Why has Hopkins made this unwinnable match? Why does he think he can win?

How is a champ at 39-0 "unproven"? atsch

I am disgusted at how Kessler gets so little credit.

 

That Hopkins video is laughable.

 

That can only mean that either I am completely nuts about Borenard or that therein can lay some truth or evidence concerning Hops' chances. But I agree that I tend to support the underdog - take risky options and close fights such as Cotto-Mosley, Pavlik-Taylor for example - it makes good sense to bet the same amount on the underdoog and win more (?) As I told you in private, I feel my insight is pretty average ( even below average perhaps) but I can get shocked around here - some say Mitchell almost beat Ottke and Ottke would beat Hops, therefore Cal ( who beat Mitchell cause Byron went for broke knowing he wouldn't be favoured to win a decision in Wales) beats Hops easy... How come people don't realise that Cal struggled with Woodhall who lost to Holmes and Bernard beat Holmes easy? There's more than expertise here - there are a lot of mind games around here. Another example - Borenard stunk against Winky and that's the main reason he is beyond it ( cause he was not beyond against Tarver), but Cal was booed in England when beating Starie in the undercard of Tyson-Francis and there were as many clinches there as in the Hops-Winky fight and a lot started by Joe himself...

 

We'll see. I keep breaking my promise to you to keep the conversation about this match-up purely on the technical aspects involved. I apologise for that too. Yeah, this place if Mind-Games Central, and that is a shame; sometimes I feel I contribute too. In my defence, I only do it consciously in good faith.

 

Yet you AGAIN fail to answer exactly what the previous post mentioned. You show a round where Calzaghe is fighting good vs Kessler to show off his speed...yet you show Bernard's weakest round vs Tarver. Why is that do you think???

:huh

You also then talk about speed...noone is arguing there is a speed differential...but just like what has been proven in the past literally hundreds of times over, timing and movement are MUCH more important than speed. Two things that you can even see in the two videos you posted that Bernard has by a wide margin over Joe....and that is without even addressing the huge disparity in accuracy that those videos show (there is a reason that Calzaghe throws about 400 more punches, yet lands maybe 100 more).

Go watch Quintana - Williams, where the output and speed differential favored Williams, yet because of Quintana's superior movement, timing and accuracy, he was able to hit him at will and win. And I totally agree that Calzaghe is WORLDS better than Paul, but Bernard is also worlds better than Quintana. I bring this up because, as I mentioned above, this is just the latest example of movement and timing being literal poison to speed and output. Its the law of the sport...that has been proven correct hundreds more times than wrong.

I am kind of dreading April to come around...there are going to be ALOT of shocked and depressed Calzaghe fanatics on here. ALOT!!!

 

They say that all Cal's opponents were proven fighters. I dare to ask: fighters such as Branko Sabot, Miguel Angel Jimenez, Rick Thorberry from Australia, Will "Fire" McIntyre, Kabary Salem, Tocker Pudwill, 5'7'' tall, 35 years old Kenyan Evans Ashira? And those wins over Lacy and Kessler mean all that much when you spend 13 uneventful title fights in your back yard and 5 years calling out people like RJJ and Hopkins? If people come to see who did Bernard and Roy fight between 1998 and 2003, they will easily acknowledge that Cal had no right to call em out - Bernard fought guys like Tito and Hoya and Roy fought from LHWT to HWT, while Cal only took former WBC champ Richie Woodhall in December 2000 and Charles Brewer ( with 8 losses) in 2002... Now, BHops vs Calzaghe makes sense.

 

So what about Pavlik-Taylor II? Pavlik won because he threw his jab all night, despite the fact it barely connected compared to the amount it was thrown. Taylor lost despite showing superior movement, timing and defence.

 

Taylor doesnt have great movement or defense...or good for that matter. Pavlik and Taylor move very similar...there is no disparity nor advantage there (if anything, Pavlik might be barely better...Taylor spends WAY too much time stationary in front of his opponent).

This has nada to do with what I brought up.

 

Tarver was always a joke. Beating him seriously means nothing. I don't even like Calzaghe but please, he beats popshotkins easily. This will be as bad as the Lacy fight. just wait.

 

Because Hopkins is so much better at movement, accuracy and timing than Calzaghe is...

 

Funny thing is a recall the Tito fans saying the same thing, as well as the Oscar fans, both of them were knocked out. Now I know that some one will respond to this and say but those guys were smaller. Yes that is true, but both guys also had advantages over that in which Joe will bring to the fight with Hopkins. One Tito is a shape powerful puncher unlike joe who throw wide slappy punches. Oscar was a much quicker footed fighter with faster hands. All of which Hopkins was able to handle.

Hopkins is a great great fighter, and even at his advanced age he will be the best fighter that Joe has faced, not to mention that Joe isnt a young man anymore I believe that he himself is 36 at the time of the fight. Keep in mind that age affects a fighter like Joe worst then a fighter like Hopkins. Hopkins is a throwback fighter with skills that dont really rely on physical ablity. he relys on angles and timing, and taking away what the other guy does best.

I just cant stop thinking about the guy that said early in this thread that Joe throws flurries of punches off the break, I tell you what, that is very dangerous to do vs a fighter like hopkins. Hopkins will time that. Another thing is volume punchers tend to slow down big time when facing counter punchers, we have seen this alot in the the las six months with Hatton vs Mayweather and Williams vs Quintana. I reall think that this is the model that this fight will follow. Joe will start fast and slow as the fight goes.

Some say this is a no lose for Hopkins, I say bull****. this fight is just about a 50/50 fight as of now. I think its -200 +180 or a 2 to 1.8 edge for Joe. Which will close as the fight closes in. I wouldnt be shocked to see hopkins become the the betting fav a week or so out.

 

Wow your credibility is just sinking and sinking !! As easy as the Lacy fight ?Why do u even bother to watch the sweet science really ??

 

so many of these guys post things with the heart and not with the head. Everyone knows that Tarver is a totally different fighter then Lacy in EVERYWAY. First he is about 5 inches taller or 13 cm for are Euro brothers. He has some skills which Lacy didnt, he is a southpaw that throws jabs. Tarver can power punch with both hands with different shots unlike LEFT hook lacy. Yet I could see how one would think that it would be the same fight:huh

 

I don't need your approval about anything, especially my "credibility." This is not a job where I have to prove myself, so get off your high horse.

You have your pick, I have mine. Hopkins gets dominated by Calzaghe.

Spare me the lectures next time, I don't really care.

 

Everyone who is building up Antonio Tarver remember, he got ultra DOMINATED by Eric Harding. So please, spare me how he is something great. Calzaghe would kick his ass too and I don't even like Calzaghe.