If you don't pay them, you don't get their belt, and so you don't get to call yourself a world champion.
One example is the WBO. Frank Warren likes to have British fighters fight in Britain, preferably against other Brits. The problem with this is that some of those fighters are ambitious, and want a title shot, and winning a title is harder if you have to go to America and face the best in the world. There's also the fact that a fight being for a world championship makes it more marketable.
The solution? Warren developed a close relationship with a sanctioning body (the WBO) and they have helped each other out ever since.
Naseem Hamed got a lot of attention and was seen as the best in the division, and him holding the WBO belt helped the org to become more valued. Ditto Calzaghe, which is why both Hamed and Calzaghe chose to hold onto the WBO belt rather than the WBC or IBF when they unified.
Warren makes sure that his best known fighters hold onto the WBO belt, and the WBO make sure that they make people like Gary Lockett and Michael Jennings the mandatory challengers, even though they haven't done anything to earn it.
Quid pro quo Clarice.
excellent post
Depends what you mean by "flush". Hopkins landed two or three flashy counters. Calzaghe landed ten rounds worth of crappy awful slaps. Hopkins DID NOT WORK ENOUGH. Remember that the principal scoring method is to land CLEAN and EFFECTIVE punches. Hopkins' punches were CLEAN. Calzaghe's punches were EFFECTIVE as evidenced by the fact that Old Man Poppers was wrecked by the tenth. And Calzaghe landed more of them.
Here's a sports analogy: Two football teams face off. One of them scores three magnificent goals, from distance, clever highlight reel stuff, the other gets two scrappy efforts that were just as easily in as out, an own goal and one which looked like it was mis-hit... who wins? The one with four goals... This is it, boxing is scored by rounds. If you win a round comprehensively you're a point up. If you get a knockdown or have a particularly one sided round you're two points up. There are twelve rounds. This is why at the top level boxers can't afford to take rounds off.
I get your point but, the point is even if it were own goals they were goals
punches dont count unless they hit the torso or the head shoulders and arms
dont count.
ok a game of basketball one guy takes 20 shots they go in and out 20 times
another guy takes 3 shots they all go in who wins?? the basketball shot that almost went in 20 times or the guy that took only three shots but went in all three
Just watch joe calzaghe's hits and wait till you get to the bernard
fight.
(note: these are the parts where calzaghe is looking good and he obviously doesnt)
..... and he's from brooklyn
those kids from Brooklyn are all a bunch of loudmouth retards
shut the **** up , before judging someone dick head and while I may be 17
Im Probably smarter than you.
and the plus side from growing up in brooklyn is you grow up quick.
this is stupid
in calzaghe's highlight reel he's supposed to look good...... period
why does calzaghe get beaten up in his highlight reel ??????
oh i know why, because he lost the fight.
I think this was HBO at work because they wanted to see jones-
calzaghe instead of jones-hopkins (because roy wouldnt take the fight)
I felt Hopkins won the fight but it was no robbery.
The fight was very close.
plz just watch calzaghe's so called highlights ( should just call it bernard's highlights) you will see that where calzaghe was supposed to be landing
punches he wasnt and he was getting countered at the same time.
what this means is if they cant find any part of the whole fight where
calzaghe lands a significant punch to put on his "highlights then ...... the
motherfuccer got a gift decision plain and simple because we all know
bernard landed punches.
I'm sorry I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the section of the rules of the sport that states that there is a different burden on a challenger than there is on the champion to achieve victory. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the section of the rules that requires a certain amount of facial damage to be displayed before victory can be awarded. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
If Calzaghe was as careless and sloppy as you say he wouldn't be undefeated. How is it he has won 45 straight fights with some 32 stoppages if he is "wild" and "sloppy"? He must have some other qualities, perhaps you could name them.
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the section of the rules which requires that the victor have an acceptable level of highlight clips before a decision is announced. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
No it isn't. I think you would find it difficult to think of a less apt sports analogy than that. There are twelve rounds. Bernard Hopkins had two good rounds that he won clearly, the rest was a mixture of wild flurries and clinches. The reason I had Calzaghe winning was that he managed to land the better and more frequent punches in the majority of the rounds. His punching was sloppier than usual (because Hopkins is that good) but they weren't really any more sloppy than clinching, headbutting and feigning injury continually. And at least they were punches.
To the topic starter:
"Damn I had Bernard Hopkins edging Calzaghe in a close fight! That Split Decision awarded to the other guy was a TOTAL robbery!"
you answer my all my questions except one.
why didnt joe hit bernard flush ONE TIME I MEAN COME ON COULD
YOU WIN A FIGHT NOT LANDING ONE PUNCH.
Willie pep has been put to shame
Another thing .... motherfuccers forget Bernard was the champ not calzaghe
while he may have been a betting favorite he was not the champ, and he did
not BEAT bernard hopkins he slapboxed bernard hopkins while hopkins would
wait and counter.
By one point.............................
That is all.
the rounds you gave to calzaghe
try to find one punch he squarely landed on bernard
and that one point turns into a UD
I just watched Joe greatest hits you judged and entire performance on a 2 minute highlight reel of a 36 minute fight.
Like i said before, if you cannot find a decent punch to put on the man's
highlights for christ sake then I shoudnt have to watch the whole fight again to know hopkins was robbed (I watched the fight live so you know).
Its like saying michael jordan won the dunk contest but when you show the
highlights you show him making layups ..... it just doesnt make sense.
yeah you probably had one too many sips. lampley would say "theres another 4 punch combo by calzaghe!" even though nothing landed and hopkins countered him perfectly. or "calzaghe is showboating!" after getting hit flush. only an idiot would showboat after getting hit with a combo but yeah calzaghe is that good i guess.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
somebody who understands me and where im coming from green k for you
they put this subliminal message in your mind that calzaghe's doing something
and he aint doing $hit , all the while bernard is picking his spots countering him.
Yeah, watching Highlights is how you score a fight.
stupid, the point is I was watching calzaghe's highlights not bernard's highlights, and in the parts where they were supposed to show calzaghe looking good he was getting countered and throwing air punches.
I knew hopkins won the fight already its just that I had doubt in my mind because joe was very active but if you look at the parts where is supposed to
be "landing" punches he isnt, and 4 times out of 5 getting he's getting countered by a hopkins right hand after he throws his slapbox punches
At the end of one of the rounds, not sure which one...haven't seen the fight in a while, Clazaghe lands a perfect left hand and possibly hurts Hopkins...Hopkins can't find his corner after that shot!! I think HBO shows that left hand shot by Calzaghe during the countdown for Pavlik Hopkins fight while Freddie Roach is talking.
To this day, i believe that both men underestimated each other...this is why a rematch is a necessity!!
it clearly shows joe cortez spinning hopkins around as the bell rings
$hit this was even said during the countdown to pavlik-hopkins
NICE JOB SMOKEY!!!!
Hopkins completely ran out of gas and ideas towards the end of the fight. He faked a low blow so he could get a 5 minute break to get his breath.
His age DID catch up to him in that fight. A blind man and his dog could see that.
im just asking you to show me ONE punch that flushly hit hopkins
the point of boxing is to LAND punches
if calzaghes style pleases the jugdes and is how to win a fight
im going to go in the streets and start fighting like calzaghe and see how far
that gets me. bet it wont get me farther than my front porch
BUT in the latter rounds, Hopkins wasn't throwing OR landing. Calzaghe was landing they might not have been hard punches but they were landing.
if a person wins the first 8 rounds and then loses the last 4 rounds
does that mean the person loses the fight.
not saying this is the exact round distibution just stop and think about it.
I'm not going to disagree with anyone that though Hopkins won, but there is no way it was robbery. Anyone who thinks it was robbery is retarded, Hopkins didn't do enough to establish himself, Calzaghe didn't land enough to establish himself. In the end Hopkins got tired and didn't throw anything. He was trying to stay in the fight, Calzaghe was trying to win the fight.
I understand what you are saying BUT isnt the point of boxing to land punches, not throw em????
and cut the bull$hit calzaghe is not as good a boxer as people give
him credit for, he is grossly overrated the ONLY thing he had going for him against bernard is workrate, thats it. he could barely land a clean punch
on bernard let alone outbox him.
Point 5 is f**king ridiculous. Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously saying garbage like that?
Also you're wrong about point 2. Whether you like it or not, people will see Calzaghe's resume in a better light now that Hopkins destroyed America's greatest white boxing hope, but Hopkins was beaten by Calzaghe.
And point 1: Pavlik is trash against elite competition who he can't bully. That would include Calzaghe.
Point 6 proves you're a biased fanboy.
You're 17 though, I see you have a lot of learning to do.
when you say im wrong about point 2 .... you obviously dont know about boxing.
have you ever boxed a day in your life to even talk to me like that ????
while i may be 17 I have boxed before and you havent....its sorta like larry merchant trying to talk boxing with roy jones.
its just an opinion
I just think that kelly will beat calzaghe if they fought, it will depend on how
pavlik comes back because if hes like lacy and starts fighting like $hit then i
would easily say calzaghe, but i just think that pavlik will still beat calzaghe
http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/272f704c-32c6-4651-9372-03b1d334b4b4.jpg
Nice pic. Bernard and his daughter Latrece.
thank god she doesnt favor bernard in the looks department
Point 5 is f**king ridiculous. Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously saying garbage like that?
Its not ridiculous its the truth if calzaghe and pavlik fight
niether will get tired or back up, it would be like a slug fest and pavlik would
win. you fail to understand that the only thing joe brings into the ring that is
so fearsome is his workrate, that wont bother kelly if he stands in there and
fights with him.....now who's stronger kelly or joe?