So I just did my own punchstats for BH vs. JC and...

[Guest]

Couldn't find the article but here is the requirements for the NEVADA Athletic Commission. They need to pass a test and internship.

467.062 - Requirements for license as referee, judge or timekeeper; expiration and renewal of license; system to grade skills of ring officials.

1. To qualify for a license as a referee, judge or timekeeper of boxing contests, an applicant must:
1. Be at least 21 years of age;
2. Not have been convicted of a felony or other crime involving turpitude;
3. Submit verifications from three persons of his proficiency as a referee, judge or timekeeper, whichever is appropriate; and
4. Except as otherwise provided in this section, successfully pass the commission's examination on chapter 467 of NRS and this chapter and successfully complete an internship as established by the commission.
2. In lieu of the examination and internship, the commission may accept satisfactory evidence of equivalent qualifications possessed by an applicant who:
1. Is currently licensed in another state or country; or
2. Formerly held a Nevada license which lapsed in good standing.
3. A person holding a current Nevada license or who formerly held a Nevada license which lapsed in good standing may be licensed by the commission without examination or internship to perform an officiating function other than that for which he is or was licensed if the commission determines that he is qualified to perform that function.
4. The commission will determine when additional ring officials are needed and when licensing examination for ring officials will be conducted.
5. Each license issued pursuant to this section is valid until December 31 of each year. An application for renewal must be submitted to the commission by December 1 of each year accompanied by the appropriate renewal fee. The renewal of a license is not automatic. The commission will consider the applicant's past performance and abilities in evaluating his application for renewal.
6. The commission will establish and carry out a system to grade the skills of its ring officials. The commission will notify its licensees of this system upon it establishment. The commission and its staff will consider those grades in its selection of a ring official to participate in an event and in its decision regarding whether to renew the license of such an official.
7. The renewal fee:
1. For a judge is $50.
2. For a timekeeper is $50.
3. For a referee is $75.

Don't know what the internship means or the test you have to pass.
I'd have to see it to understand if it was any doing to pass it and get licensed.

The rest of the stuff seems like paperwork

[Addison]

I sat down with a JC fan who THOUGHT JC won. So I just went over the fight in slo mo because I didn't want to get into he said she said and dispute all kinds of stuff.

When we went thru the whole fight. He completely changed his mind about the punch stats. If you truly watch the fight in slow motion it really is a no brainer.
This dude thought JC outworked BHOP.

What is really incredible about the fight was how many times JC missed. It is really amazing.

Amazing considering the controversy, I agree. But not amazing in general of course. Hopkins is, and always has been, one of the hardest guys to hit or hit cleanly in this sport. The actual numbers are a complete landslide in favor of Bernard Hopkins. It is beyond a joke.

Funny enough, I had an experience identical to this with a group of people. ^

[Jim Jeffries]

send ur results in to the governing bodies i demand a change in result

You're making demands now? Who are you again?

[MikeBrew328]

Of course. People shouldn't believe a statistical system that says De La Hoya landed over 120 punches on Mayweather and that Mayweather landed 220 on De La Hoya. Or that Gatti landed 41 punches on Mayweather. More like 4.

People using Compubox as evidence that Calzaghe won is as bad as Hopkins claiming his unmarked ugly face means he won.

I agree. Compubox needs to go. I'd rather have the olympic system lol, at least it would show punches that actually landing instead of guessing.

Hopkins won that fight though. Clean effective punching.

[Kris Silver]

using the scoring criteria under the rules of boxing hopkins didn't lose. if you score a fight under your own rules like clinching, leading with your head, crying about low blows then yeah hopkins lost but those arent viable scoring criteria when judging boxing.

Dude, ring generalship, aggression, going in to fight, chasing the fight, never backing off. These are all but some of the factors Joe may have gotten marked on, and citations often given for wins for other fights, yet strangely not here.

Hopkins clinching 160 times was visibly a sign of Calzaghe outworking, confusing, and tiring him to the point he was less and less active and effective, whilst Calzaghe grew in these area's. That's a large factor, winning a fight by gradually being more and more effective.

I did the same thing, except I watched it in extra super-duper slow-mo. Compubox actually missed 436 clean punches landed by Calzaghe. That's how fast his hands are.

This may be a big ask for you to even consider, perhaps it is too high, but I and many certainly believe Joe if anything landed more, especially on watching it back. Putting everyone's perspective aside, it is far more likely some of his punches were missed in the flurries, than Hopkins occasional 1 punch.

You asked for others to post they're scores and here you have it. Thing is no one really considers it or comments. Further evidence of bias, arrogance in ones own view, and dismissing of others views, often because it doesn't aid fuelling a belief of a wrongful loss.

Hopkins should have had at least 2 points deducted for record levels of clinching, 160 over the fight. Hatton was pulled out and penalised for much less, so it's simply unjustified to say the Hopkins didn't deserve at least one point deducted. Furthermore it was a rough fight, but by far he did the most and worst, butting, holding arms, faking injury to take a break, fighting after the bell, it goes on.

Some people will go to any extent to fuel they're biased belief they're guy didn't lose. It's a little sad tbh. Guys, the majority of commentators, judges, and public even, fans included, believe Hopkins lost. So get off your high horse claiming you know best, and all these judges and people are factually wrong.

Seriously, if you have a view, an interpretation, that doesn't mean the majority agree, should agree, or your right. That is called arrogance, and being dismissive of anything that doesn't suite your view. Face it, your in a minority with little to really convinced people of any wrong decision with such one side ranting is only making yourselves look bad. The odd person saying I think it was close, may Hop by 1 round, ok, but to say it was clear Joe wasn't landing anywhere near as much, and it was clear Hops won, that judgement is hugely more difficult to give any merit as to an unbiased judgement, because it's so indifferent to most out there, professional and not.

[xzworks]

mine..

2,000 hopkins 10 calzaghe









































clinch

[abadger]

Dude, ring generalship, aggression, going in to fight, chasing the fight, never backing off. These are all but some of the factors Joe may have gotten marked on, and citations often given for wins for other fights, yet strangely not here.

Hopkins clinching 160 times was visibly a sign of Calzaghe outworking, confusing, and tiring him to the point he was less and less active and effective, whilst Calzaghe grew in these area's. That's a large factor, winning a fight by gradually being more and more effective.



This may be a big ask for you to even consider, perhaps it is too high, but I and many certainly believe Joe if anything landed more, especially on watching it back. Putting everyone's perspective aside, it is far more likely some of his punches were missed in the flurries, than Hopkins occasional 1 punch.

You asked for others to post they're scores and here you have it. Thing is no one really considers it or comments. Further evidence of bias, arrogance in ones own view, and dismissing of others views, often because it doesn't aid fuelling a belief of a wrongful loss.

Hopkins should have had at least 2 points deducted for record levels of clinching, 160 over the fight. Hatton was pulled out and penalised for much less, so it's simply unjustified to say the Hopkins didn't deserve at least one point deducted. Furthermore it was a rough fight, but by far he did the most and worst, butting, holding arms, faking injury to take a break, fighting after the bell, it goes on.

Some people will go to any extent to fuel they're biased belief they're guy didn't lose. It's a little sad tbh. Guys, the majority of commentators, judges, and public even, fans included, believe Hopkins lost. So get off your high horse claiming you know best, and all these judges and people are factually wrong.

Seriously, if you have a view, an interpretation, that doesn't mean the majority agree, should agree, or your right. That is called arrogance, and being dismissive of anything that doesn't suite your view. Face it, your in a minority with little to really convinced people of any wrong decision with such one side ranting is only making yourselves look bad. The odd person saying I think it was close, may Hop by 1 round, ok, but to say it was clear Joe wasn't landing anywhere near as much, and it was clear Hops won, that judgement is hugely more difficult to give any merit as to an unbiased judgement, because it's so indifferent to most out there, professional and not.

KrisSilver, your posts are rapidly making my presence on these boards redundant. You explain clearly and concisely the inherent flaws in the two views that 1) Calzaghe lost to Hopkins and 2) Calzaghe is no good, no opposition etc etc.

I on the other hand am rapidly losing the will to type when faced with repeated threads that continue to describe Calzaghe as an average fighter, with a complete refusal to look at even the most rudimentary facts about his career.

Today someone said that my statement that "Joe Calzaghe remains undefeated, unlike James Toney." Was laughable, despite being a clear statement of fact. The same poster then informed me that James Toney is a "legend" and "you can't overestimate a legend".

Attempting to engage in rational argument with posters like these is wearying in the extreme, and I applaud you for continually being able to do so.

Would green K you, but it seems I've given you too much.
________
Vx54 Platform

[CardioMonster]

most people who thought Hopkins won probably aren`t old enough to shave, much less objectively score a boxing match.

If Hopkins thought he had won the fight, he would have filed a complaint, like he did in the Taylor fight.

Whether or not Compubox is accurate is a moot point. Hopkins did not deserve to win in any way, shape or form. He showed no desire to fight, clinched more than i`ve ever seen anyone clinch in 20 years of watching boxing, and then had the audacity to take breaks in the middle of the fight by claiming low blows.

He manipulates the rules to try and gain an advantage.

The fact remains that everything was set up in his favour, the location, the judges, the referee and he still lost by 4 or 5 rounds.

Time to move on kids.

[sparked_85]

most people who thought Hopkins won probably aren`t old enough to shave, much less objectively score a boxing match.

If Hopkins thought he had won the fight, he would have filed a complaint, like he did in the Taylor fight.

Whether or not Compubox is accurate is a moot point. Hopkins did not deserve to win in any way, shape or form. He showed no desire to fight, clinched more than i`ve ever seen anyone clinch in 20 years of watching boxing, and then had the audacity to take breaks in the middle of the fight by claiming low blows.

He manipulates the rules to try and gain an advantage.

The fact remains that everything was set up in his favour, the location, the judges, the referee and he still lost by 4 or 5 rounds.

Time to move on kids.

I agree on 2nd viewing that fight was not razor close. Calzaghe won cleanly, definitively and was the better man.

[Kris Silver]

Cheers abadger, the view is obviously shared by many, even most, and someone's going to get they're sooner or later. Please keep posting, I feel your posts are often more concise than mine, so clearly it's just styles!

Cardio, ROFL. There's always a tendency to take someone more seriously, when they diss the opposing argument, but well worded and has a point, not just mindless bashing. This speaks numbers if you think about it, there's clearly anger from many whom think Hops was robbed, same old story.

Missed some of BBC2's repeat of the fight, but have seen most of the rounds more than once now. Hopefully the BBC2 showing will end up in good quality online soon for yet another watch.