Bernard Hopkins; The Executioner??

you want him to live up to this 'executioner' nickname but moan about him roughing poor little joe up a bit ? Dude, how come your posts are so hardcore?

no he didnt... not on the scorecards and not i my opinion. He tried, but not in a very executioner style way if you ask me. The way i see it, a boxer who calls himself the executioner would not be using excesive holding og headbutts like he did in that fight... nor try to gain extra time from a low blow that obviously did not hurt that much... renember, Calzaghe cant punch :) you want him to live up to this 'executioner' nickname but moan about him roughing poor little joe up a bit ?

too be honest most of the guys i know are just casual fans,and all they saw was a guy clinching calzaghe for 12 rounds and not much else i realize it is one of calzaghes best wins,which is a shame,calzaghe should have left frank warren a long long time ago,he is such a bad promoter LOL a guy clinching Calzaghe for 12 rounds :) well they are not entirely right, Hopkins did land some good shots. Im fine with Calzaghe winning but it was a close fight. But i can understand why the casual fan would see it that way. Another question, hope youve got the time?: Being british, and a boxing fan, what is your take on the fight??

it's one of the worst nicknames in boxing. He never even hurts his opponents much less "executes" them. It's like calling Malignaggi "Iron Hands" or Margarito "The Flash." Hopkins is as far from an executioner as you can possibly get. LOL :) However, some people in this read have been making some fairly good arguments(not the one who said it was beacause he executed gameplans lol), saying he was more of an executioner in his physical prime i the late 90`s to early 00`s. They are probably right, however i think it would be a more appropriate nickname for a guy like Duran og a prime Tyson(hence my question;who`s the real Executioner of boxing) but thanks for the laugh, i had the same opinion when makin this thread...

i cannot, nor will i try since i have been defending calzaghe throughout this thread... I like Joe... as i said earlier, hes an entertaining fighter and and(it seems) a nice person, more than i can say about Hopkins. A question for you British fan(i take it your british), what is the british peoples take on the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight?? too be honest most of the guys i know are just casual fans,and all they saw was a guy clinching calzaghe for 12 rounds and not much else i realize it is one of calzaghes best wins,which is a shame,calzaghe should have left frank warren a long long time ago,he is such a bad promoter

i like the way nobody responded too my post a guy looks bad after hopkins-its because bhop 'took their souls' a guy looks bad after losing too calzaghe-they are over-hyped calzaghe is shit his resume is shit etc etc explain these double-standards too me someone? i cannot, nor will i try since i have been defending calzaghe throughout this thread... I like Joe... as i said earlier, hes an entertaining fighter and and(it seems) a nice person, more than i can say about Hopkins. A question for you British fan(i take it your british), what is the british peoples take on the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight??

i like the way nobody responded too my post a guy looks bad after hopkins-its because bhop 'took their souls' a guy looks bad after losing too calzaghe-they are over-hyped calzaghe is shit his resume is shit etc etc explain these double-standards too me someone?

Hey people.. Let me start by saying i admire Bernard Hopkins for his overall boxing skills.. His Technique, his defense etc. However i do not like very much as a person, or should i say his public persona.. Im sure hes probably a nice, intelligent guy in private, but he has pissed me off more than once on screen or in fights. First of all, i allways hated that ridiculous executioner mask he wears for entrances.. Now i now hes american, and you guys love wrestling so im not surprised he has been able to wear throughout hes career and still be taken seriously. However, one of the reasons why i think he is so hard to take serious when wearing such a mask(and making that stupid X, reminding me of a famous rapper) is that i dont think theres much in his fighting style that gets me thinking of an executioner... you know, somebody whos chopping peoples heads of, torturing people etc. Thoughts people?? :) and also, for the fun of it, who would you consider to be the real executioner of boxing?? Old times and current?? it's one of the worst nicknames in boxing. He never even hurts his opponents much less "executes" them. It's like calling Malignaggi "Iron Hands" or Margarito "The Flash." Hopkins is as far from an executioner as you can possibly get.

What the **** does this have to do with anything? He just showed you how to score. Learn it. Absorb it. It's called EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. Not AGGRESSION. I blame Oscar more than Joe for this but it's a HORRIBLE ****ing precedent that has taken over boxing scoring in the last few years. Terrible. This was a good link but I can go further. You know that compubox are just guys sitting around counting punches right? You know if you watch this fight most of Joe's punches land in the air, on bernards gloves, arms, shoulders, back , back of his head and neck...right? You know that doesn't count as a real scoring punch right? Stop acting or even implying that Joe dominated that fight. First of all, am i saying joe dominated the fight?? The part you marked out even contained the word "close" i thought i was a close fight, with Joe being the aggressor, and also effective enough for me to feel fine about him winning that department. He also controlled the fight enough for me to him the "ring generalship" category. Hopkins bested him in the others, therefore a close fight. Secondly, im asking the question out of interest, since one of the primary reasons for me to watch boxing is to be entertained. Joe was entertaining that night, Bernard(imo) certainly wasnt. Now before you jump on me i allready posted earlier that i know boxing is not judged on entertainment value, but in a fight as close as this one, i`m fine the winner being the one who entertained me the most...

WOW... you are good :) props to you, you are very good making arguments.. i guess i have to watch it again, and thanks for the advice.. However i must point out that fights are scored in realtime by judges watching it live. And to two of the judges(and me) Calzaghe looked the winner. And from what i renember it was fair. Now i will not discuss this fight with you anymore, i have not watched the fight in a long time, and, like i said, youre good. Argumenting any further on a a fight i have not watched in a long time, would only mean me burrying myself even deeper into trouble... but a(for now) final question: putting all the slow motion analysing and (youre obviously a Hopkins fan, and, i surmise, an american) bias aside, who would you rather see winning a close fight; the aggresive, offensive minded, entertaining(also lowblowing hehe) fighter, or the defensive minded, holding, headbutting one?? What the **** does this have to do with anything? He just showed you how to score. Learn it. Absorb it. It's called EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. Not AGGRESSION. I blame Oscar more than Joe for this but it's a HORRIBLE ****ing precedent that has taken over boxing scoring in the last few years. Terrible. This was a good link but I can go further. You know that compubox are just guys sitting around counting punches right? You know if you watch this fight most of Joe's punches land in the air, on bernards gloves, arms, shoulders, back , back of his head and neck...right? You know that doesn't count as a real scoring punch right? Stop acting or even implying that Joe dominated that fight.

He was more a an Executioner in the 90s.

And posters on this site have Red K'd and called me stupid for saying Bhops history, appearance and persona is the reason he is not a big draw.

If you decide to watch it again I was encourage you to watch the exchanges in slow-motion and you'll notice that Calzaghe hardly lands anything but I understand it might be hard to tell watching it in realtime. Here's a couple definitions of effective aggression that I found: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/scoring.htm http://pro-boxing.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_score_a_professional_boxing_match Again, if you really observe what happened you'll realize that he missed something like 80-90% of his punches and what did land was not effective since they were mostly arm punches, slaps basically. Hopkins on the other hand actually sat down on his punches. WOW... you are good :) props to you, you are very good making arguments.. i guess i have to watch it again, and thanks for the advice.. However i must point out that fights are scored in realtime by judges watching it live. And to two of the judges(and me) Calzaghe looked the winner. And from what i renember it was fair. Now i will not discuss this fight with you anymore, i have not watched the fight in a long time, and, like i said, youre good. Argumenting any further on a a fight i have not watched in a long time, would only mean me burrying myself even deeper into trouble... but a(for now) final question: putting all the slow motion analysing and (youre obviously a Hopkins fan, and, i surmise, an american) bias aside, who would you rather see winning a close fight; the aggresive, offensive minded, entertaining(also lowblowing hehe) fighter, or the defensive minded, holding, headbutting one??

If you decide to watch it again I was encourage you to watch the exchanges in slow-motion and you'll notice that Calzaghe hardly lands anything but I understand it might be hard to tell watching it in realtime. Here's a couple definitions of effective aggression that I found: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/scoring.htm http://pro-boxing.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_score_a_professional_boxing_match Again, if you really observe what happened you'll realize that he missed something like 80-90% of his punches and what did land was not effective since they were mostly arm punches, slaps basically. Hopkins on the other hand actually sat down on his punches. this sums it up. Calzaghe's aggression was not as effective as compubox says. Lots of missed shots were counted.

some good arguments there... and im sure you`ve watched the fight more times than i. Seen it three times, but not in the last 6 months. will rewatch again. However, i do seem to renember calzaghe landing clean shots on Hopkins as well. And also more than Bernard. I would still say calzaghe was the effective aggressor(may change my mind after the rewatch, but dont think so) I am aware that "running" may not necesarilly a fighter arent controlling things(a good example being mayweather) but in this case(like you) i would say that Joe controlled the fight from the middle enough to win the ring generalship category.. Im not saying im scoring the fight for calzaghe beacause Hopkins fought boring, read my post again. I said i considered it a close fight that could have gone either way.. depending on how you score it(i didnt say that, but thats what i meant). im just saying i was fine with Joe winning on the judges scorecards, since he was the making the fight worth watching... i mean, is`nt one of your primary reasons for watching boxing entertainment? If you decide to watch it again I was encourage you to watch the exchanges in slow-motion and you'll notice that Calzaghe hardly lands anything but I understand it might be hard to tell watching it in realtime. Here's a couple definitions of effective aggression that I found: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/scoring.htm The key to the first category is the word "effective." One may be going forward, trying to get at ones opponent, forcing them back, but not throwing punches, or missing badly. In order to be "effective" one must have success landing consistently while moving forward. It should be noted that the opponent, who is "out-boxing" or keeping the fight at a distance, can be the "effective aggressor" by initiating the punching exchanges. http://pro-boxing.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_score_a_professional_boxing_match Effective aggression is demonstrated when a fighter presses forward, and in doing so, scores more clean punches, or more damaging blows, than his opponent. If a boxer is a particularly hard puncher, even blows that are not landed particularly clean, but obviously affect his opponent, are given scoring weight. Again, if you really observe what happened you'll realize that he missed something like 80-90% of his punches and what did land was not effective since they were mostly arm punches, slaps basically. Hopkins on the other hand actually sat down on his punches.

clinging to compu box is retarded. Clinging to ineffective aggression is retarded. Hi Joe fanboys! Hi Joe hater :) i not clinging to compubox numbers, just using them as an argument.. I mean it cant be completely retarted to do that when the stats say joe landed more on Hopkins than any of his previous opponents(the ones that beat him as well) i would never base my entire opinion of a fight on compubox, but saying it is retarted taking it into account in your post-fight judgment makes me think youre more retarted than i apperantly am... read my post again, i said joe was certainly the aggresor, and to a certain point also an effective one. Just Cause he didnt knock Hopkins down, doesnt mean he didnt hit him(and who has been able to knock hopkins down?) by the way, not a huge Joe fan... but i like him. Entertaining boxer and (it seems) a nice guy. Thats more than i can say about Hopkins

Thanks haglerwins for posting that link. I don't make stuff up. Look, I'm sure you probably haven't observed the fight nearly much as myself but what I can assure you is that the compubox numbers were a complete joke. Your welcome to pick a round and compare your numbers with theirs just to see. Hopkins also staggered Calzaghe with that punch in the gif since it sent him back off balance but it would be a fair point to suggest that the headbutt assisted in the damage. I would not call Calzaghe's aggression effective since he hardly landed anything despite throwing over 700 punches (according to compubox so take it with it a grain of salt but I'll say that's easier to count total numbers of punches vs what actually lands). What he did land most consisted of arm punches with nothing behind them. As far as ring generalship, I'd probably give the edge to Calzaghe. Keep in mind that just because someone is "running" doesn't mean they aren't controlling things and in certain rounds Hopkins was in control since he was making Calzaghe fight his fight and frustrating him in the process. In the end, though, the objective is to hit and not get hit and that's precisely what Hopkins did while landing the clean, effective punches. Pointing to a fighter being "boring" by clinching, etc. as a means to not score the fight for a person is a poor excuse IMO. It's just like the Froch-Dirrell fight. No one can actually give a legit argument for Froch outboxing him so they resort to petty things like saying he ran, etc. some good arguments there... and im sure you`ve watched the fight more times than i. Seen it three times, but not in the last 6 months. will rewatch again. However, i do seem to renember calzaghe landing clean shots on Hopkins as well. And also more than Bernard. I would still say calzaghe was the effective aggressor(may change my mind after the rewatch, but dont think so) I am aware that "running" may not necesarilly mean a fighter arent controlling things(a good example being mayweather) but in this case(like you) i would say that Joe controlled the fight from the middle enough to win the ring generalship category.. Im not saying im scoring the fight for calzaghe beacause Hopkins fought boring, read my post again. I said i considered it a close fight that could have gone either way.. depending on how you score it(i didnt say that, but thats what i meant). im just saying i was fine with Joe winning on the judges scorecards, since he was the making the fight worth watching... i mean, is`nt one of your primary reasons for watching boxing entertainment?

Thanks haglerwins for posting that link. I don't make stuff up. Look, I'm sure you probably haven't observed the fight nearly much as myself but what I can assure you is that the compubox numbers were a complete joke. Your welcome to pick a round and compare your numbers with theirs just to see. Hopkins also staggered Calzaghe with that punch in the gif since it sent him back off balance but it would be a fair point to suggest that the headbutt assisted in the damage. I would not call Calzaghe's aggression effective since he hardly landed anything despite throwing over 700 punches (according to compubox so take it with it a grain of salt but I'll say that's easier to count total numbers of punches vs what actually lands). What he did land most consisted of arm punches with nothing behind them. As far as ring generalship, I'd probably give the edge to Calzaghe. Keep in mind that just because someone is "running" doesn't mean they aren't controlling things and in certain rounds Hopkins was in control since he was making Calzaghe fight his fight and frustrating him in the process. In the end, though, the objective is to hit and not get hit and that's precisely what Hopkins did while landing the clean, effective punches. Pointing to a fighter being "boring" by clinching, etc. as a means to not score the fight for a person is a poor excuse IMO. It's just like the Froch-Dirrell fight. No one can actually give a legit argument for Froch outboxing him so they resort to petty things like saying he ran, etc. clinging to compu box is retarded. Clinging to ineffective aggression is retarded. Hi Joe fanboys!

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/natas206/hopcalz-1.gif He should of got docked at least two points in that fight, for his headbutting and holding. Cortez really disgraced himself as well, for allowing it. Funny but I can't help wonder- WHAT THE **** IS CALZAGHE TRYING TO DO HERE? PATHETIC.

Thanks haglerwins for posting that link. I don't make stuff up. according to compubox calzaghe landed more shots on hopkins than any of his previous opponents... Dont know if Jones-Hopkins was Compubox-registered, if it was that would mean Joe landed more on bernard than Jones.. And the general conception is that Roy dominated Hopkins. Now i do agree that he did not seriously hurt Hopkins, but Hopkins only seriously hurt Joe once... boxing is scored on Effective aggresion, defence, ring generalship and clean&hard punching. In my opinion, Joe was the aggresor, and to a certain point an effective one(landing more shots on Bernard than any other could) and definetly the ring general(Hopkins running) while Hopkins was better in the defence department(he usually is) and did land the cleaner shots. Looking at it like that i think it is safe to say the fight was close and could have gone either way. However(again, just my opinion) if you take into account that Hopkins was running and holding all night, and that joe was the one making the fight entertaining i have no problem with Joe getting the decision. Now i know boxing is not supposed to judged on entertainment value, but bernard really irritated me that night and i was happy Joe got the win... Look, I'm sure you probably haven't observed the fight nearly much as myself but what I can assure you is that the compubox numbers were a complete joke. Your welcome to pick a round and compare your numbers with theirs just to see. Hopkins also staggered Calzaghe with that punch in the gif since it sent him back off balance but it would be a fair point to suggest that the headbutt assisted in the damage. I would not call Calzaghe's aggression effective since he hardly landed anything despite throwing over 700 punches (according to compubox so take it with it a grain of salt but I'll say that's easier to count total numbers of punches vs what actually lands). What he did land most consisted of arm punches with nothing behind them. As far as ring generalship, I'd probably give the edge to Calzaghe. Keep in mind that just because someone is "running" doesn't mean they aren't controlling things and in certain rounds Hopkins was in control since he was making Calzaghe fight his fight and frustrating him in the process. In the end, though, the objective is to hit and not get hit and that's precisely what Hopkins did while landing the clean, effective punches. Pointing to a fighter being "boring" by clinching, etc. as a means to not score the fight for a person is a poor excuse IMO. It's just like the Froch-Dirrell fight. No one can actually give a legit argument for Froch outboxing him so they resort to petty things like saying he ran, etc.