Hopkins vs Calzaghe II - Who Wins (poll)

[Drunk Punch]

I see exactly the same result. A close disputed SD in favor of Calzaghe.

[Gorguruga]

Hopkins fought a great fight tonight, but he had his chance against Cal and was beaten. People are acting like Hop never fought aggressively against Cal, watch the fight again guys because Hop did take the fight to him early. Then Cal adapted and beat him late. Nothing changes if they rematch.

I've watched it quite a few times now and the scoring I get is either 6 rounds each, or Hopkins 7, Calzaghe 5. Even at 6 rounds each, Hopkins wins it with the 1st round knock down. As messy as a fight it was, Hopkins did land as many effective punches as Calzaghe, if not more.

[wolfgang]

lol calzaghe fans act like he won a UD against hopkins, alot of people think bernard won anyways, so I cant see joe beating him more decisivly if people already think he lost, fighters shouldn't win on work rate alone, thats why some people thought oscar beat floyd because he was throwing a bunch of combinations but was missing most of the time, it was a very close fight, I think bernard has a very good chance of winning the rematch, but joe doesnt ever want to fight hopkins again.

[Kris Silver]

Utter delusion so many people think Hopkins won the first fight, and would now all of a sudden win another one.

People see and believe what they want to.

[IMDAZED]

lol calzaghe fans act like he won a UD against hopkins, alot of people think bernard won anyways, so I cant see joe beating him more decisivly if people already think he lost, fighters shouldn't win on work rate alone, thats why some people thought oscar beat floyd because he was throwing a bunch of combinations but was missing most of the time, it was a very close fight, I think bernard has a very good chance of winning the rematch, but joe doesnt ever want to fight hopkins again.

The first fight was really interesting. Watched it again this morning - for the 10,000 time - and it doesn't get any easier to score. The question isn't who won but why not a rematch? It certainly warranted that. If you're against a rematch, you need to ask yourself why. No true boxing fan will oppose it on the grounds of it not being exciting. ****, we knew the first wasn't going to be exciting either.

[ßringer]

The first fight was really interesting. Watched it again this morning - for the 10,000 time - and it doesn't get any easier to score. The question isn't who won but why not a rematch? It certainly warranted that. If you're against a rematch, you need to ask yourself why. No true boxing fan will oppose it on the grounds of it not being exciting. ****, we knew the first wasn't going to be exciting either.

Quoted for truth.

[Addition]

I'd probably die of boredom watching the fight again but I think Calzaghe would win.

[Pullcounter]

if hopkins throws combinations I think he could KO calzaghe.

[Gorguruga]

Utter delusion so many people think Hopkins won the first fight, and would now all of a sudden win another one.

People see and believe what they want to.

Delusion would generally be if you see something that other people don't see but as you pointed out, a whole lot of people saw it as a Hopkins victory, including 1 of the 3 official judges.

[Pugilistic™]

If Hopkins could be more agressive and come forward more i think he could beat Calzaghe.