Was Age a Factor in the Outcome of Hopkins-Calzaghe?

Lets hope it isn't Jones or Tarver. I can see Calzaghe stepping into the 90s LHW division proper.

 

Nard was able to make Joe look bad because he's still able to throw that straight right, he was able to move effectively for the first few rounds, and he was holding the whole fight. Age played a factor, because Nard wasn't able to put his punches together, his legs tired after the 5th round, and he ran out of gas. Read this article for a good explanation of why age played a factor

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/columns/story?columnist=raskin_eric&id=3355783

Here's an excerpt

 

Being 43 years old in boxing can't be considered an advantage.
In that sense it was a factor.

 

That was also the round where he faked getting hit with a low blow and got an extra 3 minutes of rest.

 

Not taking anything away from Calzaghe's performance, he was able to do what Wright and Tarver weren't and beat Hopkins, but anytime you are 43, age is a factor.

 

Give it up.

What you posted was a perfect explanation of what happened in the fight, but this kid is far to dense to understand or admit to it.

 

Bhop beat his ass with one hand when he had the energy. Bhop at 36 could actually throw a left hook...double and triple. You are certified. Calzaghe beat an old great. Nothing else. Its a good win, but not the same as beating a prime bhop or Roy etc etc.

 

You must be special to think that hopkins would not destroy joe if he was the same age. Hell And i'd bet my house if hopkins was 36 and joe 43 it would have ended inside a minate and thats a fact joe is no where near a great fighter if he can't embarrase a 43 year old fighter. Hopkins would be back in jail if he was same age because he would have killed poor little slapping joe.

 

You could say both people are a bit past their prime. While Hopkins was older and should win the poll, it must be pointed out that Hopkins is used to fighting a style that suits older fighters, which is why he can still fight on the world-class level at his age.

Calzaghe style is a younger man's style that relies heavily on speed, stamina, and quickness which tend to drop off around age 34-35.

There is no doubt Calzaghe won more rounds. You could say Hopkins was 5 years past it, but I saw a noticable drop off in Clazaghe’s game. He was much better vs Lacy and Kessler.

I think a prime Clazaghe beats a prime Hopkins the same way Roy Jones, but with more difficulty. Hopkins had issues with speed and punch out put.

 

I surprised some are still trying to say Hopkins age had nothing to do with his loss. :-(

They probably don't really believe that nonsense themselves.

Probably just messing around. Or maybe a huge, blind, loyal JC fan. Or maybe an extra 21st chromosome is involved.

Noone can really believe a boxer's age isn't a factor when the guy is 40 ****ing 3 years old.

Can they?

 

I don't know how anyone can say that ... Both guys aren't that far apart in age at this point in time in their careers.

Both are veterans and have been in the game for quite sometime ... both were long reigning champions at their respected divisions.

Age didn't play a factor ... it was a matter of Calzaghe's workrate toward the end of the fight ... and Hopkins drop off in production.

There was nothing different about Hopkins from 2001 to the fight with Calzaghe ... the same goes for Calzaghe.

Calzaghe just out hustled him in a very ugly fight !!

 

Age was a factor.

Hopkins was past his best.