Tweet
A lot of the complaints about this decision seem to stem from the notion that Hop's punches were cleaner and more effective than Joe's.
Firstly, let's examine what is meant by clean. Some would take to be a stylistic concern, with more aesthetically attractive punches outscoring "uglier" punches. Clearly, if you don't like looping, slapping shots, Joe's a disadvantage here, despite having noticeably tightend up his punch arcs and firing out that straight left more effectivley as the fight progressed.
But should this be the meaing of clean. Probably not. An ugly punch can do just as much damage as pretty one. Joe Frazier was more sound technically, but George Foreman's telegraphed loopers certainly got the job done. Ricardo Mayorga made a good case for ungly fighting in his trouncing of Vernon Forrest. And, more relevantly, does anyone actually think Mikkel Kessler beat Joe Calzaghe?
So, lets then understand that "clean" refers to how a punch lands. In a scoring location (the head, the face, the body) without glancing off of the other fighter or his arms/gloves. Now, allowances could be made in distinguishing between the various contact points on the glove itself (presumably favoring the top or "knuckle" of the glove over the face or "fingers"), again not favoring Joe. in the amateurs, part of the glove is colored white to deem what should be labeled a scoring punch, but the pro's do away with that construct. In this case, I think volume makes up for that minor shortcoming (and Joe's punching was clearly bothering Hopkins, for one reason or another).
Now on to the effective part of clean and "effective". Clearly, Hops landed a very effective blow in the first round, depositing Calzaghe on his ass. And, rightfully, he got a 10-8 round out of it. but, considering how quickly and steadily Joe got up from that shot, it can really only, at beast, be considered a flash knockdown (with a little pushing help from the cagey vet).
But what else was particularly effective for B-Hop, moreso than anything was for Joe? At NO other point in the fight was Joe ever visibly hurt. He was never clearly wobbled, or buzzed, or forced back, and the cut that opened in the first round never got worse. And Hops punches, as "clean and effective" as they are purported to be, couldn't do much negate the pressure and aggressiveness of Joes offense, especially as the fight progressed, so Hops had to resort to clinching and faking lowblows.
This "more effective" bull**** is completely baseless and unfounded. Easy fight to score; clear win for Calzaghe.
Sounds like a lot of bitter Hopkins fans, to be honest. Hops made a good account of himself in this fight, but he just came up short. It's not the end of the world, and it's not a robbery.
Good fight.
Firstly, let's examine what is meant by clean. Some would take to be a stylistic concern, with more aesthetically attractive punches outscoring "uglier" punches. Clearly, if you don't like looping, slapping shots, Joe's a disadvantage here, despite having noticeably tightend up his punch arcs and firing out that straight left more effectivley as the fight progressed.
But should this be the meaing of clean. Probably not. An ugly punch can do just as much damage as pretty one. Joe Frazier was more sound technically, but George Foreman's telegraphed loopers certainly got the job done. Ricardo Mayorga made a good case for ungly fighting in his trouncing of Vernon Forrest. And, more relevantly, does anyone actually think Mikkel Kessler beat Joe Calzaghe?
So, lets then understand that "clean" refers to how a punch lands. In a scoring location (the head, the face, the body) without glancing off of the other fighter or his arms/gloves. Now, allowances could be made in distinguishing between the various contact points on the glove itself (presumably favoring the top or "knuckle" of the glove over the face or "fingers"), again not favoring Joe. in the amateurs, part of the glove is colored white to deem what should be labeled a scoring punch, but the pro's do away with that construct. In this case, I think volume makes up for that minor shortcoming (and Joe's punching was clearly bothering Hopkins, for one reason or another).
Now on to the effective part of clean and "effective". Clearly, Hops landed a very effective blow in the first round, depositing Calzaghe on his ass. And, rightfully, he got a 10-8 round out of it. but, considering how quickly and steadily Joe got up from that shot, it can really only, at beast, be considered a flash knockdown (with a little pushing help from the cagey vet).
But what else was particularly effective for B-Hop, moreso than anything was for Joe? At NO other point in the fight was Joe ever visibly hurt. He was never clearly wobbled, or buzzed, or forced back, and the cut that opened in the first round never got worse. And Hops punches, as "clean and effective" as they are purported to be, couldn't do much negate the pressure and aggressiveness of Joes offense, especially as the fight progressed, so Hops had to resort to clinching and faking lowblows.
This "more effective" bull**** is completely baseless and unfounded. Easy fight to score; clear win for Calzaghe.
Sounds like a lot of bitter Hopkins fans, to be honest. Hops made a good account of himself in this fight, but he just came up short. It's not the end of the world, and it's not a robbery.
Good fight.
Comment