So what does Bhop's win mean for Calzaghe?

:good spot on, lets not take away a great plan by hopkins last night.

 

Don't see how Joe's win Is debatable, after the 1st round, I couldn't give Hopkins a round till the 8th. All he did was hold, fowl and fake low blows through out the fight.

Hopkins fought a cleaner fight against Pavlik but against Winky and Joe he was so negative.

Joe does slug but he also has skills and can adapt and change gameplan. Theres also his handspeed, footwork and workrate.

 

I think what it does show is that the Hopkins that Calzaghe beat still had something in the tank so he deserves a bit of credit for that.

 

You thought Joe won clearly, others thought Hopkins won clearly and other thought it was a close fight. That's why it's debatable. surely you can see that!

 

Nor would I. Because many do not count Calzaghe's win over Hopkins as legit, despite the fact he clearly won by 4 points.

 

Posters on this board seriously need to rewatch Calzaghe vs. Hopkins again and do a new scorecard, because I had no doubts over the winner on first watch and second watch, its just the agenda hunters who seem to.

 

There is no maths involved. It is very simple logic. People criticized Calzaghe's effort against Hopkins, whether you thought it was debatable is largely irrelevant. Most people thought he won, some don't, but overall its been made abundantly clear Calzaghe is FAR better than Pavlik after months of people talking **** about him.

Styles are one thing, but the guy lost 12-0. Twelve zero. Come on now.

 

I thought it was a close fight and yes a gave it to joe, but hopkins is the master spoilmen and thats what he did against calazghe and i thought for the first 6 rounds hopkins was winning. So if JC does beat Jones then i honestly want to see a re match and finally settle it once and for all.

 

Where did that become apparant?

 

Im not questioning who is the better fighter thats not important. ( Pavlik or Joe ) But if Joe had the cojones of a throw back like Hopkins he would have been in the ring with Pavlik and the Dawsons of this world NOT old men like Hopkins and RJJ who are still fighting on fumes. For Pavlik to loose in such a fashion to a fighter who`s prime was back in the 90`s is embarassing and just goes to show how overrated he was by some on these boards. Joe is equally the same as his a classic right time right place guy.

 

If Joe had cojones he would have fought someone who just got destroyed by Hopkins, instead of fighting Hopkins himself?

Are you actually drunk?

Since when did taking on lower class, less proven, less able fighters indicate courage?

 

That doesn't make any sense to me, you are contradicting yourself.

Why should Joe be fighting Pavlik, when he is in your own words a hypejob, especially one that just got humbled so emphatically by the guy you are criticizing him for fighting? Hopkins is a better fighter regardless of age, period.

 

TFFP you should join my party in the general forum, for some reason the pavlik fans seem to never be around at the moment in the general forum?


but the general forum is a great place to be hehehe

 

I've started a Pavlik-Froch thread on the general . Let's see what they have to say.

 

so let me get this straight, joe should have been in the ring with pavlik, yet pavlik is overated and hopkins is the superior fighter, yet joe thought hopkins you basically said all them things? your going round in circles mate yet another example of your feelings and negative attitudes towrards british fighters