Who do you think really won? Calzaghe or Hopkins?

any 1 with half a brain could see calzaghe won the fight just accept it he took over after 4 rounds he adapted and figered him out simple as that

 

Nice avatar......and you're full of **** too!

 

i had calzaghe winning a very close 114-113 i must admit,i find it crazy how people could have scored it 117-111 etc. it was a very close fights with alot of close rounds that could have gone either way,but in honesty it was not controversial and i am satisfied that the right man won on the night.

 

Sorry for the rude comment, I should act a little more mature sometimes. Apologies.

Anyway, how did you lose an avatar bet? Which fighter lost?

 

hopkins should have won.... calzaghe slapped a win

 

Man, if it makes any difference, I feel for you.

The fight was hardly classic and for the first two rounds I thought Calaghe's in the **** unless he can turn this around. He did and was helped by Hopkins tiring throughout the fight. As you have probably read a million times already, Calzaghe was undoubtedly the agressor and had his moment, Hopkins without question, had some good bursts but marched backwards the entire fight and grabbed Calzaghe at every opportunity. Watch the fight and decide but I fail to see how a boxer wins any bout in the manner that Hopkins fought that one.

 

I suppose you gotta laugh tho' although it ain't to bad...some avatar bets have resulted in some that still bring a cringe from me a week later.

 

I think exposed is a little harsh? Most knew from the moment that the fight was announced that it would be a tough one for Calzaghe based on styles alone. No-one looks good against Hopkins.

 

Hopkins by about 3 rounds (4 points)

 

But this is crazy. If in a round the two fighters land about the same amount, you simply give the round to the one who landed the more meaningful punches. Even if the one landed a bit less but with more damage, I agree 100% that he should be the winner of the round.

But for Christ's sake, when your opponent is not only throwing, but landing TWICE AS MANY and with a higher connect percentage, you just can't win a round! If landing twice is many is not effectiveness, then what is?

But I still gave Hopkins close rounds mostly in the first half because he still landed solid shots, even if he was outlanded by Calzaghe. But in the later rounds, please tell me when did you see Hopkins landed clean punches, many enough to win a round vs. twice as many punches landed, including the big ones you seemingly never saw?

This ‘Hopkins’ clean punching’ is like a myth now because I didn't see a lot of them after the 4th. He did land some solid shots, but took many in return. Of course it's more spectacular if someone is landing one or two big shots and the other is 'just landing'. But you have to have an eye and see those ‘just’, because those were mostly POWER PUNCHES by Joe not just soft jabs. Then again: only if the numbers are close you can give a round to the more effective. Because if Joe throws a LOT more, lands a LOT more and doing it with higher connect rate, that means he's the more effective, plain and simple.



I think you are misguided and mislead with a legitimate scoring procedure: if one is landing a lot, he can still lose a round getting stunned with a few very good shots. But after the 1st, Hopkins was far from that dominant to win just by landing a lot of stunning blows - which he never delivered! In fact, you really need to rewatch the fight because I’ve seen it twice and never saw the effective BOMBS that could win those rounds after the 5th. I saw some good shot, but not enough. I also saw some crisp Calzaghe shots as well, not many, but he didn't only throw 'slaps'. And at least he was throwing, while Hopkins held and spoiled first and threw second. And threw very few.



But let me ask you guys something! Based on your logic, that even if Calzaghe landed not a bit more, but a LOT more, and you still scored the fight to Hopkins means you had the following guys winning the fight WITHOUT A DOUBT! Because if you scored just ONE fight the other way, your theory is all wrong. Landing the more meaningful punches in:

-Povetkin-Chambers: Chambers
-De La Hoya-Sturm: Sturm
-Hopkins-Taylor I: Hopkins
-Marquez-Pacquiao I-II (other than the KDs): Marquez
-Hatton-Collazo: Hatton
-DLH-Mosley II: Mosley
-Pavlik-Taylor II: Taylor

 

BigBone, I have recently learned that some just cannot be educated.

 

Bull****.

 

Is that an avatar of Hopkins hiding his face in shame for losing to a white boy & crying about phantom low blows?

 

:rofl