Why didn't Hopkins dominate Calzaghe?

Hopkins has trouble with speed. Calzaghe has more speed than the other fighters listed.

Like he dominated Tarver, Wright and Pavlik. Just want to know. Thank you. Hopkins stopped throwing combnations after DLH. The difference between the version of HOpkins that beat Pavlik and the Hopkins that lost a close fight to Calzaghe is that Hopkins tried to win fights with slicknes and without punching. Also styles makes fight and Calzaghe is an awkward windmilling fighter. that said, if Hopkins throws combinations against Calzghe he'd beat Calzaghe too.

probably cuz they had better hand speed.. i still think bhop beat calzaghe

Freddie Roach. I'm convinced.

Cuz Calzaghe is not a blown up Welterweight.

Because even a past his prime Calzaghe is a couple of classes above the robotic but hard hitting Pavlik.

So would one concede that Calzaghe was a great fighter to give Bernard so much trouble where Tarver (coming off 2 Jones wins and 1 Johnson), Wright (coming off a Taylor draw) and Pavlik (coming off 2 Taylor wins) could not. Norton troubled Ali, but do you consider him great? Buster Douglass troubled Tyson, but do you consider him great? Tarver troubled RJJ, but do you consider Tarver great? Joe Calzaghe is an EXCELLENT fighter.....noone and I mean NOONE can ever take that away from him or his supporters......but the man is not a GREAT.....at least not yet!

He wasnt able to dominate Joe because Joe is a different style altogether then Pavlic. The win does make Joe go up a bit though dosent it? lol i aint even a Joe fan but theres no denying that it makes him look better considering what Hop has just done to Pav

Thats funny cause all i see hopkins do in that Calzaghe fight was try to Hold,sham,cheat his way to victory !? Hmm? I never said Hopkins dominated Calzaghe. I asked why he wasn't able to man.

Calzaghe fights with a different style, he's a southpaw, which is awkward enough but he's also an awkward southpaw which just makes him doubly tough to fight but I honestly think that if Hopkins performed against Calzaghe the way he did against Pavlik, he would have won.

The fact is that you can only do things in the ring that you are allowed to do. Pavlik just looked confused the whole time with Hopkins defensive skills and counter punching. He wasnt there to be hit. Calzaghe's jab was the key to his fight against Hopkins, Pavlik's jab is too slow and he didnt use it half the time.

Like he dominated Tarver, Wright and Pavlik. Just want to know. Thank you. Thats funny cause all i see hopkins do in that Calzaghe fight was try to Hold,sham,cheat his way to victory !?

calzaghe didn't win hopkins due to his speed but more due to his stamina, boxing brain and footwork. kelly is an orthodox figter and he is very crude he is simple and does the basics very well. thats how hes accomplished so much but if pavlik had gone up against any other fighter who had any decent knowledge of the game like a calzaghe, hopkins, dawson, tarver, RJJ or kessler i would have bet on him to lose. kelly sets his feet and then pumps out his jab, bernard in the first half of the fight threw short sharp left hooks as he was stepping in prevent kelly from getting his jab out. in the second half bernard would either throw his counter right over the jab or just move to the right so Kelly couldn't land his right hand straight after. JC is different - in fact hes proabably the best in ring tactician in boxing right now. he made Bernard think and fight at a higher pace but constantly being switched on forcing Hopkins to make a mov and then counter it. JC beat Hopkins by pumping out one jab and then waiting for the counter before lauching a flurry of punches. He would dart in and out of range and therefore not allow Hopkins to set up his traps or his punches, he would use feints to create openings and then move in and then flurry and move back again. bascially JC is twice the fighter that pavlik will ever be and the fact that some people thought that pavlik would even be competitive with JC is a joke. as for Hopkins i have to give him huge credit i thought he would win but i thought it would be via SD, i thought Kelly might take a few rounds but bernard just completely shut him out. bernard vs dawson anyone? Good post! Would give you K but I'm all out today.

If by falling in like a rookie and flailing his arms like a DROWNING SPIDER MONKEY what you call "veritile" then you're right..Joe is versitle. Even his Dad thought he lost. There was obviously something wrong with B-Hop. I think he strayed to far from his normal regiment and it cost him. Don't ever call Calzhage versitle unless you're trying to make somebody laugh. Learn how to spell Versatile and Calzaghe won the fight regardless and no amount of you crying and whining can do anything about it. He may have looked bad in doing so but he outwork Hopkins on that particular night. Bad stylistic match-up for B-Hop

Jermain Taylor?? Well in the first fight Jermain did lay on the ropes against Pavlik an awful lot

I knew what Pavlik was, and thats a tough ass fighter. Still wanted Calzaghe to be the first to take his 0 away from him. It would have been satisfying to add another person to Calzaghes record who was undefeated and he took there 0 away from them... Kessler, Lacy, and Veit if I remember correctly. Who else did Calzaghe own yet?

calzaghe didn't win hopkins due to his speed but more due to his stamina, boxing brain and footwork. kelly is an orthodox figter and he is very crude he is simple and does the basics very well. thats how hes accomplished so much but if pavlik had gone up against any other fighter who had any decent knowledge of the game like a calzaghe, hopkins, dawson, tarver, RJJ or kessler i would have bet on him to lose. kelly sets his feet and then pumps out his jab, bernard in the first half of the fight threw short sharp left hooks as he was stepping in prevent kelly from getting his jab out. in the second half bernard would either throw his counter right over the jab or just move to the right so Kelly couldn't land his right hand straight after. JC is different - in fact hes proabably the best in ring tactician in boxing right now. he made Bernard think and fight at a higher pace but constantly being switched on forcing Hopkins to make a mov and then counter it. JC beat Hopkins by pumping out one jab and then waiting for the counter before lauching a flurry of punches. He would dart in and out of range and therefore not allow Hopkins to set up his traps or his punches, he would use feints to create openings and then move in and then flurry and move back again. bascially JC is twice the fighter that pavlik will ever be and the fact that some people thought that pavlik would even be competitive with JC is a joke. as for Hopkins i have to give him huge credit i thought he would win but i thought it would be via SD, i thought Kelly might take a few rounds but bernard just completely shut him out. bernard vs dawson anyone? Great post I would give green k but I've given out too much in the last 24 hours

Pavlik was always a second rate fighter. The only people he looks good against are those who stand in front of him and let him throw them crude punches. Ive been saying he was a bum the whole time, but now the whole world has seen him get exposed

How about this radical idea, that some find it difficult to come to terms with... Calzaghe's better? Weird, who'd have thought.

Did you even watch the Winky fight? That wasn't one-sided at all....:bounce: lol, alright you caught me out. I'm just trying to demonstrate that he beat all 3 fighters. The wright one wasn't a domination. He won by a couple - few points, can't remember my score, but it was close. He did completely **** Winky over though - took him right out of his zone.