Why Bernard Hopkins will defeat Calzaghe.

u aint got a clue.. hopkins has beat more ATG's like DLH, Winky and trinidad:-(

:hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi:

 

I don't think you've made any crazy observations or predictions. You might be right, you might be wrong. But some of the pro-Calzaghe posters are starting to sound an awful lot like the pro-Hatton posters before PBF. Nobody knows what's going to play out in this fight. Headbutts, holding, and the referee and judges can make for a very different fight than people are predicting. Or not.

 

Calzaghe and Hatton are chalk and cheese

 

It's not the fighters. It's the blindness to any opinion other than their own. People screamed all over this site that Hatton was going to KO Floyd. And when somebody mentioned the chance of Hatton getting ktfo, that person was laughed off of the thread. Just like people are attacking the OP here. There is nothing crazy or ignorant about thinking that Hopkins stands a very, very good chance in this fight. You'd have to be an idiot not to think so.

 

Calzaghe shows little respect for Hopkins, and constantly talks about fighting Pavlik next. If slappy joe is under-rating Bhop, or looking past him, Old grandpa BHop will hand joe his ass. Ohterwise it's a 50/50 fight.

Boo

 

Pretty much wrong in every respect. You don't win fights by throwing 10 punches per round against Calzaghe.

Calzaghe UD.

 

Funny regardless of how off and wrong the original post was...the replies have been FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR worse from the other perspective.

I swear it is impossible for most people to see things clearly when a fighter they either love or hate is involved.

 

good post, and i agree.

and **** off with the workrate ****, 100 slaps a round doesn't mean **** unless they all hit

 

"Unless they all hit:" Good point. Calzaghe's connect rate sucks even against guys who don't have great defense.

 

The only thing in your perspective should not be such an irrelevant factor to weight on your decision to bet on Bernard - that is my opinion and I definitely skip any judgement on your thought about this one b.c. I have no right to judge boxing, let alone people.
There are too many intangibles to consider this bet a worthwhile risk - you make a risky bet only if you have extra money lying around, otherwise you invest the same amount on less risk-high return ventures in the market - doesn't have to be in boxing because the only goal in an investment is revenue.

Back to boxing, Hopkins is 43 years "young" of age but he can get old very fast and you don't know how many years of physical age he has increased in training camp... I didn't like to see him breathe hard and deep in between rounds against Tarver and Wright and I didn't like to hear words of encouragement from Roach and Naazim such as " You are above this level... Everything is working, keep feinting and don't back straight up..." It means that he is using every single piece of tactic skill to make up for the physical limitation - so why do you want to risk your money if he is put against a guy who has no physical limitation and may use good tactic skills as well? Of course, nothing of this means Hopkins will not win but even if he does, I don't think you can predict it or that you have expressed your good insight as clearly.

 

It is true Calzaghe is very suspectable to cuts. He has suffered them on a number of occassions. That number is one - from a head butt.

 

I'm frankly baffled by OP's characterisation of Jermaine Taylor as a 'great' and the implication that Hopkins' resume is improved by two losses to Taylor!

Lets see, Taylor has beaten Hopkins and pretty much no-one else other than blown up light middleweights. But he must be great because he beat Hopkins. Taylor lost to Pavlik. Pavlik hasn't really beaten anyone else, but he must be really great because he beat Taylor who beat Hopkins. So Hopkins is great because he lost narrowly to Taylor who lost to Pavlik who is great because he beat Taylor who beat Hopkins. Can anyone say circle jerk?

The implication that Calzaghe's resume would be improved by having a couple of losses to a Jermaine Taylor on it is laughable. Calzaghe has fought plenty of fighters better than Taylor. He beat them all.