Bernard Hopkins; The Executioner??

[Carlsson]

Thanks haglerwins for posting that link. I don't make stuff up.



Look, I'm sure you probably haven't observed the fight nearly much as myself but what I can assure you is that the compubox numbers were a complete joke. Your welcome to pick a round and compare your numbers with theirs just to see.

Hopkins also staggered Calzaghe with that punch in the gif since it sent him back off balance but it would be a fair point to suggest that the headbutt assisted in the damage.

I would not call Calzaghe's aggression effective since he hardly landed anything despite throwing over 700 punches (according to compubox so take it with it a grain of salt but I'll say that's easier to count total numbers of punches vs what actually lands). What he did land most consisted of arm punches with nothing behind them.

As far as ring generalship, I'd probably give the edge to Calzaghe. Keep in mind that just because someone is "running" doesn't mean they aren't controlling things and in certain rounds Hopkins was in control since he was making Calzaghe fight his fight and frustrating him in the process.

In the end, though, the objective is to hit and not get hit and that's precisely what Hopkins did while landing the clean, effective punches.

Pointing to a fighter being "boring" by clinching, etc. as a means to not score the fight for a person is a poor excuse IMO. It's just like the Froch-Dirrell fight. No one can actually give a legit argument for Froch outboxing him so they resort to petty things like saying he ran, etc.

some good arguments there... and im sure you`ve watched the fight more times than i.

Seen it three times, but not in the last 6 months. will rewatch again.

However, i do seem to renember calzaghe landing clean shots on Hopkins as well. And also more than Bernard. I would still say calzaghe was the effective aggressor(may change my mind after the rewatch, but dont think so)

I am aware that "running" may not necesarilly mean a fighter arent controlling things(a good example being mayweather) but in this case(like you) i would say that Joe controlled the fight from the middle enough to win the ring generalship category..


Im not saying im scoring the fight for calzaghe beacause Hopkins fought boring, read my post again. I said i considered it a close fight that could have gone either way.. depending on how you score it(i didnt say that, but thats what i meant). im just saying i was fine with Joe winning on the judges scorecards, since he was the making the fight worth watching... i mean, is`nt one of your primary reasons for watching boxing entertainment?

[Carlsson]

clinging to compu box is ******ed. Clinging to ineffective aggression is ******ed.

Hi Joe fanboys!

Hi Joe hater

i not clinging to compubox numbers, just using them as an argument.. I mean it cant be completely retarted to do that when the stats say joe landed more on Hopkins than any of his previous opponents(the ones that beat him as well)

i would never base my entire opinion of a fight on compubox, but saying it is retarted taking it into account in your post-fight judgment makes me think youre more retarted than i apperantly am...

read my post again, i said joe was certainly the aggresor, and to a certain point also an effective one. Just Cause he didnt knock Hopkins down, doesnt mean he didnt hit him(and who has been able to knock hopkins down?)


by the way, not a huge Joe fan... but i like him. Entertaining boxer and (it seems) a nice guy. Thats more than i can say about Hopkins

[βetamax]

some good arguments there... and im sure you`ve watched the fight more times than i.

Seen it three times, but not in the last 6 months. will rewatch again.

However, i do seem to renember calzaghe landing clean shots on Hopkins as well. And also more than Bernard. I would still say calzaghe was the effective aggressor(may change my mind after the rewatch, but dont think so)

I am aware that "running" may not necesarilly a fighter arent controlling things(a good example being mayweather) but in this case(like you) i would say that Joe controlled the fight from the middle enough to win the ring generalship category..


Im not saying im scoring the fight for calzaghe beacause Hopkins fought boring, read my post again. I said i considered it a close fight that could have gone either way.. depending on how you score it(i didnt say that, but thats what i meant). im just saying i was fine with Joe winning on the judges scorecards, since he was the making the fight worth watching... i mean, is`nt one of your primary reasons for watching boxing entertainment?

If you decide to watch it again I was encourage you to watch the exchanges in slow-motion and you'll notice that Calzaghe hardly lands anything but I understand it might be hard to tell watching it in realtime.

Here's a couple definitions of effective aggression that I found:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/scoring.htm

The key to the first category is the word "effective." One may be going forward, trying to get at ones opponent, forcing them back, but not throwing punches, or missing badly. In order to be "effective" one must have success landing consistently while moving forward. It should be noted that the opponent, who is "out-boxing" or keeping the fight at a distance, can be the "effective aggressor" by initiating the punching exchanges.

http://pro-boxing.suite101.com/artic...l_boxing_match

Effective aggression is demonstrated when a fighter presses forward, and in doing so, scores more clean punches, or more damaging blows, than his opponent. If a boxer is a particularly hard puncher, even blows that are not landed particularly clean, but obviously affect his opponent, are given scoring weight.

Again, if you really observe what happened you'll realize that he missed something like 80-90% of his punches and what did land was not effective since they were mostly arm punches, slaps basically. Hopkins on the other hand actually sat down on his punches.

[Lead Cenobite]

If you decide to watch it again I was encourage you to watch the exchanges in slow-motion and you'll notice that Calzaghe hardly lands anything but I understand it might be hard to tell watching it in realtime.

Here's a couple definitions of effective aggression that I found:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/scoring.htm


http://pro-boxing.suite101.com/artic...l_boxing_match


Again, if you really observe what happened you'll realize that he missed something like 80-90% of his punches and what did land was not effective since they were mostly arm punches, slaps basically. Hopkins on the other hand actually sat down on his punches.

this sums it up. Calzaghe's aggression was not as effective as compubox says. Lots of missed shots were counted.

[Carlsson]

If you decide to watch it again I was encourage you to watch the exchanges in slow-motion and you'll notice that Calzaghe hardly lands anything but I understand it might be hard to tell watching it in realtime.

Here's a couple definitions of effective aggression that I found:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/scoring.htm


http://pro-boxing.suite101.com/artic...l_boxing_match


Again, if you really observe what happened you'll realize that he missed something like 80-90% of his punches and what did land was not effective since they were mostly arm punches, slaps basically. Hopkins on the other hand actually sat down on his punches.

WOW... you are good

props to you, you are very good making arguments..

i guess i have to watch it again, and thanks for the advice.. However i must point out that fights are scored in realtime by judges watching it live. And to two of the judges(and me) Calzaghe looked the winner. And from what i renember it was fair.


Now i will not discuss this fight with you anymore, i have not watched the fight in a long time, and, like i said, youre good. Argumenting any further on a a fight i have not watched in a long time, would only mean me burrying myself even deeper into trouble...

but a(for now) final question: putting all the slow motion analysing and (youre obviously a Hopkins fan, and, i surmise, an american) bias aside, who would you rather see winning a close fight; the aggresive, offensive minded, entertaining(also lowblowing hehe) fighter, or the defensive minded, holding, headbutting one??

[Kalion]

And posters on this site have Red K'd and called me ****** for saying Bhops history, appearance and persona is the reason he is not a big draw.

[ИATAS]

I'm a big hopkins fan but I have no problem with people scoring the fight for Joe because regardless if joe won or not I think bernard hurt himself in the late rounds by running out of steam and/or simply not throwing enough punches himself. Again, I scored the fight for hopkins but I understand.

With that said, the compubox numbers are way off, not only in this fight but most all fights.

What compubox should do imo is do what they do now for live punch stats during the fight for us viewers that are unofficial, than after the fight with tape in hand they can review the fight and correctly count all punches thrown/landed etc. This would be a much more accurate system than what we have now (literally a couple guys with a clicker!). I've seen break downs of the round on this site and were incredible - compubox would say Calzaghe landed 15 punches for example, but reviewing the round myself and slowing down the speed if necessary etc. you'd see joe only landed 2. That's a huge difference!

My point is we rely heavily on a couple of guys at the fight with a clicker in each hand for punch stats, which is pretty absurd if you think about it.

[AntDawg]

He was more a an Executioner in the 90s.

[Lead Cenobite]

WOW... you are good

props to you, you are very good making arguments..

i guess i have to watch it again, and thanks for the advice.. However i must point out that fights are scored in realtime by judges watching it live. And to two of the judges(and me) Calzaghe looked the winner. And from what i renember it was fair.


Now i will not discuss this fight with you anymore, i have not watched the fight in a long time, and, like i said, youre good. Argumenting any further on a a fight i have not watched in a long time, would only mean me burrying myself even deeper into trouble...

but a(for now) final question: putting all the slow motion analysing and (youre obviously a Hopkins fan, and, i surmise, an american) bias aside, who would you rather see winning a close fight; the aggresive, offensive minded, entertaining(also lowblowing hehe) fighter, or the defensive minded, holding, headbutting one??

What the **** does this have to do with anything?

He just showed you how to score. Learn it. Absorb it.

It's called EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. Not AGGRESSION. I blame Oscar more than Joe for this but it's a HORRIBLE ****ing precedent that has taken over boxing scoring in the last few years. Terrible.

This was a good link but I can go further.

You know that compubox are just guys sitting around counting punches right? You know if you watch this fight most of Joe's punches land in the air, on bernards gloves, arms, shoulders, back , back of his head and neck...right?

You know that doesn't count as a real scoring punch right?

Stop acting or even implying that Joe dominated that fight.

[Carlsson]

What the **** does this have to do with anything?

He just showed you how to score. Learn it. Absorb it.

It's called EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. Not AGGRESSION. I blame Oscar more than Joe for this but it's a HORRIBLE ****ing precedent that has taken over boxing scoring in the last few years. Terrible.

This was a good link but I can go further.

You know that compubox are just guys sitting around counting punches right? You know if you watch this fight most of Joe's punches land in the air, on bernards gloves, arms, shoulders, back , back of his head and neck...right?

You know that doesn't count as a real scoring punch right?

Stop acting or even implying that Joe dominated that fight.

First of all, am i saying joe dominated the fight??

The part you marked out even contained the word "close"

i thought i was a close fight, with Joe being the aggressor, and also effective enough for me to feel fine about him winning that department. He also controlled the fight enough for me to him the "ring generalship" category. Hopkins bested him in the others, therefore a close fight.

Secondly, im asking the question out of interest, since one of the primary reasons for me to watch boxing is to be entertained. Joe was entertaining that night, Bernard(imo) certainly wasnt.

Now before you jump on me i allready posted earlier that i know boxing is not judged on entertainment value, but in a fight as close as this one, i`m fine the winner being the one who entertained me the most...