Who Thinks Hopkins Beat Calzaghe?

Impartially? Nice username. :good

 

At least he didn't change it to stop the mockery that was you and your obsession with Manny

 

Christ Almighty, i stub out your compulsive abuse of me directly like the rancid cigarette end it is, so you start answering posts to other people in a desperate attempt to keep it going!!

I have NEVER being gratuitous in my praise of Manny Pacquiao, ask anyone even those who dislike me, I am well aware of his flaws and weaknesses, and I always say so.

I changed my username for several reasons, the main one being my two favourite active fighters are Pac and JMM, and I wanted to reflect that in my profile, and I really like that photo of Manny as my avatar so I had to change my name to JMM.

I am going to bed immediately now now so you can't conjure up more lame insults so that I'll keep talking to you!!

 

The truth riles you

 

Being 35 vs 43 is similar to being 28 vs 35, I know from experience. So you are picking a magic # of 40 years, as if being 35 or 36 is not a past physical peak state. The point is, Kessler/Calz. is the same age difference as Hopkins Calz. Plus Pavlik was 17 years younger than Hopkins. Based on your logic, Kessler and Pavlik should have had way more energy than their opponents. It's a bogus argument, if the guys going to fight, he can't use that as an excuse, and I especially don't buy Hokins fans using it as an excuse.


Blatant dodgy tactics, not sure what you mean. I was just pointing out that you tossed out inaccurate information by saying it was minutes, when in fact there was hardly a delay at all. Check yer facts first.

 

"watching two animals fighting on a documentary. Calzaghe won.[/quote]"

I like that.:good

 

A 20 year old fighting a 29 year old.
A 31 year old fighting a 40 year old.

The numerical difference is the exact same, but of course the difference will be far greater in terms of overall energy/fitness/stamina etc between the 31 year old and the 40 year old. I don't really understand why this needs explained, for me this is blindingly obvious. If you want to pretend it isn't because of some issue you have with Hopkins or his fans then fair enough, but no human being is as fit in his mid-40s as he is in his mid-30s, that is a fact whether you choose to ignore it or not.

Slicing the glove was blatant dodgy tactics, that's why I said that.

 

for me calzaghe wasnt effective enough in rounds 1-4 for me to give him anything and hopkins landed with good clean shots and good combinations inside working more effectively in close and in the clinch. I thought hopkins clearly won round 10 too. 5-8 are swing rounds and subjective rounds. I had 6 even and 7 for hopkins giving him a 115-113 win

 

i hate it but i had joe edging it out due 2 being busier in the later rounds. I def think b-hop would take it in a rematch! he looks hungry again after pavlik

 

Your hypothetical ages are meaningless. Almost all 20 year olds are not even in their physical peak so it's irrevelvant. However, there are even common examples where a 29 year old is further from his peak vs. 20. Mike Tyson was 20 when he beat Berbick. By the time he was 29 he was a shadow of himself. Hopkins @ 43 vs. when he was 30, a 13 year difference, is a much less worn fighter than Than Tyson was @ 29. Eric Morales, Floyd Patterson, the list goes on.


With Calzaghe and Hopkins, we are talking about 2 guys who are well past what on average, is considered their physical peak. If you want to go back to 2001 when Hopkins was 36 and Calzaghe was 29, fine. Sure Hopkins had more energy than he has now. But so did Calzaghe and he also had much stronger hands and had not needed to adapt to his punches to compensate for his now brittle hands. Also, lets balance out the fact that in 2008, Calzaghe went up to a brand new weight, without benifit of any tuneup fights. So to be fair, the fight takes place @ 168, even though Hopkins had fought @ 175 earlier in his career. So in 2001, they were both more prime than they are now. Calzaghe who relies so much on his speed was faster than he is now, Calzaghe's hands are not broken down the way they are now so 1) He hit way harder and 2) He was forced to alter his fighting style, and he would be fighting @ his natural weight. Add it all up and you have Calzaghe @ a bigger disadvantage in 2008 than he was in 2001.

 

Fellow ESB'ers. I have been trying to find the Calz. vs Hopkins fight on the web (U-Tube etc. )the last couple days and am not having any luck. I've been able to find Calz. vs Jones, Hopkins vs. Pavlik, and pretty much all of their other fights. So why is the Calz. Hopkins fight not out there?

 

I believe i send you a link to the fight. If not, contact me.
Happy new year everybody.

 

Fantastic. Thanks!!!

 

i hate joe and like hopkins, but i still scored it for calzaghe in a very close fight

 

Spot on. Calzaghe beat Hopkins but because Hopkins has carried on and had some impressive performances, Hopkins nuthuggers want to try and convince themselves about something that never happend. Hopkins lost anyone that truly thinks Hopkins won, wants to ask themselves a few questions, in that if Hopkins thinks he was winning, why was he trying to get points deducted off of Calzaghe, why was Hopkins looking for timeout and not wanting to get on with it.
To think Hopkins couldnt beat Taylor in 2 fights so I dont know why people think Hopkins could beat Calzaghe in a return
Its funny how Hopkins had J Taylor badly hurt and in a daze in the first Hopkins/Taylor fight and Hopkins losing twice to Taylor doesnt hurt those Hopkins nuthuggers half as much as Hopkins being beaten by Calzaghe at a new weight, in America with 3 American judges, Cortez as ref landing more on Hopkins than anyone ever and scoring the single highest card against Hopkins ever, denying Hopkins his usual strong finish and having Hopkins hanging on holding.
Consider with the official cards that Calzaghe in 1 fight, was more points ahead of Hopkins than Taylor was in 2 fights with Hopkins..

Wonder why Calzaghe beating Hopkins hurts his fans so much, either way they have to live with the fact that Hopkins lost and Calzaghe won. They hang on to this, but if you go to Google and put in A Byrds name, just see what comes up and remember that the other 2 judges scored 9 rounds the same.

Calzaghe beat Hopkins in America, with 3 American judges and Cortez as the ref, at a new weight, landing more on Hopkins than anyone ever, having Hopkins holding trying to get time out, denying Hopkins his usual strong finish, all sandwiched between Hopkins best wins of Tarver, Wright and Pavlik

Lets remember Hopkins has nobody on his resume as good as Eubank and undefeated Kessler, and then Calzaghe has the win over Hopkins also.

Live with it and accept it that Calzaghe beat Hopkins, Jones and Americas 2 best SMWs of the decade

Clear Calzaghe win. LIVE WITH IT