The Joe Calzaghe Deception, the night Bernard Hopkins was robbed

I thought Hopkins beat Calzaghe. I didn't see Calzaghe land clean punch, not a proper punch.

On the other hand, Hopkins was holding and claiming low blows and not doing much fighting either.

It was a **** fight. Both deserved to lose.
It's ironic that the American TV scored it for Calzaghe and were hyping him up, wheres British TV team reckoned Hopkins was ahead.

 

Go and watch the fights I listed

Hopkins vs Echols I, and then watch Echols II

watch Eastman then watch Taylor, these fights happend back to back

Watch Calzaghe then watch Pavlik,

Watch RJJ II then watch Pascal

Hopkins takes the **** in the RJJ II fight making everyone believe his stamina is diminished then he fights against Pascal in a way that shows he has a solid work rate.

Against Eastman he didnt even throw punches, but in the next fight he bangs with Taylor.

Look at the build up into the Pavlik and Pascal fights, Hopkins was always talking about motivation, I said before the Pascal fight, if Hopkins is motivated he wins. And he was motivated, coz he knew Pascal is tough.

 

Unfortunately most idiots/haters on ESB will never do so. Anyone who can see what BH is really about and how highly he should be regarded will recognise the performane of JC in that fight. After the fight, most people though that BH was shot and that his time was done.....here we are a few years later and he's still doing the business with the 'best'.

 

Never in a million years.

 

Watched this again a couple months ago and scored it more clearly for Calzaghe than when I watched it live. I find it very difficult to understand how people score it to Hopkins tbh, he did not win 6 rounds.

Its not that bad of a fight either :deal

 

I'm sorry but I completely and utterly disagree with you. The reason he faded so badly was because of JC, not the lack of gym-work. He wanted to win the fight badly for many reasons and I do not believe that he for one second suggest the fight would be easy (even if he may/may not have said it) as it's not in his make up. BHop is a real throw back and no-one works harder, studies the opposition more rigorously and goes over the gameplan more thoroughly.....to suggest otherwise is being disrespectful to BH, not JC.

 

Hopkins was more busy in the Pascal and Pavlik fights than he was in the Calzaghe fights.

Hopkins didnt press the action vs Calzaghe, because Calzaghe is a come forward type of fighter. He waited him to draw close and then landed that lead right.

That was a close fight regardless, a rematch would have favoured BHop more than it would have favoured Calzaghe. Calzaghe did, and always does the same style come foward high work rate flurries. Hopkins can switch it up.

Also in their following bouts, Calzaghe looked the same old vs a shot Jones Jr. Hopkins looked like a beast vs Pavlik.

 

Oh, so you do give JC some credit for beating/having a close fight against BH??

 

I thought it was a bad fight.Having said that I had Calzaghe winning by 2 or 3 points.Hopkins faded badly at the end.

 

I base them on performances I see.

I suggest you watch Echols I and then Echols II, and see how BHop steps up his dirty tactics in the 2nd fight.

 

Of course, I think he lost that fight, but Calzaghe taking fights with Hopkins in Hopkins home country is commendable, he definatley got to Hopkins in that fight, especially the 2nd half, Hopkins should have and could have won.

But IMO him not fighting Froch, Dawson, Pavlik, Hopkins II and instead fight RJJ was a ***** move but financially a smart one.

 

Jesus the creator of the video has got far too much time on his hands, it's pathetic and so biased it is not worth taking the time to watch.

 

Smart move IMO considering whats happened to Froch, Dawson etc since.

 

Would've made more sense to just post the whole fight.

 

Damn if your not a Joe C, nuthugger. Your a true dumbass if you thought Joe C, won that fight. Hopkins clearly won.