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

So you think Hopkins being 43 played no part in his loss?

I see a noticeable difference from Hopkins-Tito to now.

 

How can age not be a factor????? :rofl :rofl :rofl

 

Other than the fact that he beat Tito down for 12 rounds ... nothing has changed.

He was throwing one punch at a time and often clinching ... and he did the same against Calzaghe ... the difference was Calzaghe never fell off ... he kept coming and never stopped punching.

The age didn't play a factor ... Hopkins wasn't slower ... he was just as strong - if not stronger as he's ever been.

His physiqe was the best of his career ...

His defense and movements in the ring were the same ...

I don't see anything different with Hopkins that would show evidence that his age was a factor in that fight.

He didn't get knocked out, down, or badly beaten.

 

In fact against Calzaghe ... Hopkins looked better than he has of late.

He was exchanging with Calzaghe ... he was throwing flurries ... he fought on the inside and often fought on the outside.

How did age play a factor?

Thats nothing but an excuse ... did age play a factor with George Foreman and Archie Moore?

What about Hopkins against Wright or Hopkins against Tarver ... he was older than them and still managed to get the victory.

 

You are being stupid bro. Just because the Older man won in those fights doesn't mean age WASN'T a factor in them as well. He is ****ing 43 years old, his body isn't prime anymore......age is a factor in that isn't it???

 

How did age play a factor? Seriously?

Hopkins can not keep up any sort of pace. He fights in very limited spurts.

He is simply not the same fighter he was 10 years ago, or even 7 against Tito.

Winky isn't a light heavyweight and is looking old himself. Same for Tarver in regards to age. And neither went on the attack like JC did.

Hopkins simply could not keep up, and why........HE IS 43 YEARS OLD!!

By saying Hops is old doesn't take away from a good victory for JC.

But to say 43 doesn't play into a fighters performance is almost laughable.

 

Of course it was a factor. I saw a Calzaghe who is definately on the decline, and a Hopkins even more so. It is a shame this fight did not happen years ago.

 

you bet your ass age was a factor. Joe was 36!!!! he should be retired by now. playing golf and fishing with his sons, watching football matches. enjoying his old age.

 

His body doesn't need to be prime ... he's consistantly in good shape and takes care of his body better than most guys 1/2 his age.

All that means is he has to work harder, which he does ...

How did age play a factor against Calzaghe?

It didn't ... nothing was different in the fight between the two fighters ... they both fought how they were expect to fight ... Calzaghe got lured into a Hopkins fight, but still maintained his high work rate in the later rounds and got the close decision.

 

The fight was competetive between Calzaghe and Hopkins ... they gave a good fight and both are old in boxing years ... I don't think that Hopkins being 43 made a difference in the outcome.

He also couldn't keep up with Roy Jones and that was 15yrs ago.

Its his poison ... it had nothing to do with his age ...

Winky and Tarver made the fights competetive and did what they had to do.

Tito wasn't as fast as he was at lighter weights and just got beat down - Hopkins was still throwing one punch at a time and was still holding and hitting.

Against Calzaghe and being defeated, Hopkins fought one of his best fights.

Hopkins couldn't keep up because he wasn't as fast as Calzaghe - he never was throughout his career ... it wasn't because he was 43 ... he's never been that fast and he always paced himself during fights and wore his opponents down by clinching and throwing one punch at a time.

 

Dude! Every fight he has now Age is a factor. Maybe he would've had a different game plan if he was 10 years younger?????? Ever think about that? More energy late in the fight??? Better reflexes and faster footwork and handspeed if he was younger????

None of that crossed your mind?

 

Look man, I'm not meaning to insult you personally and sorry for calling you dumb. But it's irritating me that you are refusing to see such obvious points.

 

Calzaghe's style is more dependent on youth than Hopkins style. Look what's happened to Roy Jr. once he lost some of his youthful advantages. Difference is, Joe is much more able to adapt to his opponents. His fights vs. Kessler and Hopkins are perfect examples.

Vs. where they were 3 years ago, Joe (vs. Veit) has aged more than Hopkins (vs. Taylor) has. That version of Joe would have had an easier fight vs. that version of Hopkins.

 

the poll was made to decide this, when will this poll close and how to see who votes? There may be newb voters out there just for the sake of an added vote

 

Age was a huge factor in this fight. I don't think Bernard would have lost this fight three years ago.