probably won't have Hopkins hurting Calzaghe. The point being, workrate and combination punching scores points.

For all his technical abilities and a mystique that seems to grow here by the day, Hopkins just doesn't have the workrate to defeat Calzaghe, the only caveat being if Joe has gotten old overnight and lost his legs.

Calzaghe UD 116-112.

 

While he might truly believe this, it has to be pointed out that I have heard from someone at the Macca V Haye weigh-in that Booth + Calzaghe seemed to have some kind of beef going on. More body language + staredowns than any actual words exchanged. This could possibly cause a bias in the views he expresses.

 

Has it occured to anyone that based on styles and location of this fight, that Calzaghe may need to clearly clearly win this fight to get a decision?

By this I mean that Stateside views are different. Here, having a high workrate but little on the punches against a counter puncher who is banging you on the inside and perhaps landing crisper shots might result in a close decision going to the harder crisper puncher? I don't mean to say Calzaghe will get robbed. I mean to say that Calzaghe may land more punches, while Hopkins may land harder more visible and cleaner shots. And if Calzaghe's workrate isn't overwhelming, he may lose this fight because the views on scoring are different here.

 

Definitely a possibility, although Dawson won a close decision over Johnson as the volume puncher, and Hopkins himself lost twice to Taylor despite landing the more telling blows.

But then, Spinks got no love at all against Taylor. However it works, judging definitely could be a factor. Hopkins is one of the toughest guys to score, at least for me.

 

Dawson landed hard shots in that fight. I have watched it twice now and while Johnson landed the hardest punches of the fights, he didn't land as many hard shots overall IMO, he simply took them better than Dawson did. And Dawson's shots were actually more visible because of his spacing, whereas alot of Johnson's were in close. I still maintain that fight was not as bad as many made it out to be. I also think Dawson actually threw as many if not more than Johnson because he kept flicking that jab out there. It was often blocked, but it got through sometimes. Johnson didn't land or throw much when Dawson moved. It was when he STOPPED that Johnson threw.

As for Calzaghe, sitting on his punches MORE may be a bad idea. I think it is actually. Hopkins is bigger than him and if he sets his feet, Hopkins is going to be countering him silly. I don't believe that Calzaghe can get into a precision punching match with Hopkins who will simply get very close and throw straight hard shots. Calzaghe should try to outwork him IMO.

 

McGrain, in his 11 point breakdown. Not sure it counts because he still picks Calzaghe despite his analysis of how Hopkins can win, but I agree 100% with everything he said about how Hopkins could win.