Tweet
I posted about this in answer to one of the many "Hopkins won" threads. I think the examples you use of Floyd Mayweather and Bernard Hopkins (I don't know much about Ishe Smith) are excellent ones for discussing this point.
Basically the difference, between Mayweather's harder, cleaner shots and Hopkins's is the degree to which they are debatable. In a typical mayweather fight, Floyd is so fast and elusive, and his punching so crisp and clean that the judges can be in little doubt as to who actually won. Against De La Hoya for example, sure Oscar threw more, but it was patently clear that he was landing little as Mayweather took his punches on his gloves and arms. Meanwhile Mayweather's potshot jabs seemed to find their mark every time. Basically Mayweather is exceptionally good at that sort of fighting.
In Hopkins Calzaghe, it was simply not the same story. On reflection, and with the benefit of slow motion replays, I would agree that Hopkins landed the harder, cleaner shots. However, those slow motion replays proved to be vital, because Hopkins is no Mayweather and those harder cleaner shots, instead of being thrwon with excellent technique from medium to long range were being thrown almost exclusively when either Hopkins was on his way in to a clinch or Calzaghe was on his way out of one. The result was that for each of those harder cleaner shots, Hopkins was on the receiving end of a flurry of les effective punches, that whilst not all of them landed, some did, and which had the effect of taking the eye from what Hopkins what was doing. Basically the judges would have needed the slow motion to score that fight for Hopkins because in real time they were looking at what appeared to be scrappy fight comprised mostly of exchanges where it was not clearly visible to the naked eye who actually got the better of it, but it was clearly visible who was trying the hardest.
So your description of the Mayweather 'clinic' is an accurate one. That is exactly what Floyd does. he takes an inherently risky style of boxing and executes it so perfectly that the judges are left in no doubt as to who won. Hopkins by contrast takes that same style of boxing and executes it in such a way that it is hard for the judges to see not only who won, but also what exactly Hopkins was doing. They could see what Calzaghe was doing, and that is why he won.
Basically the difference, between Mayweather's harder, cleaner shots and Hopkins's is the degree to which they are debatable. In a typical mayweather fight, Floyd is so fast and elusive, and his punching so crisp and clean that the judges can be in little doubt as to who actually won. Against De La Hoya for example, sure Oscar threw more, but it was patently clear that he was landing little as Mayweather took his punches on his gloves and arms. Meanwhile Mayweather's potshot jabs seemed to find their mark every time. Basically Mayweather is exceptionally good at that sort of fighting.
In Hopkins Calzaghe, it was simply not the same story. On reflection, and with the benefit of slow motion replays, I would agree that Hopkins landed the harder, cleaner shots. However, those slow motion replays proved to be vital, because Hopkins is no Mayweather and those harder cleaner shots, instead of being thrwon with excellent technique from medium to long range were being thrown almost exclusively when either Hopkins was on his way in to a clinch or Calzaghe was on his way out of one. The result was that for each of those harder cleaner shots, Hopkins was on the receiving end of a flurry of les effective punches, that whilst not all of them landed, some did, and which had the effect of taking the eye from what Hopkins what was doing. Basically the judges would have needed the slow motion to score that fight for Hopkins because in real time they were looking at what appeared to be scrappy fight comprised mostly of exchanges where it was not clearly visible to the naked eye who actually got the better of it, but it was clearly visible who was trying the hardest.
So your description of the Mayweather 'clinic' is an accurate one. That is exactly what Floyd does. he takes an inherently risky style of boxing and executes it so perfectly that the judges are left in no doubt as to who won. Hopkins by contrast takes that same style of boxing and executes it in such a way that it is hard for the judges to see not only who won, but also what exactly Hopkins was doing. They could see what Calzaghe was doing, and that is why he won.
Comment