Why is Calz vs B-Hop considered "close"?

From what I recall, I scored it a draw and I was biased towards Calzaghe.

Hopkins was landing cleaner and more solid punches whereas Calzaghe's punches were mostly partially blocked.

I might need to re watch it.

 

few clean good shots (hopkins) vesus many semi-glancing, open palmed, windmilling semi arm punches (calzaghe). it was ugly and close. i admittedly only watched it straight thru once on my cpu and didn't bother to attempt to score individual rounds. it was a **** fight that i thought i'd pick hopkins as a winner if any b/c he at least landed some hard shots.

 

Joe obviously landed more punches and after round 6 or so took over the fight. See I think a draw was fair, but Joe just connected too many punches. Some judges go with activity others clean punching, etc that is why they had different scorecards. Winky outlanded Hopkins, but Bhops had the cleaner harder punches. Scoring is a grey area that is why there are so many boggus decisions. As far as Hopkins-Calzaghe, Hopkins dominated Calzaghe with harder, cleaner shots plus the knockdownin the first half of the fight. Joe dominated the second with his pressure and activity. That is why a rematch was/is in high demand. They have unfinished business.

 

It was a split decision, BHop actually won on one of the scorecards.

And the fact that Calzaghe threw arm punches all night, got rocked several times, and got dropped as well is why most sane people had it a close fight.

 

I didn't score it but I thought Joe C. won the fight. BHop seemed to lack stamina in that fight for some reason and basically gave away the second half of the fight through inactivity. If it was the normal BHop we are use to seeing, I am certain Joe C. would have lost.

To answer your question, I don't know why it was considered close lol.

 

well if you're using the judges scores as your rationale/logic for your belief that calzaghe dominated your not exactly using the most logical and objective 'facts' either. how many dodgy scorecards do you need to see to know that most judges don't score fights any better (and often times worse) that your average knowledgeable boxing fan. the fight is considered close by many b/c of what they saw: neither man really setting themselves apart as a true winner b/c of the combined lack of effective offense (a key component of boxing)

 

One judge had Pacquiao-JMM I to Pacquiao by 5 points and another had it to Marquez by 5 points. They saw a very clear win for each man in the same fight. People see things differently, and that includes judges. Calzaghe-Hopkins is going to come down to what you value for the most part. A case could be made for either man, therefore, its a close fight.

For the record, I had Calzaghe by a point, though I've only scored it the one time.

 

Judge A. Byrd scored it 114-113 for Hopkins, the others had it for Calzaghe.

So your sentence stating Hopkins lost by UD is a terrible error, as he lost by SPLIT DECISION!!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Hopkins_vs._Joe_Calzaghe

If you are gonna be a dick, have your facts straight first.:good

 

Everyone calls it a close fight cause they scored it themselves and had it close for Joe or close for Hops, if you only countin the judges decision then obviously it's not an argument.