Calzaghe, Hopkins Verbally Collide at Presser

[woodygers]

he deserved 2 lose 4 goin down like a girl 4 that phantom punch!

[PBDS]

Yes, clearly Hopkins is completely without bias in this situation... Of course Hopkins is saying it. He just lost.

I'm surprised at all these robbery claims. It was such a clear Calzaghe win to me. How do you give a guy rounds for being outlanded, outworked, blatantly buying time by faking lowblows, and intitiating a clinch every three seconds? And aside from the knockdown, B-Hop's punches weren't anymore effective than Joe's - I mean, it's not like either fighter was visibly hurt at any point. Hop's right hands made Joe cautious early on, but, as the fight progressed, Hopkins was obviously becoming increasingly bothered by Joe's adjustments, and his output was typically minimal.

Much more clear than last week's Dawson/Johnson butt****ing.

...Excellent post and I couldn't agree more. Anyone claiming Hopkins was robbed is clearly a clueless dip**** and/or a wounded girl. Joe clearly whiped his ass and out toughed the thug. Anyone claiming otherwise should lose all credibility.

[Carlisle]

Both fighters looked terrible in the fight

Both fighters looked terrible in the fight. Hopkins dropped Calzaghe with one simple right hand in the first but looked old never throwing any combinations. Calzaghe missed his first 33 jabs and never did anything special. Neither fighter was impressive.The fight was horrible.. both need to retire.

[NeXt In Line]

Man, can't we just move on?

[Neo_UK]

Wheres the vid???

[rbenjamin]

Calzaghe won easily. And everyone saying HOpkins is old, the ref was bad, the lights were 100 watt and not 60 watt, Hopkins had the wrong song in his entrance, the Star Spangled Banner was off key, Calzaghe robbed him, the judges were fixed are just not being man enough and saying the better fighter won. Hopkins beat Tarver at 41 and that was the best match of his career. Be a man and admit Hopkins simply lost

[x3_bazooka_x3]

fair enough, where im from if youre more beat up than the guy you fought, you lost, if a judge saying you won makes you feel better, more power to you. History will reflect that a 43 year old Hopkins beat a UK legends ass but lost a decision, im cool with that as well.

Your on the forum to claim a 43 year old Hopkins beat Calzaghes ass but lost a decision? please tell me your celebrating 420 right now! that can be the only logical explanation here.
Hopkins lost son let it go

[edgarg]

Both fighters looked terrible in the fight. Hopkins dropped Calzaghe with one simple right hand in the first but looked old never throwing any combinations. Calzaghe missed his first 33 jabs and never did anything special. Neither fighter was impressive.The fight was horrible.. both need to retire.

Well- I never thought it's agree with Carlisle, he's usually so rabid. But except for the "retire" part I DO agree.

Folks..... Hopkins, in his interview only mentioned his age FOUR TIMES--only four times; and NO foul language. That's a SURE sign that he's slowing down. He's moving into that "elder statesman" field.

In my opinion, this was the best Hopkins since Trinidad. In very small doses of course, but his main goal, once he realised he had no chance, was to survive-and who knows what might still happen.

His Actors Guild card is in the mail.

I'm only reinforced in my belief that Cortez is a poor ref. He could have taken points from Hopkins for hitting during the "break" a dozen times. he could have taken points for "holding and hitting". And for just holding. BUT he REALLY showed himself up by allowing Hopkins to fake that low blow, and not immediately tell him that if he didn't fight he'd be DQ'd. The analysts (and all of us) were convinced that there was NO blow, low or otherwise.

Another earlier "low blow" was indeed a low blow, but barely an open slap with an outstretched arm from calzaghe who was just passing Hopkins left side, to go behind him. And not that low. This got Hopkins about 4 minutes rest.

Calzaghe wasn't at his usual best, it was difficult for him for several reasons, although a seasoned fighter should be able to overcome almost anything. Still..... he won decisively.

There's really NO REASON for Hopkins to retire. Don't foget, the name of the game is MONEY....it's a BUSINESS, just like the one you go to every day, to make your living. Just in a different sphere. If Hopkins can go 10 or 12 rounds, which he obviously easily can, why shouldn't he continue to do it, if there are those who'll pay money to see him......He's entitled......and with promoters being what they are..... in the business of "PROMOTING"... well......WHY NOT???

I gave Hopkins the 1st and 11th rounds only.

[Scott9945]

I was saying out loud as the fight was going on that the compubox stats were complete bull****. I didn't know where there were getting those numbers from.. Clearly, what they were counting as punches were all those flails that hit air and Hopkins back.

While I thought Calzaghe was a clear winner, I also think Compubox is the biggest scam in boxing. They are compiled by humans and are not FACT. People like Lampley use them to actually judge a fight because he has no eye for boxing. However the bottom line is that the judges don't see them until after the fight so they are relatively harmless.

[Kris Silver]

you all can look at compubox numbers if you want to. the category they need to have on there is WILD< FLAILING PUNCHES THAT LAND ON ARMS AND SHOULDERS b/c punches that land on arms and shoulders go into that compubox ****........any1 who watched the same fight i did, saw 1 guy landing the "harder" shots. matter of fact, of all the hbo instant replays, only 1 had calzaghe landing a clean punch. calzaghe was more active, but hopkins shots did more damage, CLEARLY, and they weren't wild.

No ones really dis*****g compubox to any great degree, so one has to take that with some scepticism. Joe had a higher pct, and more power punches. Perhaps not quite as hard, to be expected, he's got fragile hands. Nard did do a bit more damage and won some rounds on it, made others close ok. But he never once hurt Joe really, it was too little, not often enough.

i said it before, calzaghe won, not b/c he's more skilled, not b'c he's a better puncher, and not b/c he's a better boxer (which none of is true), calzaghe won b/c he was more active. once you get to a certain age, that's something you cant change.

this fight, the judges made the mistake i thought they would, and that is mistake activity for effectiveness.

joe for me achieved nothing in the fight that he wanted to accept for getting the decision. He kept coming forward but was throwing marshmallow punches and most were missing! Hopkins countered and picked his punches well and won a close fought fight.

Im scottish/British im a big Joe fan, but for me he lost this fight.

Another thing is Enzo was worried ****less the whole fight, not just the last round, he knows deep down that Bernard could have easily got the decision and probally deserved it.

He is more skilled in many areas and there's general agreement, so your very biased. Effective? Joe took the wind and rythm out of Hopkins, whom visibly punched less and less, held, clinched, needed rests, and got hit more. That's not his fight, it's Joes. That enabled landing the most punches on Hops he's ever had, and Joe not getting hurt back. That's effective. Hence the result.