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

So we aren't really that far apart. Well, at least YOU are not that far apart from the judges. I think "clean effective" punches is the primary criterea with the other stuff being a tie breaker. I think some one that went to a forum on judging posted a front page article a while back that said this.

I was joking with my analogy of a minimum punch count kind of like the NBA shot clock, but the more I think about it....

The guy that came up with the shot clock decided that if 100 shots (or whatever the number was) were taken during the game, it would be a much more exciting game. So, he just devided that number by the seconds in a game. Is it unreasonable to expect boxers to throw a certain number of punches? :huh AA would have to retire.

 

No, shutterworth, with all due respect for your obvious knowledge and rational view. Hopkins is negative, rough and dirty for sure ( famous blows to the hips and nuts on the blind side of the ref, too much holding and punching at the same time, headbutts on purpose, and it goes on) but that has nothing to do with skills... He bends the rules b'cause he knows how to like Joe knows back home in the UK ( punches with the inside of the glove, rabbit punches on the clinch, some headbutting too, a lot of low shots and holding 2). But he's not VASTLY more skilled than Joe ( maybe just to Jermain) - the problem is that you can never always apply your skills in a manner where it allows you to win, specially when the machine doesn't help you.

Consider pure boxing best performers accordng to you:

James Toney losing a wide decision ( on boxing terms) in a rematch against crude Samuel Peter.
Sweet Pea's sinking to the hands of Tito.
MAB's losing effort to Pac firt time around.
Hearns losing a LHWT title to Iran Barkley.
Ray Leonard's 12 round beating courtesy of Terry Norris.
JMM's loss to Chris John as an example.
As your list goes on further, so goes my list of cases where your most skillful performers could not find a way to make their skills determine the outcome of a bout at that point of their careers. Not even Roy Jones could make something out of it against Glen Johnson, not even Ray Robinson at some down point of his illustrous career... Why would Bernard Hopkins?

 

only TAylor I

 

boxing means controlling the other guy. while not using strength and just skills hopkins was not controlling calzaghe. calzaghe could of done what ever he wanted all he couldnt do was get hopkins to come towards him which would of made joe a clearer winner.

hopkins knew that and just waited to throw his right hand down the southpaw pipe.

calzaghe thought he was gonna come to him and foudn a negative fighter who was tryign to steal the rounds.

 

I really don't see the point your trying to make with this honestly. Most of those guys lost when they were a lil long in the tooth and used their skills to the best of their ability. Hops doesn't even use his skills anymore. He just pushes the rules to the limit and tries to negate the action and still ends up losing anyways.

If Hopkins was winning I'd understand but since he's losing and still practically cheating that makes it worse.

Whether or not someone is more skilled than their opponent means little if they can't properly use those skills to win.