While Hopkins might've technically lost these fights, did he "outbox" them?

If one is trying to survive and potshot, they often look technically superior because they are doing less and often waiting for the prime scoring opportunities, more time to set up correctly, throw with more authority, and not have to thread the needle so to speak. For whatever reason, that's how Hopkins seemed to fight and he did not score enough to win. The mention of Cotto/Marg. earlier is a good example. Cotto appeared superior in most ways in the early part of the fight but after watching it a few times, Margaritio even with his less accurate and precise punching, was doing far more harm to Cotto.

 

scoring should be all about significant punches landed period. if hops got outlanded with decent shots, then he should lose no matter what type of ring generalzhip or the amount of punches he slipped etc. that said, when i wathced hops/calz i thought it was very close because cal wasnt really landing significant punches, but i can see giving him the nod because of an accumulation of pitty pats compared to the way fewer better shots hopkins landed.

 

I scored both Taylor fights a draw and had Hopkins beating Calzaghe. You have to feel bad for him that he lost all three.

 

No you ****ing dont. This is boxing. He lost them. Get over it. He wants his balls back out of your mouth.

 

My own scorecard agrees with the judges' verdict more often than not- but there are still many instances where I think they got it wrong.

A good example in this discussion you and I are having is Trinidad-De La Hoya. In that fight I definitely think the judges put far too much emphasis on factors like those you value- but I just don't understand how this translates into points. Why give someone points for walking forward and forcing the action, but achieving absolutely nothing, and being outlanded in clean punches? You may prefer this style, you may admire it, but that doesn't mean you should give a 10-9 when that guy doesn't land more clean punches in the round. What was happening in the fight that was making the judges give Trinidad points? I had De La Hoya winning that fight 8-4. Every time I watch it and score it, I cannot believe the judges gave it to Trinidad. People say DLH didn't deserve to win because he ran the last 3 rounds- this is the PERFECT example of people who don't know how to score fights. They let their own opinions on a fighter who runs cloud their objective judgement of the actual events of the fight. A fight is won by winning more rounds. If De La Hoya ran, held, spat his gumshield out, faked low blows, rabbit-punched, tap-danced, kicked off his shoes and sang Bohemian Rhapsody, he had still won enough rounds by the 10th to win the fight if he gave away the last 3 10-9. Boxing fans are always guilty of not being systematic and clinical when scoring. Because people thought he was wrong to run, they don't think it is an injustice that he lost- when it most definitely was in a points-based system.

I was disgusted at Oscar for running to be honest. But it doesn't change that he had to be the winner as he won more rounds. Simple as that. No other factors should be considered, and no feelings involved.

 

It's very difficult to "outbox" Bernard Hopkins because he is too sneaky and extremelly subtle in his boxing... Taylor really imposed his physicallity and the strong left jab on Bernard and won the fight. Calzaghe made the most of his punching activity and runned numbers on Hopkins who didn't run those numbers back, regardless of slapfests and clinchfests allegations that may have taken place. Pavlik is to overpower Hopkins with his power punches and with his commitment... Hopkins may always find an argument for himself concerning old school and conventional wisdom/technique even if he comes to lose again. I'm sure Bernard never worried about those kind of technical arguments when he put John David Jackson's head under his arm and jumped on it or when he roughed Keith Holmes endless times...

 

good post:good do you think some people may have let hopkins negative tactics (faked low blows etc) cloud their opinion of the calzaghe fight and affected the way they scored the fight?

 

I thought Hops was outboxed in each fight. Sure he had his moments but the type of style he wanted to implement would only allow for him to have moments and not actually win the fight.

The 1st Taylor fight is one of the easiest fights to score ever. You had one guy winning the 1st 7-8 rds and then the next guy turning it up and taking the last 4-5 rounds. If that guy doesn't score any knockdowns then he'll lose all the time no doubt and thats what happened.

The 2nd Taylor fight Hops tried to be a little more active but it wasn't effective because this time Taylor had his jab working and it negated a lot of Hop's tactics. Taylor even buzzed him hard in the 11th rd and was more accurate than he was in the 1st fight.

The Calzaghe fight was easy to score to. Hop's started off good and then Calzaghe's speedy punch volume caught up to him.

Hopkins doesn't offer enough clean offense to win. I'm sure if he didn't clinch, hold, and negate his own flow as well as the fights flow people would actually see his punches better but since they come around clinches and out of clinches the eye doesn't catch them as often as if somebody was throwing non stop and forcing the action. Hop's has only himself to blame. If he was as skilled as he says he is he wouldn't need all those rough tactics to stay competitive. You don't see any other defensive specialist ala Toney, Bryd, Floyd Jr, Casamayor (although he is kinda rough but not on the level of Nard) resorting to the tactics Hop's uses.

 

im not sure you know ive watched the first taylor fight very recently and i thought a few of the rounds taylor win should have conceivably gone to hopkins as the champion as he landed the harder crisper shots and dictated the pace took away taylors strengths. Bernard won his rounds much more decisively. No way did taylor do enough to take away bernards undisputed title that night

 

I guess Taylor was very much a young promisse to be denied after having had Bernard retreating and in some trouble for the first half of that first fight. Hopkins really hurt him with some blistering right hands from outside range and from mid-stage on but he could never drop the rain on Jermain ( 11th round included) because the challenger would flurry to the body hard and fast... Hopkins really lost that one with that waiting game early and he acknowledged that he expected Taylor to fade fast late. Well, Taylor didn't fade and finished punching back. Hopkins really has a strong case in the second fight but seldom did he connect more than Taylor did in that 12 rounder. Same thinking goes for the Calzaghe fight - you can't expect to get a verdict if you move well on the back foot, connect flush here and there, hardly control the tempo ( cause Joe really stepped it up and B-Hop had a problem with the fast pace) and fight in a phone boot ( concerning ring generalship)... Man, Hopkins really has to work on letting more punches fly and control his breath for a harder paced bout all the way till the very end.

 

Okay
I see where you guys are coming from. This is the thing though, Of course Hops is gonna look all spectacular at the end of the 1st Taylor fight because he didn't do jack **** for the majority of the fight. If Hops would of KO'ed Taylor then at least nobody could questioned his lack of activity. Kinda like the Briggs fight with Sergei.

Anybody can look good when their focusing more on picking their spots and not getting hurt instead of just flat out trying to win. I can't say a guy is a better boxer because he toned down his output and is trying everything to stop the other guy from winning but then isn't trying to win himself. Thats why all his fights look that way. If your the better boxer prove it and try to win instead of boxing to not lose.

Sure Taylor was looking nervous and unpolished in the first fight but he had another grown man running and doing everything in his power not to win against him. That counts for something in my book. Especially if the guy who is forcing the fight is the underdog and less skilled fighter which is what Taylor was at that time. Hops for all his craftiness and skills couldn't outbox Taylor enough to win the fight so it doesn't matter if he had better moments than Taylor or Calzaghe. He didn't have enough of those moments to win in my eyes, the judges eyes, or the eyes of anybody who see 2 people in a ring but only one person trying to win.

Bernard boxed like **** in all 3 fights. It's not about showing how good you can box for about a minute or two which is what Hops does. Its about boxing well enough to win. I'm sure anybody worth their last name can lose a fight and have a couple decent highlights or moments in that fight.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one guys.

 

I really have to disagree here with shitty boxing suggestions from one of the craftiest fighters in the game today... That's almost a contradiction since Hop is almost like McCallum, he dominates the technique almost to perfection... The guy can't box badly and he did put up an impressive performance against Taylor in that rematch... It goes almost without saying that Bernard didn't win due to style and class. He would have to be more physically active tho, something like Floyd was against Ricky just recently. Otherwise, James Toney will always beat Mike McCallum and Jermain Taylor/Joe Calzaghe will have the edge against Bernard Hopkins. It has a lot more to do with athleticism and condition than with skill.

 

It's not Taylor and Calzaghe's fault that they were too fast and young for Hopkins. People like to throw in the word skill when it suits them. If he was vastly more skilled than his opponents he would have applied his skills in a manner where it would allow him to win the fight with no questions marks at all.

I've yet to see all this skill people talk about while I watch a Hopkins fight.
I see him running, headbutting, elbowing, clinching, holding, low blowing, punching to the hip. It's just a guy with above average boxing skills bending the hell out of the rules and coming up short because he chose not to be offensive enough.
They'll go on and on about these skills we're supposed to be seeing when in reality thats just the only thing they can fall back on when Hop's loses the fight. I know I wouldn't be happy for being more skilled than someone but still lost decisively anyways.

Hopkins is a great fighter no doubt but it's more based off his achievements than his actual skills to me.
He's nowhere near guys like these when it comes to pure boxing skill
Floyd jr.
James Toney
Sweet Pea
MAB
Hearns
Ray Leonard
JMM
the list could go on further. These guys names just jumped out to me.

 

I don't think Hopkins knows how to fight anymore. He just moves to his right, throws the straight right, and then grabs immediately, occasionally head butting, and low blowing. Also, faking the low blow to save time and energy. He's now a lot like John Ruiz, but with an attitude and a mean streak. He lost the fights you listed, and he deserved to lose them, because he was outclassed and outboxed and not good enough to win them.