Originally posted by TommyGunn.
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What Is This? The Amateurs?
Collapse
-
Originally posted by abadger View PostI like this thread! It's like everyone else is talking about OK, Joe didn't look brilliant but he did enough to win, and over here are you guys in your own parallel universe where Hopkins won the fight and the whole sport of boxing is in shame because of the injustice.
Actually, I know I sound sarcastic, but really I respect your opinion. I thought the fight was much, much closer than it is being made out to be, and I think calzaghe was lucky the judges did choose to reward his workrate. However, although Hopkins did land the harder shots, are you really sure he landed the cleaner ones? In total, who would you say actually landed more clean shots, hard or not. For me that was Calzaghe, and I don't see how judges can be expected to legislate for the power they perceive a shot to have. It's completely subjective and impossible for them to know. It would also unfairly punish the weaker fighter if they scored like this.
As Tyson already knows, I was much more impressed with Bernard than I was with Joe in terms of what they achieved in the fight, what they did relative to what we thought they could do, but I still think Joe deserved the close victory.
Comment
-
Originally posted by abadger View PostI like this thread! It's like everyone else is talking about OK, Joe didn't look brilliant but he did enough to win, and over here are you guys in your own parallel universe where Hopkins won the fight and the whole sport of boxing is in shame because of the injustice.
Actually, I know I sound sarcastic, but really I respect your opinion. I thought the fight was much, much closer than it is being made out to be, and I think calzaghe was lucky the judges did choose to reward his workrate. However, although Hopkins did land the harder shots, are you really sure he landed the cleaner ones? In total, who would you say actually landed more clean shots, hard or not. For me that was Calzaghe, and I don't see how judges can be expected to legislate for the power they perceive a shot to have. It's completely subjective and impossible for them to know. It would also unfairly punish the weaker fighter if they scored like this.
As Tyson already knows, I was much more impressed with Bernard than I was with Joe in terms of what they achieved in the fight, what they did relative to what we thought they could do, but I still think Joe deserved the close victory.
Personally I thought the hard shots you grant Hopkins were in addition visibly and audibly the cleaner ones.
Comment
-
Originally posted by -Antonio- View PostHa, Calzaghe looks amateurish at times. In fact amateur probably isnt the right way to put it. He looks ******ed.
But it lands. You still have to score ugly punches. Not only that, but his jab was landing plenty, and he adjusted to the right hands later in the fight, while landing straight lefts of his own. You dont score a round for a guy who lands one big flush punch as opposed to 20. No way I can see Hopkins winning that fight.
Might want to ease off on the "one punch as opposed to 20" business.
Try and stay within literal, actual, reality with us.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Addison View PostGood post, there is a way to know. After we all download the fight and watch it again in slo-motion (VLC player is great for slo-mo) this will all be very clear. I'll maintain that Hopkins was landing the cleaner, harder, more effective shots. I trust your viewing will confirm it.
Comment
-
I scored the fight 114-113 Calzaghe. 7 rounds to 5. I wanted Joe to win, but I found myself rooting for Hopkins in the later rounds. That was a very ugly performance for Calzaghe. I just kept thinking, how is this guy undefeated?
I felt it was Hopkins fight to win, and he blew it by being to inactive and going backwards. Nevertheless; Calzaghe is good, not trying to take too much away from him. But the fight left a bad taste in my mouth (please refrain from jokes hehe)
Comment
-
Originally posted by abadger View PostI like this thread! It's like everyone else is talking about OK, Joe didn't look brilliant but he did enough to win, and over here are you guys in your own parallel universe where Hopkins won the fight and the whole sport of boxing is in shame because of the injustice.
Actually, I know I sound sarcastic, but really I respect your opinion. I thought the fight was much, much closer than it is being made out to be, and I think calzaghe was lucky the judges did choose to reward his workrate. However, although Hopkins did land the harder shots, are you really sure he landed the cleaner ones? In total, who would you say actually landed more clean shots, hard or not. For me that was Calzaghe, and I don't see how judges can be expected to legislate for the power they perceive a shot to have. It's completely subjective and impossible for them to know. It would also unfairly punish the weaker fighter if they scored like this.
As Tyson already knows, I was much more impressed with Bernard than I was with Joe in terms of what they achieved in the fight, what they did relative to what we thought they could do, but I still think Joe deserved the close victory.
And following the rules, they are the more telling punches.
"Effective punching".
It means the punches have an effect. No hokus pokus there.
It is also easy to see which punch is the harder one at ringside.
On tv it can be difficult, but ringside, you see the effect of the punch and you hear the sound of it.
Mosley-DLH 2 was a perfect proof of this. Most who saw it on TV felt DLH won.
8 of 10 that saw it ringside felt Mosley won.
By putting your logic in this post on the edge, we can say that Floyd Mayweather would be deserving of a victory against Pavlik if he landed more punches, even though he got slapped around the ring.
Power is a huge part of boxing and it should always prevail over flashy flurries with absolutely no effect.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tyson View PostPunching power should always be favored over weak punches.
And following the rules, they are the more telling punches.
"Effective punching".
It means the punches have an effect. No hokus pokus there.
It is also easy to see which punch is the harder one at ringside.
On tv it can be difficult, but ringside, you see the effect of the punch and you hear the sound of it.
Mosley-DLH 2 was a perfect proof of this. Most who saw it on TV felt DLH won.
8 of 10 that saw it ringside felt Mosley won.
By putting your logic in this post on the edge, we can say that Floyd Mayweather would be deserving of a victory against Pavlik if he landed more punches, even though he got slapped around the ring.
Power is a huge part of boxing and it should always prevail over flashy flurries with absolutely no effect.
Edited to add that I'm not suggesting that JC outlanded Hopkins by 15 clean punches to 3 in any round.Last edited by Clegg; 04-20-2008, 02:48 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tyson View PostPunching power should always be favored over weak punches.
And following the rules, they are the more telling punches.
"Effective punching".
It means the punches have an effect. No hokus pokus there.
It is also easy to see which punch is the harder one at ringside.
On tv it can be difficult, but ringside, you see the effect of the punch and you hear the sound of it.
Mosley-DLH 2 was a perfect proof of this. Most who saw it on TV felt DLH won.
8 of 10 that saw it ringside felt Mosley won.
By putting your logic in this post on the edge, we can say that Floyd Mayweather would be deserving of a victory against Pavlik if he landed more punches, even though he got slapped around the ring.
Power is a huge part of boxing and it should always prevail over flashy flurries with absolutely no effect.
Comment
Comment