Who won Hopkins vs Calzaghe?

[squealpiggy]

Talking out of your ass? Yeah, I thought so.

That's nice. Is your bum chum out enjoying his win?

[Addison]

That's nice. Is your bum chum out enjoying his win?

You got nothing for me as usual, squealpiggy..

[Addison]

Well if your not being bias i seriously question your knowledge because you can clearly score **** all.

Don't take it from me..

Addison, i respect your knowledge, mainly because i think you are one of the few people here who can actually score a fight. Whenever i see people reason for a fighter winning simply because he came forward and attempted to land, rather than actually landing, it makes me sick.

I refused to watch a stream of this fight(streams are crap), and so will not cast judgement until later on.

However i agree with you that judges and so called fans have gotten pathetically misguided in the discipline of how to score a fight. Its ****ing lazy to not judge a round properly, by that i mean, looking really hard to see which shots actually landed and which didnt, looking to see which shots are meaningful and which shots are not, and scoring for defense as well as offence. Those judge and others who cant do this and need the commentators to let them know when a fighter has been hit, and those who say, "Boxer A didnt land anoy decent punches, but he took steps forward and tried, therefore he deserves the round", make no sense.

How to score is an issue that really needs to be looked at carefully because i believe it is hurting boxing, its rooting the tactics out of fighters fight plans, there days you dont have to worry about actually LANDING a punch, simply going out there and throwing 100 punches a round with 99 of the missing are enough for a lopsided decision, even if the other guy hits you with 3 clean shots from 5 thrown punches.

And for the millionth time, punches which land on arms, elbows or gloves, are not scoring punches, clean and effective punches to the target areas are what score imo. I dont look at a fight and ***** out with some **** like

"Boxer a threw 200 punches and didnt land, Boxer B threw one punch and landed one, but im gonna give the round to boxer A, it doesnt matter if he doesnt land and it doesnt matter that he got hit clean, he tried to land therefore he deserves to win"

Just an point.

[squealpiggy]

Here is your argument:

Step 1: Hopkins won because he landed cleaner punches
Step 2: Kevin Iole, the Associated Press and BBC Wales said Hopkins won
Step 3: None of you know anything about boxing!

Not good arguments, clearly, because you haven't managed to sway a single person with it.

[bluemax]

Does Hopkins wear contact lens??? Time and time again I saw Hopkins on his hands and knees in the ring like he was lookin for something. Hopkins boxing style consisted of 3 steps. Lead in with his head, grab Calzaghe , throw a punch. Maybe Hopkins thought he was fighting an MMA match and was going for a submission. Hopkins claimed Calzaghe couldn't punch but he sure looked intimidated and fearful enough to keep grabbing him to prevent him from punching. The fight wasn't pretty thanks to Hopkins fear defense but Calzaghe easilly won the fight. Wonder if Bhop has seen the replay of Calzaghes antics when he was crawling around on the floor .

[Addison]

Here is your argument:

Step 1: Hopkins won because he landed cleaner punches
Step 2: Kevin Iole, the Associated Press and BBC Wales said Hopkins won
Step 3: None of you know anything about boxing!

Not good arguments, clearly, because you haven't managed to sway a single person with it.

You are one of the weakest posters here. What's funny about that is that you have one of the biggest attitudes.

You're a complete jackass, squealpiggy. Try reading more than two pages next time, simpelton. Take a que from Tommy.. I've been bitching about this 24/7 for the last 3 days. :wank: I've probably said alot more than that. You ****ing dumb douche..

[TommyGunn.]

I doubt your scorring, its obviously flawed if you scored Spink - Taylor to Spinks and Calzaghe - Hopkins to Hopkins. Your not looking for what you should be in a fight.

Come over to fightjudge when the fights are on if its possible, there is 7 or 8 of us over there and we talk during fights and are all first class scorers.

[abadger]

Here is your argument:

Step 1: Hopkins won because he landed cleaner punches
Step 2: Kevin Iole, the Associated Press and BBC Wales said Hopkins won
Step 3: None of you know anything about boxing!

Not good arguments, clearly, because you haven't managed to sway a single person with it.

He swayed me a bit. On first view I thought Calzaghe won, closely. On second view I thought it was close enought to be a draw or have gone either way.

I had Hopkins ahead by five point after four rounds, maybe four if you score R3 (I think, can't remember) even.

You could give rounds 7 and 10 to Hopkins too.

I'm not totally sure about all of this, because its possible as KrisSilver has pointed out that i have focussed too much on Hopkins and not enough on Calzaghe when I rewatched it.

Anyway, I think Addison's argument is a good one. I think a lot of people have seen the fight they were expecting to see, and judged it based on that.
________
BUY VAPORGENIE

[Addison]

Here is your argument:

Step 1: Hopkins won because he landed cleaner punches
Step 2: Kevin Iole, the Associated Press and BBC Wales said Hopkins won
Step 3: None of you know anything about boxing!

Not good arguments, clearly, because you haven't managed to sway a single person with it.

On top of that, just to prove what a royal douchebag squealpiggy is, there are other members here within just the microcosm of this generic argument that he has tried to make that "..you haven't been able to sway anyone.." that indicated DIRECTLY that they should watch the fight again.

SELF SELF SELF

[Addison]

He swayed me a bit. On first view I thought Calzaghe won, closely. On second view I thought it was close enought to be a draw or have gone either way.

I had Hopkins ahead by five point after four rounds, maybe four if you score R3 (I think, can't remember) even.

You could give rounds 7 and 10 to Hopkins too.

I'm not totally sure about all of this, because its possible as KrisSilver has pointed out that i have focussed too much on Hopkins and not enough on Calzaghe when I rewatched it.

Anyway, I think Addison's argument is a good one. I think a lot of people have seen the fight they were expecting to see, and judged it based on that.

And this isn't even someone I was talking about. ^