Did Joe really beat Hopkins?

[El Chicano]

Based on how Boxing is supposed to be scored, Did Joe really win the fight? Bernard clearly landed the "Clean and Effective" punches. Even in amatuer boxing, punches only count if they land with the white part of the glove, thus forcing fighters to throw cleaner punches as opposed to slaps or backhands. Also, the force of the punch or if the punch is correctly turned over, should be taken into account. The following are the criteria which are used to score rounds under the ABC rules.

1. Clean and effective punching (first and most important criteria)

The following are used if the winner of a round cannot be deterimed after using the above criteria:

2. Effective aggressiveness (while creating opportunities to score and land punches)
3. Ring Generalship (controlling the ring, cutting off the ring)
4. Defense (self explanitory)

Watch the fight again, and score each round based on the above criteria, keeping in mind, Clean and Effective Punching.

[img]http://www.*********extra.com/cc/FIGHTS2008/04-postfight/postfight3854.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.*********extra.com/cc/FIGHTS2008/04-postfight/postfight3890.jpg[/img]

[PRboxingfan]

Hopkins won two rounds on my scorecard (the first and third). There was no other round I could find to give Bernard. He did have clean and effective punches, but he didn't have ENOUGH of them. The way you phrase your post, it's as if Joe didn't land any clean, effective punches himself. That's not true because he landed plenty of clean and effective punches.

Hopkins landed the harder punches, yes, but, again, not enough of them.

Adelaide Byrd shouldn't referee another pro fight as long as she lives.

[chessplayer163]

Based on how Boxing is supposed to be scored, Did Joe really win the fight? Bernard clearly landed the "Clean and Effective" punches. Even in amatuer boxing, punches only count if they land with the white part of the glove, thus forcing fighters to throw cleaner punches as opposed to slaps or backhands. Also, the force of the punch or if the punch is correctly turned over, should be taken into account. The following are the criteria which are used to score rounds under the ABC rules.

1. Clean and effective punching (first and most important criteria)

The following are used if the winner of a round cannot be deterimed after using the above criteria:

2. Effective aggressiveness (while creating opportunities to score and land punches)
3. Ring Generalship (controlling the ring, cutting off the ring)
4. Defense (self explanitory)

Watch the fight again, and score each round based on the above criteria, keeping in mind, Clean and Effective Punching.

[img]http://www.*********extra.com/cc/FIGHTS2008/04-postfight/postfight3854.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.*********extra.com/cc/FIGHTS2008/04-postfight/postfight3890.jpg[/img]

EXACTLY. Using these rules, BHOP won an easy to score UD.

It was an HBO con job.

[FRKO]

He did have clean and effective punches, but he didn't have ENOUGH of them.

End of story.

Hopkins did nothing except hold on for dear life.

[bluemax]

The part I can't figure is if Hopkins thru the harder punches how come it was Hopkins I saw twice crawling around on his hands and knees?? Oh!! Thats right Joe's phantom slap to the athletic supporter.

[boxingfan4life]

hopkins did land the cleaner punches but like the criteria aggressiveness plays a role. calzaghe was the aggressor in the fight and even though his punchers werent as hard as hopkins, he landed more. i scored the fight for calzaghe because he was more aggressive and landed more punches. you have to show dominance (ring generalship) to win also and thats what calzaghe did. also later in the fight he controlled the pace. so to me the only criteria hopkins did well in was landing the cleaner punches and control the pace but that was only in the first few rounds. therefore joe was clearly the winner

[chessplayer163]

Hopkins won two rounds on my scorecard (the first and third). There was no other round I could find to give Bernard. He did have clean and effective punches, but he didn't have ENOUGH of them. The way you phrase your post, it's as if Joe didn't land any clean, effective punches himself. That's not true because he landed plenty of clean and effective punches.

Hopkins landed the harder punches, yes, but, again, not enough of them.

Adelaide Byrd shouldn't referee another pro fight as long as she lives.

You seem to contradict yourself. What rounds did Joe land the clean effective punches in greater number than HOPS? I will give Joe credit for being aggressive but that does not win rounds. If you watch the fight again watch and see that Joe rarely landed any clean shots at all.

[El Chicano]

B-Hop: ". . I saw how happy he was when he was announced the winner. That’s fine, I’m cool with that. But I told you I’d bust him up while he was throwing punches like my sister."

[Dirt E Gomez]

People think its the amateur scoring system or something. I don't have a problem w/ Calzaghe winning... but he didn't win anything convincingly.

Boxings roots come from knocking opponents out. This was achieved through a massive beating and hard punches. As the sport evolved in to what it is today, modern fighters don't even try to load up on any punches in many fights and instead choose to throw shots w/ no intention of doing damage.

So the question is, I suppose, if boxing was originally intended to prove who would win in a "fight", how does doing no damage to your opponent mean you won the fight just because you touched them a few times w/ your hands?

Punch output isn't the be-all-end-all in boxing. If it were, Kassim Ouma or Sam Soliman would be 2 of the best fighters of the current era.

[fxdwng]

Joe won the fight for the judges, but didn't beat Hopkins. Based on the hoopla and trash talking, both men promised to dominate the other, but neither did. It's a win, but IMHO, if it's not a convincing / undisputed win, you should be pretty humble about it. Although I feel Calzaghe won the fight, it was close enough to where I understand some seeing it the other way. But with that said, Hopkins can't ***** because he didn't work to make it convincing for himself either.