Carlsson

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...

See my post above. He was 43 years old when he fought calzaghe. Compare a young bernard hopkins fighting style to that of what we saw against Calzaghe. Drastically different. You may be right... But against who? Lipsey who?? he did not look like no executioner against Jones, Taylor or Tarver... He fought brilliant against Pavlik and Trinidad but still, did not remind me of an executioner. and also, i could show you about a lot of 36 second videos showing calzaghe knocking people out while "slapping like a girl" just as well as you can show me Hopkins as a real "executioner"

He did beat Calzaghe. Even floored him, Calzaghe landed nothing but was awarded the W in the hopes he'd stay around for bigger fights. Since then not a single other European fighter has been awarded a gift in the states. Lesson learned. 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...

It's just a nickname anyway. Ruslan Chagaev is called "white Tyson". Doesn't exactly fight like Tyson does he. well, chagaev probably didnt pick that name himself.. not saying Hopkins did, but you dont see ruslan entering the ring with a towel over his head to "ambitionz as a ridah" do you?? :) you are however right that they do not resemble each other in style...

I doubt that. Besides, that's not what the judges thought. hopkins is an ass. I am American and I do not like 'wrestling' because it is a sham. It's a soap opera about guys in tights. :greddy2: Im glad you think so too. And i am aware that not all you americans are into wrestling, especially not boxing fans, but being a little provocative sometimes helps starting up a good discussion :)

You stated earlier that you hadn't seen any of Hopkins earlier fights in his career so your opinion on him being a "executioner" or not doesn't really count. If you actually took the time to watch Hopkins earlier career you would find a fighter who would break down his opponents then knock them out. That sounds like a executioner to me. i just might do that... Any ones in particular i should find?? one last question, just for you: Which Hopkins was better? The "Executioner" from earlier in his career or the one that fought, say, Tarver? Still think hes an idiot though :)

Hopkins was too old to capitalize on Taylor's bad stamina's because of his age, Had that been a few years earlier, X would of took him out. Hopkins let me down abit in the second fight, I thought he edged it but he should of done more. I know. :) Most seem to think Hopkins has always been a defensive low workrate counter puncher when that is so far from what he was in his younger days and his prime, Hopkins could do it all in his prime. If Hopkins hadn't of changed his style, he would of been nowhere near effective as he is now in his mid 40's. Tyson, Foreman and Duran were pressure fighters, of course they are more executioner like than Hopkins, they went into every fight looking for the KO. The mask was for show, it isn't a good reason to call Hopkins an idiot for. Hopkins is great by the way. Thats my point... dont call yourself "The Executioner" unless your demeanor in the ring reminds people of one... and also... i think he is an idiot for a number of reasons. The mask just being one..

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

Hopkins took people apart in his younger days. He was definetely a Executioner then. Hopkins in his prime became a master boxer who could do pretty much everything in the ring. Once Hopkins got older though, he had to become more defensive which why he fights the way he does now. I gues you could say Hopkins is still a Executioner because he is good at executing gameplans against his opponents. :) You maybe be right, i cant tell since the earliest hopkins fight i have seen was his fight with roy jones. He did nit look like an executioner there. and neither did he against any of the fighters i mentioned earlier.. So one could say: Yes, you are right, he was an executioner, just not against quality opposition??

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...

Hopkins - Jackson Hopkins - Allen 2 Hopkins - Elchols 2 Hopkins - Johnson Hopkins - Lipsey The Hopkins early in his career was alot better physical wise but the Hopkins that fought Tarver was the smarter more experienced veteran. The older Hopkins would of won due to his experience. Thanks :) now i know i said it was my last question, but another one just popped up in my head, hope youve got the time... Just saw a live(back then) argument on youtube between Roy and Bernard, i think it is after bernard defeated Trinidad. Hopkins defenitly looking for a fight... Think it fell through due to arguments over the purse.. Who do you think would have won if such a fight had materialised in 2001??

There is no borderline about him, he's a hall of famer and an all time great, period. No one said he's a tyson or duran. So the true nature of the thread comes out, thanks for your awesome opinion. We will all mark this down in our personal journals and remember this forever and ever. Okay then, calzaghe must be a hall of famer as well... no, nobody said so.. just think it is a stupid thing to do when not very executioner like in style.. when not even being close to the most executioner like in style... And finally, please read my original post once more... Am i trying to hide the fact i dislike him? i start of by praising his skills, then move on to the fact that i hate that stupid maks and his public persona. So i have to my friend, it took you a long time to find out that i did not like him. i think hes an idiot. But that was not what i wanted to discuss... My question was wheter his style really resembled that of an executioner(to which i must say you made ok arguments) and secondly, who was the REAL executioner of boxing...

Last time I checked most people agree Calzaghe will be in the hall of fame... Again, thanks for your awesome opinion. And again, hopkins fought a lot differently when he got the nickname then he did as the years went on and he evolved into a more defensive fighter. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out (not sure why you're struggling with this). i hope he will... But i have to disagree, most people on this board(usually americans) mostly refer to him as a fraud, calslappy etc. you even made fun him for "slapping like a girl" in an earlier post... Well i started this thread, and in my thread me and everybody else has the right to an opinion. So piss off with your "awesome opinion" sarcastic b´llsh`t you fukk.. stupid idiot... but for the record, i got it, hopkins apparently was an EXECUTIONER in physical prime, you want me to excuse myself for not knowing and for wanting people to enlighten me? again, you idiot... i even acknowledged that you made some good arguments... now your just an idiot.

He beat Calzaghe... 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 :)

The fighters you mentioned like Tarver, Taylor, Calzaghe and Pavlik was Hopkins at 40+ years old. His fighting style had changed by then. Hopkins executed Trinidad, Joppy, Johnson, Elchols, Mercado, Allen. All decent to good opposition. all right all right... Hopkins is good, borderline great. Glad i opened this thread praising him.. nevertheless, (and i did watch your posted videos) i do not consider him him to be very executioner-like compared to, say, Duran, or as another poster mentioned, Foreman or Tyson. So, the way i see it, entering the ring wearing that stupid mask, doing that stupid x thing makes him an idiot in my book.

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??

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?

I expect a close fight which could of gone either way. Most people instantly pick Jones because of how good he looked in his prime but there was no one there that was a prime Bernard Hopkins. It would of been a tactical fight, It's a shame it didn't go down. all right... thanks for your time :) could have been great... Should have been done back then. The they probably wouldnt be talkin bout it now...

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??

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??

this motherfucker said he fought in Palestinian training camps all the time and yet couldn't take a few drunks yelling shit at him? haha, find a new job you sensitive cunt co-sign :)

Roy Jones jr. Evander Holyfield. just wondering, has Holyfield ever admittet using streroids? or been caught? Jones tested positive for the androstenedione after a fight with Richard Hall, i think it was in late 2000. The drug was illegal with IBF, however it was an over-the-counter supplement that was not illegal for sale untill 2004. Jones was not fined nor banned by IBF. Not saying he never used roids, but Jones had never tested positive before that, and has not since.

Some very good replies so far... thanks Have to agree with greatA about Arguello and Louis... Both had extremely effective, powerfull and accurate single punches. And of course Mayweather, whom i actually really like and enjoy watching.. didnt thought he would be mentioned though, since most people in here seems to hate him..

lol, its ok to have opinions but yours are really bad. i totally agree... americans keep arguing that hopkins beat Calzaghe... But then i dont see why they hate PBF..? i mean hes just as skilled as Hopkins, and dont even need all the holding Hopkins showed against Joe.. And come, hopkins fought, in my opinion, a lot more boring in that fight than i ever saw Floyd fight.. so why do you keep defending that racist idiot?

tired of this fat yank, business. I'm actually quite fit. do roadwork every day... situps..pushups..weightlifting.. And then hit the gym too i was kidding... you would know if you read my whole post you would know.. i even praised you yanks for your kindness.. i like american people however, you can`t deny the fact that alot of you are insanely obese, but that is a whole other discussion...

The butts actually did kessler justice...Ward was turning it up and in the 12th he would have been firing on all pistons going for the KO. i guess you didnt see the froch dirrell fight.. with 12 rounds of INTENTIONAL rabbit punches and body slams __________________ have you read my earlier post about how i do not feel that these two fights can be compared? if yes, i would like you to give your thoughts, since i would consider it to be blatant stupidity to say Froch was the only one using dirty tactics during that fight.. however, based on your two previous posts in this thread, i guess you are a rather stupid character.. but i aint judging, please, be my guest and prove me wrong...

I am 99% sure this is Demise Alt. Excuse me for my poor english, but demise alt? whats that?? A former poster who got banned perhaps? if you do believe so, maybe my english isnt that bad afterall : ) surmising battling nelson is a dane, i can only say: godt svar, havde jeg ikke overvejet...

you mean like dirrell-froch? intentional rabbit punches and bodyslams + robbery? sorry mate, but i do not consider it to be same. In the Froch-Dirrel fight it was give and take on who was dirtier. Sure, Froch used rabbit punches and even went as far as bodyslamming Dirrel, but come on... Dirrel was equally dirty and ugly in his style. He did not use the bodyslam on Carl but, and dont jump on me now as i have not watched the fight since it aired(and i dont intend to) as far as i renember he was instigating the holding from very early on in the fight.. and the running? dont even get me startet. He gave the me the impression that he wasnt really willing to give it all and take some risks in order to win(kinda like Mikkel in the ward fight...) i did not think it was a robbery, Froch was the champion! however, it could have gone either way no doubt.

Yeah you can say that. I was also thinking that if those dirty and illegal tactics bothered Kessler that much and the referee wouldn't enforce the rules, I'd have liked to have seen him place a couple of Golota style punches south of the border. :lol1: i absolutely agree friend.. as the fight progressed i was hoping and waiting for Kessler to open up for some of the same. it would only have been fair..

I would be pissed, but i would already expect a one-sided ref and bias hometown judges. i think i would be more upset at the fact that my fighter wasn't able to overcome the situation. If i was watching Ward get butted, i would expect to see him retaliate. To see him get fouled numerous times, while getting outboxed, i would be pretty sore. I can understand because i was a huge Cotto fan, and to see Pac destroy him the way he did, it was hard to believe. I think many Kessler fans have a hole in their hearts and they just hate Ward for killing his legend. good post i agree with you for the most part... especially about the hole in the heart thing : ) cause thats exactly how i felt in the days after the fight.. i was heart broken. however what i do not like about your post, and this just may be a type error, is that you say you was(were) a huge cotto fan.. hopefully, even though he was demolished you are still a huge fan?? otherwise you need a lesson in loyalty friend... Im still gonna back Kessler up till the day one of us are no more...