VOTE! Question about Hopkins and Calzaghe

More agressive,less agressive Hopkins always gets outworked and loses.

 

Whereas you prefered to give them to Hopkins for ineffective passivity?

 

Whoever voted that Hopkins in his prime would lose to Calzaghe, is a pure calzaghe Nutthugger.

Fact #1 the fight was won on Split Decision
which means it was a very close decison.

Fact #2 Hopkins was clearly out of his prime by many Years, and Calzaghe was still close to his 'Prime'

So if a Calzaghe who was not out of his prime by much, just scraped a vicotry over a Hopkins who was out of his 'prime' by YEARS, (not even mentioning getting KD in round 1) then how can a sane mind even think that Calzaghe would have won so easily.

And a question to those who say Calzaghe in his 'prime' would have beaten a prime hopkins, what would the decision be like?
a) Calzaghe by KO
b) Calzaghe by Wide UD
c) Calzaghe by SD

Calzaghe winning by a SD is the lowest of lowest victories, so if a Prime Hopkins is to fight calzaghe, what did a better Hopkins add to the fight, according to the Calzaghe Nutthuggers, a younger Hopkins added nothing, but rather was weaker than the old Hopkins. :deal

 

100%

Only a Calzaghe fan would say otherwise

Roy Jones: "Calzaghe can't call himself the legend killer... all he did was confirm said legend's status AS a legend"

 

No, because Joe was not white in his prime....

Seriously I think B-Hop roughs him up prime for prime....

 

It proves a 36 year old Calzaghe beats a 43 year old Hopkins.

That is it.

 

yep, if anything bernard is slightly less defensive and loses by a greater margin

 

No, let's get serious, he gassed. The fact that he's been able to compete at such a level for so long is a testemant to how proficient he is at avoiding getting hit. But it doesn't replace that Tarver was seriously weight drained after all his posing on the set of Rocky. Tarver fought at a dogged slow pace in the fight, which obviously suited Hopkins just fine.

His fight with Winky didn't expose this either. Both defensive tacticians, Winky retained his "turtle shell" moniker true to form. Although its true Hopkins fought at a faster pace in this fight than the previous, it was hardly the most energetic affair.

Enter Slappy Joe. To his credit he took the fight to B-hop as best he could in his own sprawling, slappy way. But B-hop was clearly on borrowed legs. His faking the low blows etc. merely showed that he could no longer keep up with this frenetic pace that Joe C set (to his credit). At times in the fight I figured I could go to sleep for a couple of hours and wake up to see B-hop land his next punch.

Now while that puts Slappy Joe's stamina in a good light, I think you can't say the same when B-hop was in his prime. It's safe to say that he would have been able to keep up with Joe C. And when you take this factor into account, I don't think it bodes too well for The Welsh Dragon. He's too easily hittable for someone as patient and elusive as The Executioner...

Joe C won that fight primarily because he adjusted to B-hop's abysmal work rate (avoiding the overhand right the seldom few times it would be deployed). He wouldn't have this luxury against a sharper Hopkins who didn't tire as easily. :deal

 

It was not a prime Calzaghe.

 

true. calzaghe reached prime BEFORE Lacy. It's a testament to him that he has fought some amazing fights (not inc BHop) whilst on the decline.

 

Nonetheless, Hopkins is/was further removed from his prime then Calzaghe... It is a testament to him, that he has fought and won the fights he has all the way up to 43.

 

Ah good old punch stats. They don't tell the full story....

Calzaghes own father thought he'd lost. The pro-Calzaghe Setanta team felt he'd lost. The only people that say it's crazy to suggest Hopkins won are the slappy sack-swingers, how strange.

 

Bingo. He landed 100 more punches according to the stats, but who landed the more damaging shots all night long? From what I remember the only effective shot Calslappy landed was the one to the nuts.

 

Calzhaghe fans only started saying that Cal was past his prime after his fight with Hopkins, I never heard any talk of him even being slightly past it until his fight with Hopkins(not to sound redundant) but they say that to justify Calzhaghe looking like an amatuer before Hopkins began tiring out.

 

Usually I am more than up for a debate on any boxing issue, but I am posting only once on this, and that's all, coz anyone arguing against the obvious and clear 1000% correct answer here is simply a biased stubborn fanboy with no objectivity and no boxing brain.

I am not a Calzaghe fan, nor am I a Hopkins fan, the only current fighters I consider myself a fan of are Pacquiao and JM Marquez, but I have strong opinions on boxing- and I absolutely cannot even believe this question can even be debated.

It was as clear as day watching that fight (and I must have watched it, scored it, and analyzed it now at least 10-12 times since it happened), that Bernard Hopkins was the far more skilled, far more incisive, far more clinical, far more controlled, far far superior fighter- but at 43, he simply did not the stamina / energy / workrate, to maintain his attacks and dominate the fight.

His tactics rendered Joe Calzaghe ineffective to the point of impotent. Calzaghe never landed ONE single solitary significant punch in the entire bout. Yes, Joe had periods where he had Hopkins backed up and was flurrying away missing and hitting gloves and elbows and shoulders, but both he and Enzo Calzaghe knew (and you can see it in their faces after the bell and before the announcement, Hopkins had been in control the whole time, he was happy allowing Calzaghe to do this while he conserved energy and made it through. It was Hopkins's tactics which had worked, and the fight went the way he wanted it. He was supremely confident he had won, Joe and Enzo were clearly fearing the worst. And yet 2 of the judges went for quantity over quality- fair enough. I disagree, but it's a valid assessment. Cal did outwork him easily, so if that's their decision I wouldn't go crazy about it, it was no robbery, it was very close. I had Hopkins winning, but I've seen worse decisions.

However, if anyone, anyone can watch that fight, and not say that if Hopkins had gone into this fight the same age as Calzaghe was- ie, the Hopkins that mastered p4p#2 Felix Trinidad- he would have convincingly beaten Joe, then I just cannot understand what reasons they could possibly have for that. Hopkins only didn't go for the stoppage in the 1st round because he wouldn't take the risk of blowing himself out and then having nothing left. If he was younger, he would have been confident enough in his body's ability to go for 12 rounds, and would've gone for the stoppage, because even if he didn't get it then, he would've put himself firmly in a commanding position to take a wide unanimous decision or softened Calzaghe up for a later stoppage.

WORKRATE and ACTIVITY, nothing else, won Calzaghe the decision on the night against an opponent with far more quality but far less stamina and energy due to his age. That is the truth.

And that's my only words on the subject.

Peace.