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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by IrnBruMan, May 24, 2011.


  1. smila1923

    smila1923 New Member Full Member

    70
    0
    Oct 22, 2009
    anyone who watches a fight and knows boxing can tel whether a fight is close or not, how many times do you hear commentators say that was a close fight then have scores with wide stupid margins, i remember watching the fight and thinking hopkins has won this zag was just throwing and not really landing clean, would you call the zag vs reid fight close????? u cant just use the judges scores to say whether a fight is close or not.
     
  2. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,980
    3,110
    Dec 11, 2009
    It was thought by most, that Calzaghe had won at the time, but Hopkins nuthuggers would love to erase the facts and believe things to be different to how they were. Remember that when calzaghe beat Hopkins, that so many thought by the way Hopkins was being beatem that he should retire, but because he has still had a good career after Calzaghe beat him, they would like to believe different.

    Hopkins nuthuggers will just have to live with the fact that Calzaghe beat Hopkins
     
  3. mattress

    mattress Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,030
    2
    Apr 8, 2007
    :deal
     
  4. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

    79,438
    2,646
    Feb 1, 2007
    why would you take the knockdown out of the equation?? The knockdown is part of the fight and should stay in the equation.

    Calzaghe won by 5 points, 3 points, and lost by 1 point. Meaning that on average he won by 3 points. Sounds like a close fight to me.

    And anyone who watched the fight could tell you it was close.
     
  5. Kel1981

    Kel1981 P4P No.1 Full Member

    9,561
    9
    Oct 19, 2008
    Joe tired him out with his high workrate, don't try and tell me Hopkins was not 100% in that fight becaue he was.
     
  6. Phys

    Phys Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,941
    0
    May 16, 2011
    The fight was close because when one fighter TWICE fakes getting hit in the balls he gets two points for that round. :)

    By the rules, Cortez should have deducted points from BHop for delaying the fight with his BS.

    Remember the ref deducting points from Corrales for deliberately spitting out (to get extra time) his mouthpiece vs Castillo? Then there were all the headbutts, etc from BHop often right in front of Cortez.

    So while Calz clearly won, we do have to ask the following. Is Calzaghe greater than we realize, or how else can we explain how years later, and years older, BHop has so much energy and stamina through 12 rds, when he clearly ran out of gas against Calzaghe?
     
  7. Royal-T-Bag

    Royal-T-Bag Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,661
    4
    Jan 6, 2008
    I feel like some judges give too much credit to ineffective agression which Joe had a ton of in this fight and don't pay enough attention to what's supposed to be their #1criteria for scoring which is clean and effective punching which Nard had the edge in. I had it by one point for B-Hops then when I rescored it had it one point for Joe, haven't tried again since but to deny this fight was close is foolish.
     
  8. RafaelGonzal

    RafaelGonzal Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,844
    13
    Mar 7, 2006
    you might consider that the pro Calzaghe faction had Joe winning by a wide Margin. The opinions that should be valued are the objective ones. The majority of posters say it was a close and tough fight to score. The cleaner harder shots vs volume punching. Consider I loath BHop yet had him winning a close one. A rematch should have been in order but then again its Calzaghe we were dealing with.
     
  9. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,980
    3,110
    Dec 11, 2009
    Look at the facts that 2 judges scored wide for Calzaghe, and agreed on 9 rounds, then go on Google and type in A Byrd and see what comes up about he scoring.
    Calzaghe didnt beat Hopkins on work rate, he beat Hopkins because Calzaghe could land his left more than Hopkins could land his right.
    Calzaghe landed more solid scoring shots and outlanded Hopkins. Its just when Hopkins did land a solid shot it was often all he did in a round, so people remember them, but watch again.
    If you think the scoring was bias, just watch round 11. It looked a clear Calzaghe round to everyone I know personally, yet all 3 judges gave that round to Hopkins.
    Remember that Calzaghe manuvered Hopkins around the ring and took Hopkins play away, denying Hopkins his usual strong finish.
    Still Calzaghe scored the single highest card against Hopkins ever and the other judge agreed on 9 of those rounds.

    Calzaghe won
     
  10. IrnBruMan

    IrnBruMan Obsessed with Boxing banned

    16,385
    1
    Apr 8, 2006
    *can't*

    *know*

    I suppose you expect to be taken seriously? :lol:

    Kick rocks kid :yep

    Stoopid is as stoopid does - join your dumbarse buddy and kick dust, **** for brains :D
     
  11. vast

    vast Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,988
    19,884
    Nov 27, 2010
    In the final analysis Calzaghe was a truly great fighter who never quite accomplished all he could have due to p!ss poor management.
     
  12. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,980
    3,110
    Dec 11, 2009
    What didnt he accomplish then as WBO WBC WBA IBF Ring SMW champ and Ring LHW champ. undefeated 2 weight champ successful in 24 world title fights
     
  13. David UK

    David UK Boxing Addict banned

    5,986
    1
    Feb 6, 2007
    It was a clear win for Calzaghe. Hopkins didn't win a round from Round 3 onwards.