To return to the subject of the thread for a moment, and to answer some of the posters who say that Joe Calzaghe winning requires some sort of corruption of the rules of scoring fights:
Lets be real, OK. You are basically saying that Hopkins deserved the win because the punches he through were crisper, harder and 'more effective'. That's fine, they probably were. The problem is that there really weren't a whole lot of them were there? For every one of Bernard's power shots Joe Calzaghe probably landed three shots, some of which were hard and accurate, others which were a bit winging and sloppy. The point is that they are all punches, thrown by a boxer on to his opponent, and which all count in the eyes of the judges. This argument that only 'effective' punches count, relies on the notion that everything Bernard threw was 'effective' and that all of the very many more punches that Joe landed were somehow 'ineffective', that they had no value in the fight.
Well, lets look at this. To my eyes the fight consisted basically of Joe Calzaghe chasing after Bernard throwing punches, landing a few and then getting clinched. Sometimes Joe would eat a counter on either the way into the clinch or out of it. If we are talking effectiveness of these punches, what effect did they have? Joe Calzaghe's blows seemed to have the 'effect' of making Bernard very reluctant to fight or trade, and seeking to clinch at every opportunity to avoid it, whereas the counters that Joe took did absoultely nothing to discourage Joe from coming forward, forcing the pace of the fight and seeking to engage with Bernard. Based on this, I know whose punches must have looked more 'effective' to the judges.
Effectiveness is measured on what result the punches achieve, not how aesthetically pleasing they are. Boxing is a fight, not some sort of athletic display like gymnastics.
Joe Calzaghe won the fight fair and square, deservedly, on points.
Where do you get the energy to these novels. I don't think anybody added anything new to the topic to be worth writing that much.
To return to the subject of the thread for a moment, and to answer some of the posters who say that Joe Calzaghe winning requires some sort of corruption of the rules of scoring fights:
Lets be real, OK. You are basically saying that Hopkins deserved the win because the punches he through were crisper, harder and 'more effective'. That's fine, they probably were. The problem is that there really weren't a whole lot of them were there? For every one of Bernard's power shots Joe Calzaghe probably landed three shots, some of which were hard and accurate, others which were a bit winging and sloppy. The point is that they are all punches, thrown by a boxer on to his opponent, and which all count in the eyes of the judges. This argument that only 'effective' punches count, relies on the notion that everything Bernard threw was 'effective' and that all of the very many more punches that Joe landed were somehow 'ineffective', that they had no value in the fight.
Well, lets look at this. To my eyes the fight consisted basically of Joe Calzaghe chasing after Bernard throwing punches, landing a few and then getting clinched. Sometimes Joe would eat a counter on either the way into the clinch or out of it. If we are talking effectiveness of these punches, what effect did they have? Joe Calzaghe's blows seemed to have the 'effect' of making Bernard very reluctant to fight or trade, and seeking to clinch at every opportunity to avoid it, whereas the counters that Joe took did absoultely nothing to discourage Joe from coming forward, forcing the pace of the fight and seeking to engage with Bernard. Based on this, I know whose punches must have looked more 'effective' to the judges.
Effectiveness is measured on what result the punches achieve, not how aesthetically pleasing they are. Boxing is a fight, not some sort of athletic display like gymnastics.
Joe Calzaghe won the fight fair and square, deservedly, on points.
*I* am not saying any of that.
*I* am saying that punching people in the shoulders/arms/back of the head/back DOES NOT EQUAL scoring punches.
And scoring punches is NOT the primary criteria for judging a PROFESSIONAL boxing match.
Tweet
Comment