The Hopkins /Calzaghe debate once and for all....

If aggression is ineffective it shouldn't count for ****. The rules clearly state effective aggression. I'm not trying to debate who won this fight, but the scoring system already leaves plenty of room for subjectivity without people changing **** around.

 

Tell me why he ****ed it up with the White boy comment. :rofl I gotta hear this.

 

Would you give anything to someone who's questioned your race?

Hopkin's needed the rematch for retribution,Joe took it from him....

Hopkins wanted to rematch Roy,he picked Roy to beat Joe.

Joe took that away from him, all in all he lost completely to a white boy...

That **** must hurt him bad!

 

The fight was close. I have no problem with fights that close which can tip one way or another. The way some people are reacting here is as if it was a massive injustice like Lewis-Holyfield. It isn't even in the same stratosphere let alone ball park. I had it one round for Calzaghe as I recall but tbh I could easily have scored it 1 round to Hopkins.

What I did dislike was Hopking whining afterwards. NO excuse for that ****.

 

An old Calzaghe beat an old Hopkins. Hopkins did everything he could to win that fight. Roach wanted him to retire after the fight. Why do we want to see a rematch? Have Jones and Hopkins fight for the table scraps.

 

Joe did well but I thought he lost a close fight.

 

A US location

A US Ref.

Three US judges.



Bernard won two rounds on all three score-cards

Joe won four rounds on all three score-cards.


Of the remaining rounds, Joe won five on two of the three cards and Bernard won one on two of three cards.

Alltogether, 9 rounds to three.

Three US judges.

Harold Lederman: 9 rounds to three.

Manny Stewart: "This wasn't a hard fight to score."


While most of the rounds were close, the fight wasn't.

116-111 was the most reasonable score.


And if not for the four minute rest in round 10, courtesy of some oscar-deserving histrionics, the score-cards might not have been needed.

 

Can't we make this post a sticky whenever a B-Hop v Calzaghe thread comes up please Mods????

 

haha manny steward was saying around the 6th or 7th this could be a difficult fight to score for the same reasons stated in every thread in this topic. Joe was ineffective with his aggression whilst hopkins wasnt throwing as much but landing the cleaner crisper shots

 

the both of them looked like **** in that fight. they need to rematch. personally, i think hopkins got ****in tired. joe has an unusual rhythm, which make him very difficult to fight. but a game hopkins would beat him.

 

HEHEHE...:yep

 

Great post, i am going to keep this and throw it on the thread each time a idiot brings up this debate

 

Hops was definitely past it.

 

FFS!!!!! Why, what the hell would have happened? Would Joe 'Breadstick Fingers' Calzaghe have knocked out B-Hop The Unstoppable with one almighty slap on the jaw??? Sober up!!!!!!! atsch

 

why didn't he just stay in the pocket and trade with joe? if he is so granite chin and joe is pitty patting punches why didn't he just sit there and fire back, why go on his bike and go for the "1 punch a round wins a round/fight" masterclass?? never won him matches against taylor.

the reason was his limitations and style of adapable fighter he was fighting, see my earlier post on the first page.