What Is This? The Amateurs?

[Addison]

The fight was ugly like i thought it would. Bernard is a cagey fighter who is impossible to look good against.

It pretty much went the way i thought it would, close for 6 rounds then Calzaghe steps on the gas. Did Bernard even make contact after the 6th round? Seriously, the holding was all he was doing. Calzaghe never landed many power shots but he was winning the rounds after he picked up his pace. Again, the jab was the key factor.

116-111 Calzaghe, i predicted 117-111 and if it wern't for the knockdown id have been almost right. LOL!

Might want to look at it again. LOL!

[Killa Cam]

Calz should hire this guy as his trainer.

i tihnk that was joes old drinkin buddy who could never find a way in to boxing, some say he has tha more 'feared' slap in all of wales...

[Addison]

I 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.

Good 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.

[Miburo]

I 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.

abadger - well stated, and I don't think any of us in here are going to criticize your balanced evaluation. My guess is that most of us will say yes, Hopkins was landing the cleaner shots because: the slap-flurries Calzaghe was throwing could barely be called "shots", and/or a great deal were being deflected effectively (back, shoulders, blocked) or missing completely.

Personally I thought the hard shots you grant Hopkins were in addition visibly and audibly the cleaner ones.

[Addison]

Ha, 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.

Antonio disagrees with me.. How shocking.

Might want to ease off on the "one punch as opposed to 20" business.

Try and stay within literal, actual, reality with us.

[Killa Cam]

Good 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.

an like i jus said, b-hops face was an indication of how 'hard, clean an effective' all those extra "punches" were...b-hop looked tha same at tha end of tha fight as tha start

[JoeR]

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)

[tyson]

I 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.

Punching 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.

[Clegg]

Punching 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.

It's possible to control a round without landing a hard punch. If Paulie M was outlanding someone 15 clean punches to 3, then as long as those punches weren't staggering him and he didn't seem hurt I'd give him the round.

Edited to add that I'm not suggesting that JC outlanded Hopkins by 15 clean punches to 3 in any round.

[Miburo]

Punching 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.

Hagler-Leonard all over again!