So what does Bhop's win mean for Calzaghe?

Isn't the reasoning obvious and perfectly logical?
Joe wasn't given any credit (by some) for beating Hopkins, because Hopkins was said to be "old and shot". Hopkins last night proved what a ****ing legend he is and that he is nowhere near shot. So Calzaghe's win changes from a win over an old and shot legend, to a victory over a legend still fighting and winning at the highest level.
Its not rocket science is it.

 

spot on

 

Yep!:good

 

Me too.

 

Joe would beat Pavlik to the punch all night long.

Is it just me or is this fallacy that Hopkins won the fight against Calzaghe gaining momentum, maybe time dulls peoples memory but I've watched the fight a number of times.

To me the win wasn't even debatable. I had it 115-112 Calzaghe, even taking the KD into consideration.

 

So if we get anough people to say that DLH clearly beat FMJ, then that would that fight debatable?

I don't think so.

 

I had Calzaghe winning it clearly and can;t even see how people can say it was close. I suppose if the minority who "thought" Hopkins won are vocal enough they may convince a few people who did n't watch the fight or don't know any better. I'm sure a lot of these people are driven by nationalism, a dislike of JC, making the wrong pick before the fight etc. as I can't understand how anyone can watch it and believe Hopkins won.

 

Hopkins didn't win. If you look at the polls, 75% of people thought Calzaghe won, a small percentage a draw, and the rest Hopkins. That is unanimous enough for me, considering you are never going to beat Hopkins 12-0, or look fantastic doing it. There will always be close rounds to debate.

If you look at the people that make up that percentage, a lot of them either picked Hopkins or have a history of hating Calzaghe. There is no coincidence there.

What Hopkins did do is put up another very good display in that fight.

 

people can say that hopkins was a different fighter against pavlik?

yes that may be correct but thats because joe worked hard and managed to grind out a victory against a tactical nightmare for anyone in bernard hopkins.

Pavlik made hopkins look good, he barely used the jab all night, his corner constantly asked him to use the double jab, but he barely threw a single jab never mind two. i was extremely impressed with hopkins he is a true ATG thats undoubtable but the fact remains calzaghe worked harder and threw more then pavlik, calzaghe learnt to deal with hopkins and outworked him. Pavlik could not do that and that was the difference

 

Its random how it went from Hopkins being old and shot against Calzaghe to..... Hopkins got robbed, dodgy judges and and all the rest
Why cant people just give credit where credit is due.....

 

Thank God we have some sanity in the place.

I am slighty perturbed that the general good posting sense of the members of the British section of this forum has gone askew. How the **** can you compare Pavlik with Calzaghe? One is a 26 year old 160Llb champ who jumped up nearly two weights to take on a P4P top ten ATG whilst the other is an established 168 Llb fighter who probably climbed into the ring at LH on many occasions. Some of the Calzaghe nuthuggery on this thread is a bit fresh and fairly embarrassing if the truth be told. How a MW loss against a LH champ can be compared against a SMW win against a LHW champ I don't know. For ****s sake don't get dragged into the hype!!

 

FFS :-( n Definite general forum standard

 

All most people seem to be saying is that Calzaghes win over Hopkins was being put down because Hopkins was supposed to be old and finished. The Pavlik win at the very least proves there is life in the old dog yet and helps remove a common criticism about JCs win over Hopkins.

Hops beating Pavlik def. makes JCs resume look quite a bit better IMHO.

 

How can a natural MW loss against a LH, and ATG enhance Calzaghes CV?

 

You mean a huge MW who fought and won in the Taylor rematch at 168...2 lbs less than for the Hopkins beat down.