Do you think the people who say Hopkins Won have any valid points or no?

Judge Ted Gimza scored it 115-112 for Calzaghe, and Chuck Giampa favored Calzaghe 116-111. Judge Adalaide Byrd gave it 114-113 to Hopkins, as did many reporters at ringside — including The Associated Press, which also favored Hopkins 114-113 despite Calzaghe's dominance in the final five rounds. .................................

Poll needs a third option, of some but not many. That's where my and I think many votes lay, not so strongly one way of the other.

I thought Cortez did a good as job as a referee could possibly do in that type of fight. hell yeah!!:boxing:

IMO you'd have to give every close round to Hopkins to make any kind of case for him winning. I still haven't read one person who had him ahead by more than one point, where people had Joe ahead by as many as five. I'm not saying that it's reasonable. Just that there are arguments for it. And if you give a close round to Hopkins, I don't see anything wrong with that. It just means that you judge fights with different priorities (i.e effective punching over workrate).. It comes down to a matter of how you score when it's so close like some of those rounds were. I just happened to favor the way that Calzaghe went about doing his business.

You guys think that they had NO valid points? Aint that a little harsh, folks? I backed Joe the whole time, but even I can step outside of that and see the problems that B-Hop put in front of Calzaghe. There were a whole bunch of close rounds early on... IMO you'd have to give every close round to Hopkins to make any kind of case for him winning. I still haven't read one person who had him ahead by more than one point, where people had Joe ahead by as many as five.

Frankly, anyone who thinks Hopkins won is completely crazy. It was somewhat close and very ugly but Calzaghe clearly won.

They have no valid points because they are not indicating that Hopkins gave Calzaghe some problems. They are suggesting that Hopkins was ROBBED. Of course he gave some problems to Calzaghe. He tried to out-box Calzaghe and it worked for a while. The first three rounds were Hopkins' style of fighting. He won them. As the fight progressed it became more and more a Calzaghe fight with Joe leaping in throwing a bazillian punches and basically overwhelming his opponent. Hopkins knew he was falling far behind when he had a rest when the opportunity arose. He knew he had lost when he pretended that he had been hit low again. I have no problem with dissecting the fight and looking at what each guy did well and each guy did badly. But suggesting that because Hopkins gave Calzaghe some trouble he therefore should have won the fight is to completely ignore the major problems Calzaghe gave to Hopkins. There have been people around like Addison who have argued intelligibly about the whole thing. It's them that I'm thinking of. Of course any real close fight can't technically be called a robbery.. people who can't see that don't count as anybody I'm defending.

You guys think that they had NO valid points? Aint that a little harsh, folks? I backed Joe the whole time, but even I can step outside of that and see the problems that B-Hop put in front of Calzaghe. There were a whole bunch of close rounds early on... They have no valid points because they are not indicating that Hopkins gave Calzaghe some problems. They are suggesting that Hopkins was ROBBED. Of course he gave some problems to Calzaghe. He tried to out-box Calzaghe and it worked for a while. The first three rounds were Hopkins' style of fighting. He won them. As the fight progressed it became more and more a Calzaghe fight with Joe leaping in throwing a bazillian punches and basically overwhelming his opponent. Hopkins knew he was falling far behind when he had a rest when the opportunity arose. He knew he had lost when he pretended that he had been hit low again. I have no problem with dissecting the fight and looking at what each guy did well and each guy did badly. But suggesting that because Hopkins gave Calzaghe some trouble he therefore should have won the fight is to completely ignore the major problems Calzaghe gave to Hopkins.

Yea, you can definitely make an argument for Hopkins.

just woke up hi dude u been here 16 hours and counting? No, I've been here since 2006. :lol1:

You guys think that they had NO valid points? Aint that a little harsh, folks? I backed Joe the whole time, but even I can step outside of that and see the problems that B-Hop put in front of Calzaghe. There were a whole bunch of close rounds early on...

Hopkins did land clean effective shots early on but they were far and few inbetween, in fact you have to land clean and effectivley through an enitre round to win the round, you cant land one or two clean right hands and claim to win the round, not when the other guy is scoring with shots through the majority of that round it dont work that way. there are other criterias as well defense and aggression of which aggression is what Judges especially in Vegas seem to like. if Hopkins fans really think that he won the fight, you should know by that alone that they are not fans of the sport but are fans of Bernard nothing more meaning they are a waste of time to even think you can have a logical discussion with

Elitesoldier, stop spamming the racial crap, retard.

They have a slim argument. Hopkins DID land the most meaningful shots of the fight. He was the one with ring generalship for most of the fight. But you just can't win with that kind of output.

Do you think they do? I don't think so, I don't see how you can give this fight to hopkins who was cheating all through out it with cortez sucking on his balls the whole time and I'm surprised Cortez wasn't so crooked he didn't try to take points off from Calzaghe. Calzaghe clearly out landed him even if you call his punches slaps, those same slaps hurt Hopkins to the body so damn bad that he had to fake a hard low blow*when we clearly saw that calzaghe nipped Hopkins cup and no power at all was behind that punch*. I think Hopkins lost alot of respect with this fight to most normal fight fans. Normal as the ones who don't look at JC's skin color and think hmmm, I hate whitey. Whitey can't beat the great Hopkins. Whitey just did, and his body shots hurt old Popkins so bad that Popkins felt the need to put an acting show on. I thought Cortez did a good as job as a referee could possibly do in that type of fight.