But if you shutup shop for 5 rounds then you arent going to win the fight, because you are practically handing those 5 rounds to he other fighter.
Barnard was beaten because he was too old, essentially, to keep up with a very fit guy.
But it was funny watching Calzaghe, having expected an easy grandad fight, getting beaten up for the first half of the fight, I will grant you that. Serves him right for thinking he could wait till the best boxers had gotten too old.
why you pretending calzaghe won if he was the crappier boxer? isn't this boxing. not throwing punches.
well there are 12 rounds in a fight so if you lose 5 there are still 7 left. also that didn't happen. he didn't give calzaghe 5 rounds. calzaghe only dominated 1 round in the entire fight and that was round 9. hopkins came back and dominated 10 while 11 and 12 were both close. he never shutup shop. the first 6 rounds were all hopkins and in round 7 he nearly dropped calzaghe again. where were the 5 rounds that he gave away? maybe he lost 5 but 4 of them were close rounds while clearly winning at least 6 to 7.
boxing is scored round by round. even though hopkins got tired he had won enough rounds by the end of 10 to seal his victory hence why calzaghe's trainer told him he needed a knockout to win.
Pretty sure it's all one person...what's his name blaggun..magnum, chaggun? ...can't remember, but don't sweat it OP the legendary legend-killer lives on
how can you say they are all mine? some are my imaginary friends.
I've told you why I had Calzaghe winning, your hate for Calzaghe is beyond reason so you can only see it one way.
i keep giving you reasons why hopkins won and why calzaghe lost. how is that "beyond reason?" hopkins landed almost all the clean punches(clean punching), hopkins landed more(effecive aggression), hopkins punches were harder(clean punching), hopkins had much better defense(defense), hopkins made calzaghe miss almost all his flurries(defense), hopkins never got trapped during the fight(ring generalship), etc...now go look at the rules of judging a boxing match. you won't find your reasons. workrate? not in there. throwing a lot? not in there. missing? not in there. aggression? not in there. holding? not in there. pretending like you know if a guy who got hit low is faking it? not in there.
i keep giving you reasons why hopkins won and why calzaghe lost. how is that "beyond reason?" hopkins landed almost all the clean punches(clean punching), hopkins landed more(effecive aggression), hopkins punches were harder(clean punching), hopkins had much better defense(defense), hopkins made calzaghe miss almost all his flurries(defense), hopkins never got trapped during the fight(ring generalship), etc...now go look at the rules of judging a boxing match. you won't find your reasons. workrate? not in there. throwing a lot? not in there. missing? not in there. aggression? not in there. holding? not in there. pretending like you know if a guy who got hit low is faking it? not in there.
How come the compubox stats totally contradict the daggumbox stats?
Comment