I'm sorry, but Calzaghe defeated Hopkins comfortably

[RichCCFC]

Calzaghe did'nt deserve to win the fight anymore than Hopkins did, u like to agree with me when i mention the fact that Hopkins did'nt deserve to win the fight based on the fact he tried to steal it but u dont seem to respond when in the past ive have said neither did Joe deserve to win either because he did not land anything

u should listen to what Lederman says at the begining of the HBO broadcasts judges will score on clean punching ,effective aggresiveness ,ring generalship ,Joe Calzaghe was a about as effective as the aggressor as Ricky Hatton was against Mayeather

his own father thought he was losing the fight ,Duke McKenzie ,Mike Tyson thought he lost the fight & Duke is Calzaghe nuthugger

no way Calzaghe deserved to win that fight ,Hopkins did'nt either but he only did'nt deserve to win because he tried to steal it ,but he was far more effective as the ring general than Calzaghe was the aggressor

You are a bitter English ****.

No more needs to be said.

[QUISQUEYA]

he won it easily in my book as well

He got knocked down by a 43 year old man. And rocked on two other occasions.

Hopkins is forty three. Please put Joe's victory in perspective.

[RichCCFC]

He got knocked down by a 43 year old man. And rocked on two other occasions.

Hopkins is forty three. Please put Joe's victory in perspective.

Then put Gayweathers win into perspective.

Fighting an old ODLH who was inactive for 2 years and coming off a KO loss.

Gayweather was rocked in that fight and only the ropes saved him.

[BKM-]

I was not impressed by Calzaghe. It was in fact one of his worst performances, all because of Bernard Hopkins. An old Hopkins at that.

I did think Hopkins won the fight, but i don't have anything against people that thought Calzaghe won. It was a close fight overall, because you have DIFFIRENT TYPES OF WAYS TO SCORE THIS BOUT. Those are the cases where people will disagree with each other because of how they score matches. There was no way Calzaghe won it comfortably and by a wide margin. For one, he was knocked down cleanly(no "I slipped, lol" nonsense). Secondly, he was hit by the most meaningful punches of the night(I'd say there were only 2 of those punches for Calzaghe in the fight. One that hit Hopkins cleanly and caught his attention) and lastly, Hopkins showed the greater boxing skills. What Calzaghe did was be more active, and as the fight progressed he made the fight go his pace. I think what also makes a lot of people give the benefit of the doubt to Calzaghe is because Hopkins made a lot of people hate him going into the fight, they think he fought very dirty, and of cource his low blow antics. This is not ethical because you're not looking purely at Boxing.

It's been a while since i've seen the fight so forgive me if my recollection of the fight is not as sharp as before, but I still stand by my original opinions.

And btw, comparing Calzaghe to fighters in their PRIME like Jones, Toney, Hopkins etc. is difficult. What I do think is a younger Bernard Hopkins would easily beat Calzaghe. He's 43, he did not have enough steam like he always did, he lost some speed and accuracy etc. I think with Toney it's debatable. The guy has some myteries about himself, or maybe they're just excuses(Like "Toney was the best if he tried").

[kayjay]

You can say you think prime Nard wins, because it's a hypothetical. What you can't honestly say is Nard had a better career than Joe. I think it's pretty wide in Joe's favor. More defenses, fought better guys his own size, and undefeated. Hopkins lost five fights and all his big wins except one were against smaller guys.

The only thing in Nard's favor is he's American, black, and fought longer on HBO.

[unity768]

You can say you think prime Nard wins, because it's a hypothetical. What you can't honestly say is Nard had a better career than Joe. I think it's pretty wide in Joe's favor. More defenses, fought better guys his own size, and undefeated. Hopkins lost five fights and all his big wins except one were against smaller guys.

The only thing in Nard's favor is he's American, black, and fought longer on HBO.

im so ****in sick of everyone saying hopkins fought smaller guys so his resume sucks...let me ask u a question, would you take the victories Marvin Hagler has away from Roberto Duran and Tommy Hearns? guys who were smaller than him? and guess what, Hagler couldnt even put Duran away, he had to go the full twelve. At least BHOP put his so called "crappy smaller" opponents away before the cards were read, jesus people need to watch what they say. O yeah Hopkins, at 41 yrs old went up TWO weight classes and dominated Antonio Tarver, who was seen as the best light heavyweight at that time, and please please do not pull the weight loss excuse.

[abadger]

I was not impressed by Calzaghe. It was in fact one of his worst performances, all because of Bernard Hopkins. An old Hopkins at that.

I did think Hopkins won the fight, but i don't have anything against people that thought Calzaghe won. It was a close fight overall, because you have DIFFIRENT TYPES OF WAYS TO SCORE THIS BOUT. Those are the cases where people will disagree with each other because of how they score matches. There was no way Calzaghe won it comfortably and by a wide margin. For one, he was knocked down cleanly(no "I slipped, lol" nonsense). Secondly, he was hit by the most meaningful punches of the night(I'd say there were only 2 of those punches for Calzaghe in the fight. One that hit Hopkins cleanly and caught his attention) and lastly, Hopkins showed the greater boxing skills. What Calzaghe did was be more active, and as the fight progressed he made the fight go his pace. I think what also makes a lot of people give the benefit of the doubt to Calzaghe is because Hopkins made a lot of people hate him going into the fight, they think he fought very dirty, and of cource his low blow antics. This is not ethical because you're not looking purely at Boxing.

It's been a while since i've seen the fight so forgive me if my recollection of the fight is not as sharp as before, but I still stand by my original opinions.

And btw, comparing Calzaghe to fighters in their PRIME like Jones, Toney, Hopkins etc. is difficult. What I do think is a younger Bernard Hopkins would easily beat Calzaghe. He's 43, he did not have enough steam like he always did, he lost some speed and accuracy etc. I think with Toney it's debatable. The guy has some myteries about himself, or maybe they're just excuses(Like "Toney was the best if he tried").

I see where you're coming from, but genuinely I think that scoring the fight for Hopkins is a result of wishful thinking and not wanting to see a favourite beat. To do so you have to ignore the fact that Calzaghe was literally swarming into Bernard all night, throwing and landing a massively larger amount of punches, even if they didn't always look good. Joe was itching to get it on with Hopkins and was never even close to being hurt, tired or troubled, if you watch it again you can see just how comfortable he was, and how frustrated he was at constantly being clinched. I honestly recommend a rewatch to you, because though I thought it was close at first, I now don't see how it could be scored for Hopkins in a month of sundays. Joe had too much for him, nobody ever pressurised Bernard like that before and he couldn't live with it.

I don't agree that prime Hopkins beats Joe, he wasn't as strong or as tactically astute, and I'm sure Joe would welcome the opportunity to fight a more aggressive Bernard. More posts than this have summed all this up better than I have here though.

Good call on Toney though, he is indeed a very hard boxer to work out. That "he could be the best if he tried" thing is absolutely spot on, that is how he seems to be perceived.

[kayjay]

im so ****in sick of everyone saying hopkins fought smaller guys so his resume sucks...let me ask u a question, would you take the victories Marvin Hagler has away from Roberto Duran and Tommy Hearns? guys who were smaller than him? and guess what, Hagler couldnt even put Duran away, he had to go the full twelve. At least BHOP put his so called "crappy smaller" opponents away before the cards were read, jesus people need to watch what they say. O yeah Hopkins, at 41 yrs old went up TWO weight classes and dominated Antonio Tarver, who was seen as the best light heavyweight at that time, and please please do not pull the weight loss excuse.

I said "except one," and you proceed to name one exception. Keep up the good work, son.

[abadger]

im so ****in sick of everyone saying hopkins fought smaller guys so his resume sucks...let me ask u a question, would you take the victories Marvin Hagler has away from Roberto Duran and Tommy Hearns? guys who were smaller than him? and guess what, Hagler couldnt even put Duran away, he had to go the full twelve. At least BHOP put his so called "crappy smaller" opponents away before the cards were read, jesus people need to watch what they say. O yeah Hopkins, at 41 yrs old went up TWO weight classes and dominated Antonio Tarver, who was seen as the best light heavyweight at that time, and please please do not pull the weight loss excuse.

It doesn't mean he sucks, but in a large number of his wins Bernard has been able to rely on superior physical size as a crucial factor. Against De La Hoya for example, Hopkins size was the single most important factor in the victory.

I think it speaks volumes that we saw a huge Hopkins against Calzaghe, bigger than he's ever been before. I think it indicates a fighter for whom superior size is a favoured tactic. Most of the good things Bernard did in that fight were based on him having superior size and strength.

[Dynamite Kid]

You are a bitter English ****.

No more needs to be said.

u mean my post is accurate ,thanks

u are a bitter Welsh **** u been hating on David Haye since he whipped Enzo