I'm sorry, but Calzaghe defeated Hopkins comfortably

I just read the posts and then try and come up with the best response I can. They don't take long. You could even respond to it you know... Well my last real response to you was on Post # 153. I'm done with this thread.

Where do you get the energy to these novels. I don't think anybody added anything new to the topic to be worth writing that much. I just read the posts and then try and come up with the best response I can. They don't take long. You could even respond to it you know...

To return to the subject of the thread for a moment, and to answer some of the posters who say that Joe Calzaghe winning requires some sort of corruption of the rules of scoring fights: Lets be real, OK. You are basically saying that Hopkins deserved the win because the punches he through were crisper, harder and 'more effective'. That's fine, they probably were. The problem is that there really weren't a whole lot of them were there? For every one of Bernard's power shots Joe Calzaghe probably landed three shots, some of which were hard and accurate, others which were a bit winging and sloppy. The point is that they are all punches, thrown by a boxer on to his opponent, and which all count in the eyes of the judges. This argument that only 'effective' punches count, relies on the notion that everything Bernard threw was 'effective' and that all of the very many more punches that Joe landed were somehow 'ineffective', that they had no value in the fight. Well, lets look at this. To my eyes the fight consisted basically of Joe Calzaghe chasing after Bernard throwing punches, landing a few and then getting clinched. Sometimes Joe would eat a counter on either the way into the clinch or out of it. If we are talking effectiveness of these punches, what effect did they have? Joe Calzaghe's blows seemed to have the 'effect' of making Bernard very reluctant to fight or trade, and seeking to clinch at every opportunity to avoid it, whereas the counters that Joe took did absoultely nothing to discourage Joe from coming forward, forcing the pace of the fight and seeking to engage with Bernard. Based on this, I know whose punches must have looked more 'effective' to the judges. Effectiveness is measured on what result the punches achieve, not how aesthetically pleasing they are. Boxing is a fight, not some sort of athletic display like gymnastics. Joe Calzaghe won the fight fair and square, deservedly, on points. Where do you get the energy to these novels. I don't think anybody added anything new to the topic to be worth writing that much.

To return to the subject of the thread for a moment, and to answer some of the posters who say that Joe Calzaghe winning requires some sort of corruption of the rules of scoring fights: Lets be real, OK. You are basically saying that Hopkins deserved the win because the punches he through were crisper, harder and 'more effective'. That's fine, they probably were. The problem is that there really weren't a whole lot of them were there? For every one of Bernard's power shots Joe Calzaghe probably landed three shots, some of which were hard and accurate, others which were a bit winging and sloppy. The point is that they are all punches, thrown by a boxer on to his opponent, and which all count in the eyes of the judges. This argument that only 'effective' punches count, relies on the notion that everything Bernard threw was 'effective' and that all of the very many more punches that Joe landed were somehow 'ineffective', that they had no value in the fight. Well, lets look at this. To my eyes the fight consisted basically of Joe Calzaghe chasing after Bernard throwing punches, landing a few and then getting clinched. Sometimes Joe would eat a counter on either the way into the clinch or out of it. If we are talking effectiveness of these punches, what effect did they have? Joe Calzaghe's blows seemed to have the 'effect' of making Bernard very reluctant to fight or trade, and seeking to clinch at every opportunity to avoid it, whereas the counters that Joe took did absoultely nothing to discourage Joe from coming forward, forcing the pace of the fight and seeking to engage with Bernard. Based on this, I know whose punches must have looked more 'effective' to the judges. Effectiveness is measured on what result the punches achieve, not how aesthetically pleasing they are. Boxing is a fight, not some sort of athletic display like gymnastics. Joe Calzaghe won the fight fair and square, deservedly, on points.

Man you are one lame corny mutant. Jesus man I quit! your insults are way below the belt. You calling me a mutant put me in tears. :D ________ Headshops

Take the bait girls, take the bait... Ohhh Roy Roy, we love you Roy...ohh wait a minute Roy let me take my head out of your Roid ass. :bottle::D Man you are one lame corny mutant.

Take the bait girls, take the bait... Ohhh Roy Roy, we love you Roy...ohh wait a minute Roy let me take my head out of your Roid ass. :bottle::D ________ Jane

Goofball. He was taking Ripped Fuel. Check the ingredients from the time of the positive test. Oh wait, that would require research. Oh yea.. I knew somebody posted something about that but I didn't pay attention Ripped Fuel - is a thermogenic weight-loss and bodybuilding drug, and is advertised as an advanced new fat loss formula. There you have it clown.....to lose weight. All there was to it.

Yeah sorry, taking steriods is perfectly ok and doesn't effect a fighters performance. RIP Roid Jones Junior. Like I said.....he tested positive for steroids once. Check your facts before you mouth off like an idiot. And if you wanna talk steroids, Vargas got knocked out while he was on steroids against Delahoya. Mayorga got knocked out while on steroids against Delahoya. You european bums need to check yoselfs.

He got tested for steroids once....not against Hopkins. You people crack me up trying to use that steroid **** to degrade a great fighter. **** outta here. Yeah sorry, taking steriods is perfectly ok and doesn't effect a fighters performance. RIP Roid Jones Junior. Once a stedhead, always a stedhead. The fact is he took steriods. No excuses. ________ Colombiansquirt cam

You forgot to mention "with the help of steriods". Injecting terpenoid lipid before bouts hummmmmmmm was Jones so great? gimme a break with this nonsense.

You forgot to mention "with the help of steriods". Injecting terpenoid lipid before bouts hummmmmmmm was Jones so great? He got tested for steroids once....not against Hopkins. You people crack me up trying to use that steroid shit to degrade a great fighter. Fuck outta here.

In which way is he closer to Jones? What can't I imagine? He slaps with his punches and he is off balance most of the time. Seems like he has two left feet in there the way he moves. With that said, it has been effective. And then you got Roy who in his prime defeated Hopkins and looked much better doing it then anybody ever. Defeated some top contenders and title holders at light-heavy and turned them into nobodies because of how easy it looked. Some actually thought that Darius M. - another undefeated european product had a shot at beating him until a former Roy JOnes victim named Gonzales gave Darius his first loss and it was all downhill from then. comparing him to Roy is the equivelant of comparing Rocky Marciano to a prime Ali. I can't see Rocky beating him even if Joe Frazier spanked him in the first fight in 1970. Rocky's talent just doesn't support that theory just as Joe's talent doesn't show me anything that would make me think, "Oh wait, Joe is different then those other guys, I think he will give it to Roy like nobody before". Just can't see it. I might have seen it after the disappointing performance Roy put on agaisnt Tarver in their third fight but I can't even see it now. Roy did good enough against Tito and the fight before that I have enough confidence in his abilities to do what he has to pull of a victory. You forgot to mention "with the help of steriods". Injecting terpenoid lipid before bouts hummmmmmmm was Jones so great? ________ Arianna_S

I know its old news, but as a Calzaghe fan who has to witness threads and posters disparaging Joe on a regular basis, including many people basically claiming that Hopkins won the fight, I feel I have to point out that the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight, far from being close, was a clear and comfortable Joe Calzaghe victory. In the immediate aftermath of the fight, I wasn't so sure, but after watching again it is so obvious that it is almost ridiculous, I believe that I, and many posters here fell prey to exactly the same thing that Joe did in the first two rounds of the fight, Joe gave Hopkins too much respect, and I and other Calzaghe fans have been giving too much repect to the wishful thinking of Hopkins fans and US posters. The reality of the fight is that Joe Calzaghe harried Hopkins around the ring all night long, like nobody has ever done before, he threw more, landed more and was generally the dominant force, and you don't need compubox to tell it to you, you only need your eyes. Nobody, ever, has chased Hopkins around throwing punches at him and forcing him to fight like Calzaghe did, not even Roy Jones. Those of you who make the claim that Hopkins 'landed the cleaner harder shots' are just falling prey to wishful thinking, the truth is that it was the other way around. I actually can't believe that I didn't have the balls to post this before, but as a relatively new poster I felt that I shouldn't be too critical of the voices that I felt were surely more experienced than me. Now I realise that although I am not the world's foremost boxing expert, my reading of the Hopkins fight is more accurate than the denial of the truth that is frankly rife on these boards. Joe Calzaghe is a fighter of the highest quality, and although Hopkins showed a lot against him, Joe did what what he always does, which is outclass his opponent comfortably. All of you who don't believe me, wait, and I mean wait, until Joe takes on Jones, Pavlik or Tarver. When that happens he will do exactly the same thing, and all of us Calzaghe fans will be proved right once again, as we consistently have been. Amen to that! The rest of you Hopkins brown nosers can now stfu and put your dummies back in. Hopkins lost, deal with it. ________ Gong bong

Just want to say to any of you guys who are still making the "Hopkins landed cleaner more effective shots" argument: You are so deep in denial that it is bordering on the delusional. Your whole argument that is based on the fact you don't like Calzaghe's punching technique. You talk as though not a single punch Calzaghe threw was effective. It is baby talk, not boxing analysis. Calzaghe hit Bernard cleanly more times than Bernard hit him. If you want to talk 'effectiveness', which fighter was desperately clinching to avoid being hit, and which fighter came after the other time and time again? If you want to talk ring generalship, who forced the pace of the fight and stayed busy? Which fighter was content to clinch on the ropes? I genuinely feel sorry for you all that you can't tolerate the reality of Bernard losing. If you want to believe that Hopkins won that fight then fine, but do not post that shit in threads here as though it is the truth. You can't rewrite history. Your man lost guys, on the cards and in reality. Deal with it. It was a split decision by the judges, the fans, the media but not by Enzo, he thought Calzaghe lost. Maybe therefor boxing fans still talks about how to score the fight.

bernard only won 4 rounds the most in my oppinion and that was rounds 1,6,7,and 10 and i only gave him 1 and 10

I know its old news, but as a Calzaghe fan who has to witness threads and posters disparaging Joe on a regular basis, including many people basically claiming that Hopkins won the fight, I feel I have to point out that the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight, far from being close, was a clear and comfortable Joe Calzaghe victory. In the immediate aftermath of the fight, I wasn't so sure, but after watching again it is so obvious that it is almost ridiculous, I believe that I, and many posters here fell prey to exactly the same thing that Joe did in the first two rounds of the fight, Joe gave Hopkins too much respect, and I and other Calzaghe fans have been giving too much repect to the wishful thinking of Hopkins fans and US posters. The reality of the fight is that Joe Calzaghe harried Hopkins around the ring all night long, like nobody has ever done before, he threw more, landed more and was generally the dominant force, and you don't need compubox to tell it to you, you only need your eyes. Nobody, ever, has chased Hopkins around throwing punches at him and forcing him to fight like Calzaghe did, not even Roy Jones. Those of you who make the claim that Hopkins 'landed the cleaner harder shots' are just falling prey to wishful thinking, the truth is that it was the other way around. I actually can't believe that I didn't have the balls to post this before, but as a relatively new poster I felt that I shouldn't be too critical of the voices that I felt were surely more experienced than me. Now I realise that although I am not the world's foremost boxing expert, my reading of the Hopkins fight is more accurate than the denial of the truth that is frankly rife on these boards. Joe Calzaghe is a fighter of the highest quality, and although Hopkins showed a lot against him, Joe did what what he always does, which is outclass his opponent comfortably. All of you who don't believe me, wait, and I mean wait, until Joe takes on Jones, Pavlik or Tarver. When that happens he will do exactly the same thing, and all of us Calzaghe fans will be proved right once again, as we consistently have been. I scored the fight 115-112, and it was clear that the fight was very close and competitive.

Well, for me its not really a matter of Joe's record, its his ability, which I think is closer to Jones than you imagine, and in the mental area, even better. In which way is he closer to Jones? What can't I imagine? He slaps with his punches and he is off balance most of the time. Seems like he has two left feet in there the way he moves. With that said, it has been effective. And then you got Roy who in his prime defeated Hopkins and looked much better doing it then anybody ever. Defeated some top contenders and title holders at light-heavy and turned them into nobodies because of how easy it looked. Some actually thought that Darius M. - another undefeated european product had a shot at beating him until a former Roy JOnes victim named Gonzales gave Darius his first loss and it was all downhill from then. comparing him to Roy is the equivelant of comparing Rocky Marciano to a prime Ali. I can't see Rocky beating him even if Joe Frazier spanked him in the first fight in 1970. Rocky's talent just doesn't support that theory just as Joe's talent doesn't show me anything that would make me think, "Oh wait, Joe is different then those other guys, I think he will give it to Roy like nobody before". Just can't see it. I might have seen it after the disappointing performance Roy put on agaisnt Tarver in their third fight but I can't even see it now. Roy did good enough against Tito and the fight before that I have enough confidence in his abilities to do what he has to pull of a victory.

I don't overlook Joe's abilities. It's just me and alot of others truely don't think that he is up there with Jones no matter what his record is. And the fact that Joe didn't get a crack at Roy while he was at the height of his career shouldn't be a suprise to you Joe fans. And you're only lieing to yourselfs if you try to spin it, as if it's Roy's fault it didn't happen. 6 years ago, Calzaghe was just a WBO title holder, no bigger then WBO champ Zelt Erdei now at light-heavy. At least Hatton recognized what he needed to do, came here, won a few fights and got a shot at a prime P4p King in Floyd. It was his to be won but he came up short. He could have easly stayed and kept selling out arenas in Manchaster but he knew that wasn't enough to be The best. So credit to him for coming here. Joe didn't do that and he will fight a past his prime Roy , so don't be suprised that people will not give him full credit if he pulls of a victory. IMO, he should just go after Pavlik. It's an easier fight and Pavlik is undefeated and considered a prime fighter. He will get more credit for beating him then Jones. The overwhelming mentality is (and rightfully so) that people refuse to believe that somebody with Joe's skills can really touch Roy even if Roy losses. It's like comparing Michael Jordan to Larry Byrd.......no contest. It a no win situation for Joe at this point. Well, for me its not really a matter of Joe's record, its his ability, which I think is closer to Jones than you imagine, and in the mental area, even better. I'm not really surprised the fight never happened in their primes, it would have been an appealing prospect for neither of them really. Agree on who Joe should fight. Roy is old and he won't get credit. Joe should fight and beat both Pavlik and Tarver and then if he still wants to he could take on Jones when they're both past it. The money will still be there and the fight would be just as meaningful. Now bed.

Basically I agree that Jones talent was amazing, but I think a lot of people don't realise how good Calzaghe actually is. He has talent genuinely from the top drawer and I don't think people realise it. I also think that this prime Roy is being inflated into something he wasn't, which was unbeatable, and I think his fans look past his very real losses way too easily. One thing that Joe Calzaghe has always done is force the fight if he realises he has to, and I think that after falling behind on the cards he would realise that he HAD to knock Roy out and he would go out and do it. I know he would have to take a few right hands doing it, but Calzaghe's chin is truly incredible and I think he could. All of this is no easy task I know, and I would be a lunatic to describe it as certain or say that Roy also could not beat Joe, but since I am making a pick, that is it. I don't overlook Joe's abilities. It's just me and alot of others truely don't think that he is up there with Jones no matter what his record is. And the fact that Joe didn't get a crack at Roy while he was at the height of his career shouldn't be a suprise to you Joe fans. And you're only lieing to yourselfs if you try to spin it, as if it's Roy's fault it didn't happen. 6 years ago, Calzaghe was just a WBO title holder, no bigger then WBO champ Zelt Erdei now at light-heavy. At least Hatton recognized what he needed to do, came here, won a few fights and got a shot at a prime P4p King in Floyd. It was his to be won but he came up short. He could have easly stayed and kept selling out arenas in Manchaster but he knew that wasn't enough to be The best. So credit to him for coming here. Joe didn't do that and as a result he will fight a past his prime Roy now , so don't be suprised that people will not give him full credit if he pulls of a victory. IMO, he should just go after Pavlik. It's an easier fight and Pavlik is undefeated and considered a prime fighter. He will get more credit for beating him then Jones. The overwhelming mentality is (and rightfully so) that people refuse to believe that somebody with Joe's skills can really touch Roy even if Roy losses. It's like comparing Michael Jordan to Larry Byrd.......no contest. It a no win situation for Joe at this point. And if Roy spanks that ass (as I think he will) then it only makes him look worse and Roy only confirms what most of us already thought. Just the way it is.....fair or not fair.