Calzaghe vs Hopkins poll

[Earl-Hickey]

This thread sure done backfired son.

[Earl-Hickey]

Joe Calzaghe gave Hopkins a good old fashioned ass whooping.

The dastardly Hopkins resorted to rolling around on the floor, faking low blows and all of his other dirty, cheating tactics but it wasnt enough.

Hopkins lost to a white boy, and Joe now owns his testicles

[Dave Rado]

you keep using hopkins got tired and faked low blows as your scoring criteria.

I did not. You should go a literacy course before you post any more.

[Lead Cenobite]

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I scored each round live while it was actually happening - and as I'm not psychic, that means it was literally impossible for me to score as if I were using a time machine because I'd have had to have a time machine in order to do so. And I scored it 114-113 to Calzaghe, which was the same score The Ring came up with, and was much closer than the score HBO came up with (they scored it 116-112 Calzaghe.)

You scored it for the guy you wanted to win.

[Lead Cenobite]

I don't go to sites like storm front.

Photo of Lead Cenobite aka bsrizpac:

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum.posts&forum=1&thread=1658348&page=9

(scroll down)

They sure gave you a rough ride on that MMA website!

hahahhaaa, you sure are a spineless weakling arent you captain s t o r m f r o n t?

[Dave Rado]

You scored it for the guy you wanted to win.

If I'd been scoring that way I'd have had a much wider margin.

Fact is the majority of boxing experts scored it narrowly to Calzaghe.

[BrotherDudeJack]

Joe Calzaghe gave Hopkins a good old fashioned ass whooping.

The dastardly Hopkins resorted to rolling around on the floor, faking low blows and all of his other dirty, cheating tactics but it wasnt enough.

Hopkins lost to a white boy, and Joe now owns his testicles

Throwing 3 million slaps and landing a handful of actual punches is hardly an ass whooping.

Who turned down the rematch?

[FloydTBE]

calzaghe by SD

[daggum]

I did not. You should go a literacy course before you post any more.

you were giving reasons as to why calzaghe won and you said calzaghe's punches were effective enough to make hopkins fake low blows to avoid a tko. seems strange to mention if you didn't think it mattered.

but ok since you suddenly have amnesia why did calzaghe win the fight if you didn't factor in the low blows and that whole situation? surely it's not based on who landed the cleaner punches in most of the rounds because that was hopkins. if you think it was calzaghe you can go rewatch it to see. these are facts.

surely it's not based on who landed more punches because that was hopkins in most of the rounds. if you think it was calzaghe you can go rewatch it to see. these are facts.

surely it wasn't based on defense. this is obvious.

surely it wasn't based on affective aggression because throwing a ton of punches and not being able to connect is the definition of ineffective aggression. moving and picking your spots to have successful attacks is what hopkins did. effective aggression.

ring generalship is pretty silly to debate but a good general wouldn't just march forward and shoot at air he would plan his attacks. remember you can't factor hopkins being tired in the later rounds into the earlier rounds.

hopkins clearly wins at least 3 if not 4 of the criteria in most of the rounds so why does calzaghe win? even if you somehow think calzaghe won effective aggression and ring generalship hopkins still won clean punching and defense which are more important. so why did calzaghe win?

[daggum]

If I'd been scoring that way I'd have had a much wider margin.

Fact is the majority of boxing experts scored it narrowly to Calzaghe.

espn, yahoo, ap, and i've even seen some british papers who scored it for hopkins. enzo calzaghe knew joe needed a knockout to win going into the final round but who are your experts?