Who has a better argument that they won their respective fight?

[J_CON]

dawson johnson was much closer

[Addison]

Dawson clearly outlanded Johnson and won the fight.

Hopkins clearly outlanded Calzaghe and won the fight.

This wasn't ever going to be a fair question was it? Everything in life is a popularity contest and Hopkins is one of the least popular guys in the sport. That isn't going to allow me to rob the guy of what he and Boxing deserves. The truth.

[warp1432]

Both have a good case, but Johnson has a fantastic case. Or atleast enough for a draw. True is, without the knockdown Calzaghe-Hopkins would have been a draw on the people who scored it for Hopkins.

Johnson won that ****.

[abadger]

Dawson clearly outlanded Johnson and won the fight.

Hopkins clearly outlanded Calzaghe and won the fight.

This wasn't ever going to be a fair question was it? Everything in life is a popularity contest and Hopkins is one of the least popular guys in the sport. That isn't going to allow me to rob the guy of what he and Boxing deserves. The truth.

Hoowee! I love you Addison, but I hate you at the same time. I saw you'd posted on this thread and I just knew by the time I read through everybody else's posts and got to yours I'd better prepare myself for a different perspective and that's what I got, and actually I half agree with it.

I think these two fights are a perfect illustration of what does and does not win a fight. Starting with Johnson-Dawson, blatantly in that fight Chad Dawson landed the fabled "harder, cleaner shots". Johnson followed him around the ring all night but it was transparently obvious that Johnson knew he couldn't legitimately try and box with Chad, so he set himself up to follow Chad around the ring all night long, head down and throwing punches like pistons, without checking or caring where they landed, in the hope of making a superficially good impression on the judges and crowd. His plan worked, as we saw from the booing of the crowd, but rightfully the judges weren't fooled, because no way did Glen Johnson win that fight, if anything Chad Dawson threw more back at him, and it wasn't even very close, so for once we agree.

I bet right now you're wondering how on earth I'm going to turn round and tell you that Joe Calzaghe won his fight, since I just agreed with you on the cleaner, harder shots malarkey. Well like its like this. In the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight, calzaghe takes the Johnson role of forcing the fight, and Hopkins takes the Dawson role of responding to the pressure, so up to a point it is the same. The difference, and its a crucial difference, is that where Chad Dawson had every answer in the book to Glen Johnson's pressure, Bernard Hopkins had none at all. For every shot Glen Johnson threw, Chad Dawson threw a crisper, harder one back. For every shot Calzaghe threw, Bernard Hopkins did what exactly? Clinch? I'd say in fact that Bernard Hopkins threw and landed probably one 'cleaner harder shot' for around every five scruffier shots landed by Joe Calzaghe. Would Chad Dawson have legitimately won his fight had he fought like Hopkins that night? Absolutely no way, and no-one would think he deserved to, so how on earth does Hopkins win against Joe? The simple answer is he doesn't.

I've posted on this tons of times before, but the most concise summary I can give is this. There comes a point in any boxing match when no matter how accurately or cleanly a fighter may be punching, if he is not punching above a certain volume then he cannot really be said to be fighting with his opponent at all, just frustrating him. That point is the point that Bernard Hopkins reached against Joe Calzaghe. Whatever good things Hopkins did in that fight, he did not do enough of them, and there is no the way the crowd, the judges, or anybody else could legitimately give him the win.

The Truth.

[Addison]

Hoowee! I love you Addison, but I hate you at the same time. I saw you'd posted on this thread and I just knew by the time I read through everybody else's posts and got to yours I'd better prepare myself for a different perspective and that's what I got, and actually I half agree with it.

I think these two fights are a perfect illustration of what does and does not win a fight. Starting with Johnson-Dawson, blatantly in that fight Chad Dawson landed the fabled "harder, cleaner shots". Johnson followed him around the ring all night but it was transparently obvious that Johnson knew he couldn't legitimately try and box with Chad, so he set himself up to follow Chad around the ring all night long, head down and throwing punches like pistons, without checking or caring where they landed, in the hope of making a superficially good impression on the judges and crowd. His plan worked, as we saw from the booing of the crowd, but rightfully the judges weren't fooled, because no way did Glen Johnson win that fight, if anything Chad Dawson thre more back at him, and it wasn't even very close, so for once we agree.

I bet right now you're wondering how on earth I'm going to turn round and tell you that Joe Calzaghe won his fight, since I just agreed with you on the cleaner, harder shots malarkey. Well like its like this. In the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight, calzaghe takes the Johnson role of forcing the fight, and Hopkins takes the Dawson role of responding to the pressure, so up to a point it is the same. The difference, and its a crucial difference, is that where Chad Dawson had every answer in the book to Glen Johnson's pressure, Bernard Hopkins had none at all. For every shot Glen Johnson threw, Chad Dawson threw a crisper, harder one back. For every shot Calzaghe threw, Bernard Hopkins did what exactly? Clinch? I'd say in fact that Bernard Hopkins threw and landed probably one 'cleaner harder shot' for around every five scruffier shots unleashed by Joe Calzaghe. Would Chad Dawson have legitimately won his fight had he fought like Hopkins that night? Absolutely no way, and no-one would think he deserved to, so how on earth does Hopkins win against Joe? The simple answer is he doesn't.

I've posted on this tons of times before, but the most concise summary I can give is this. There comes a point in any boxing match when no matter how accurately or cleanly a fighter may be punching, if he is not punching above a certain volume then he cannot really be said to be fighting with his opponent at all, just frustrating him. That point is the point that Bernard Hopkins reached against Joe Calzaghe. Whatever good things Hopkins did in that fight, he did not do enough of them, and there is no the way the crowd, the judges, or anybody else could legitimately give him the win.

The Truth.

Good post, but the reason Calzaghe didn't win in the eyes of many fans and the majority of the media is because he simply wasn't connecting. There have been Zapruder like investigations into the punches landed by Calzaghe and these investigations have bore next to nothing in the way of results..

With all the technology and 20/20 hindsight in the world there is still very, very little to work with. It's sad. I've got a bit of a Hawk-eye and I found more than I've seen other places - but it still wasn't quite enough.

Regardless, I did give Calzaghe the benefit of the doubt more often than not, and scored multiple even rounds based on his activity even though Hopkins did the clear and concise scoring. The correct numbers for the fight should have been 116-114 Hopkins, if I may say so with all humility and fairness.

But I see what you're saying here and I agree with it. Perception is everything - and then some. They say that Willie Pep once won a round without having thrown a punch. Willie Pep was a very popular star..

[daggum]

in summary throwing punches and missing while coming forward=win
CALZAGHE GREATEST OF ALL TIME

[Addison]

in summary throwing punches and missing while coming forward=win
CALZAGHE GREATEST OF ALL TIME

LOL

[abadger]

Good post, but the reason Calzaghe didn't win in the eyes of many fans and the majority of the media is because he simply wasn't connecting. There have been Zapruder like investigations into the punches landed by Calzaghe and these investigations have bore next to nothing in the way of results..

With all the technology and 20/20 hindsight in the world there is still very, very little to work with. It's sad. I've got a bit of a Hawk-eye and I found more than I've seen other places - but it still wasn't quite enough.

Regardless, I did give Calzaghe the benefit of the doubt more often than not, and scored multiple even rounds based on his activity even though Hopkins did the clear and concise scoring. The correct numbers for the fight should have been 116-114 Hopkins, if I may say so with all humility and fairness.

But I see what you're saying here and I agree with it. Perception is everything - and then some. They say that Willie Pep once won a round without having thrown a punch. Willie Pep was a very popular star..

You are, I admit, very funny. I think you are mad, but funny nonetheless.

[daggum]

Joe Calzaghe The Undefeated Star fights for the first time in the United States! He is looking to become a 2 division champ! He throws a million punches! He is HBO'S new star! Tune in! oh by the way he's fighting some boring guy named hopkins





i wonder why calzaghe was given the decision.

[letsgobrady]

some of these people act like bernard landed every punch he threw. i remember in the later rounds that calzaghe had bernard lookin like calzaghe, he had his head down and was throwing funny lookin punches he wasn't even lookin at joe and he claims that he made joe look like an amateur