Who underperformed more in their fight, Hopkins or Calzaghe?

Neither allowed the other to be at their best. "It is what it is"3. Calzaghe is infinitely better than Pavlik and applied too much intellegent pressure and movement for Hopkins, while Hopkins was infinitely smarter than Kessler, and didn't allow Calzaghe to granstand.

Let's not allow either fighter to weasel out, Calzaghe didn't look brilliant but did what he always does: win. Hopkins knew he couldn't lose to a white boy. He forgot that he was facing a supernatural talent however.

 

JC without a doubt.

 

Does it matter? They fought. Theres no second chances. We can only judge the 2 fighters who showed up. Joe won, he was the better fighter on the night. Thats matters more than any hypothetical matchup on an internet forum ever will.

 

Both underperformed styles make fights and their styles blended for a scrappy fight where neither of them really looked good.

 

They cancelled out each others best work because Hopkins has problems with fast fighters with great work rate that dont let him steal many breathers & Calzaghe is at his best when fighters come to him rather than play defence.

I would say Calzaghe under-performed more of the 2 as he was the favourite & it was a close fight in the end.

 

The true reason why Hopkins did so bad in his fight with Joe (although I like many others including boxers Tyson, Forest believe he actually won it) is that he had 3 trainers in his corner.

Hopkins himself knows enough to be a trainer and it was the chosen strategy which failed him. Probably he thought he will knock Joe out in the end or maybe he hoped that Judges will get to look at Calzaghe's busted face.

Anyway he didn't do well enough.



The weird part is that both Pavlik and Calzaghe before the fight were talking about dirty tricks Hopkins has.... and it was them not Hopkins using those tricks. It did matter especially in the fight with Joe.

 

I think a case could be made for either fighter underperforming in a way unconnected to the effect that their opponent had on them, but my view is that Hopkins underperformed more than Calzaghe. I base this view on my impression that Calzaghe couldn't dominate Hopkins at any stage of the fight, whereas Hopkins, after dominating the early rounds, let his emotions get the better of him when provoked by Calzaghe, and thus lost himself the fight.

In my opinion, Calzaghe didn't turn the fight around by responding to Hopkins' style and he didn't find the key to Hopkins' style at any stage of the fight. (Even his usually very positive and complimentary trainer kept on berating him between rounds into the final round that he wasn't doing the right thing. Calzaghe Sr. even thought he needed a knock-out to win the fight, going into the final round! Hopkins' trainer on the other hand kept on telling Hopkins to continue doing what he was doing and berated him only for letting himself sidetracked into spoiling his own fight by acting emotionally and playing the victim for no apparent reason.)

Calzaghe Sr. was wrong, though, because Calzaghe did win the fight by a round or two, fair and square, on activity and workrate alone, even though he looked second best on the night. Just like he did against Bika when things were not going his way, Calzaghe played the fool, letting his emotions get the better of him, out of frustration. Similarly, against Hopkins, Calzaghe became frustrated and desperate, humiliating Hopkins and spoiling the fight. Against Bika, Calzaghe's frustration almost cost him the fight, but in this case, luckily for Calzaghe, Calzaghe's frustrated antics led to Hopkins losing his own cool and giving up his won successful game plan. Instead of letting Calzaghe become even more frustrated, Hopkins responded by fighting emotionally, getting upset and acting like a victim, which lost him rounds he could have won had he kept on doing what he did in the first couple of rounds.

Calzaghe didn't win the fight by beating Hopkins at his own game the way he managed to do with Kessler. He didn't force Hopkins into gassing either as much as some like to think. Hopkins, however, found the key to Calzaghe's style but gave up on it mid-way through the fight, under provocation.

All this points me towards the belief that Hopkins allowed himself to lose a fight he could have won had he been his usual focussed and collected self. Thus, he underperformed more.

Personally, I would very much like to see a rematch but I doubt Calzaghe will take his chances against Hopkins again.

 

Simple clash of styles.

If the ref done a better job and took a rightful point off of Hop it would have been unanimous, butts, low blows and faking low blows to catch your breath maybe be wily, but its still cheating.

I wouldnt want to see Calzaghe Hopkins 2 their styles just dont suit.

 

That's what happens when a smart fighter fights a smart fighter. Joe was to smart to go all out in the fight, and Bernard was to smart to let Joe go all out too. Only smart fighters give each other hell.

 

They made each other look bad, If there was a rematch then it would be exactly the same, very difficult to tell, unless one of them has one great last performance or a really bad night. Having said that I would favour Calzaghe even more so in the rematch because supidly he did not even bother studying Hopkins so now he actually knows something about him. That and Hopkins is less likely to score a KD this time as well.

 

Neither it appears. It was two masters going at it and making adjustments. A bit like when the best soccer teams meet, if often does not make for an entertaining spectacle.

 

you mean, like Bute looking himself in the mirror doing sparring vs himself?:good

 

There styles didn’t really blend so I think it was more that than underperforming

 

2 masters who were nulling the other could throw at them all night making small changes. they are both 2 smart and 2 good to put on a good show agaisnt each other