Just Watched Calzaghe vs Hopkins again with my eyes open

[daggum]

There is a reason why Hopkins was rolling aroung faking lowblows for the last two rounds. Calzaghe has heavy-hands and you hear those damn slaps...

yes the reason was because he got his penis knocked out of the cup(according to him) and no sh-it calzaghe has heavy hands they had to transport manfredo back to the states in a pine box.

[boxer2k5]

hopkins lost that fight the same way he lost to taylor. joe outworked bhopkins plain and simple. its easy to say watch those biased ass vids that cut and paste the parts where bhop is doing good. but in n the first vid where they say joe held on and crowd cheer. it was hopkins holding jo arm when he tried to bum rush with his head and jo threw a flurry. it was an ugly fight a boring fight thats why joe didnt fight him again. the fans didnt want to see a rematch only bhop because he lost. what he was gonna do in the rematch is what he should have done in the first one and thats fight more.

im tired of boxers taken it safe the first time lose then want a rematch. your suppose to leave it in the ring the first time around.

[BennyST]

Is it every fight that's one or two points either way that you do this for, or just this fight? Man, get over it. I had Hopkins just sneaking this fight too from memory, but some of the stuff in that video is blinded toward Hopkins.

You'll show a bunch of crap from the first round, which means nothing because Hopkins had already won it. All you needed to show was the KD. Two point round for Hopkins.Nothing else mattered in it, but, you then show these taps from Hopkins inside which had less effect than Slappies slaps and call them scoring shots saying Hopkins won the inside fight with scrappy fighting? Give us a break! They meant nothing, just as most of Calzaghe's shot did, but in this instance you call them good scoring shots for Hopkins and Calzaghe's shots like that useless non scoring shots.

You say a shot straight into the chest from Calzaghe missed, when it clearly didn't etc etc.

Anyway, the point is that judges don't have the luxury of watching tape over and over and over and over and over again as you did for this video. They can't sit down and replay one bit over and over again. They have to take everything on face value from where they are seated. It's why some fighters try different tactics for different fighters. Calzaghe knew he couldn't outbox Hopkins so he went for the most obvious tactic of simply trying to smother Hopkins and look as though he outlanded him. Whether he did or not doesn't matter to the judges because they don't get compubox. In this case it's the facade of effectiveness that Calzaghe put on by throwing lots of punches without getting obviously outlanded by harder shots from Hopkins. They have to make their decision then and there, and the majority of people had it a one or two point fight either way on the night. It was a close fight and could have gone either way. The fact you can't see that it could have gone either way makes you blinder than everyone who does.

Now, why don't you go do this for every other fight that has a one or two point difference and you feel the guy that lost should have got the nod? Why don't you do it for every fight like this? There are thousands of fights like this. Do you rant on about every one or just Calzaghe's? It was funny for a while, but now just seems a bit creepy and overly obsessive.

[toysale]

but he didn't win if you score round by round. have you watched the videos? it's impossible to give 6 rounds to calzaghe when he was severely outlanded in at least 6 rounds(more actually but for arguments sake.). don't be fooled by compubox. he was busier and pushed the fight sure but he was also outlanded in real punches. hopkins landed a lot more punches than you think it's just you missed them and calzaghe landed a lot less than you think. just throwing punches isn't a scoring criteria. calzaghe was busy running into counters yes but was not busy landing punches.

I don't score a fight on compubox numbers, I score a fight on a number of things such as ring generalship, the pressure a fighter puts on another fighter, shots landed, successful counter punching etc. Hopkins landed good counter rights but threw and did so little compared.

Hopkins didn't do enough to win but everyone seems to see this fight differently regardless of other peoples opinions. I understand how some people scored Hopkins winning but I didn't.

[daggum]

I don't score a fight on compubox numbers, I score a fight on a number of things such as ring generalship, the pressure a fighter puts on another fighter, shots landed, successful counter punching etc. Hopkins landed good counter rights but threw and did so little compared.

Hopkins didn't do enough to win but everyone seems to see this fight differently regardless of other peoples opinions. I understand how some people scored Hopkins winning but I didn't.

fights are scored on ring generalship, clean punching, effective agression and defense. hopkins won in nearly every category for at least 7 rounds. yeah you can make up your own rules and have calzaghe winning but that's not boxing then.

and what do you mean he threw and did so little compared? compared to calzaghe he did a lot more. isn't that all he has to do to win the fight?

[djtmal]

Is it every fight that's one or two points either way that you do this for, or just this fight? Man, get over it. I had Hopkins just sneaking this fight too from memory, but some of the stuff in that video is blinded toward Hopkins.

You'll show a bunch of crap from the first round, which means nothing because Hopkins had already won it. All you needed to show was the KD. Two point round for Hopkins.Nothing else mattered in it, but, you then show these taps from Hopkins inside which had less effect than Slappies slaps and call them scoring shots saying Hopkins won the inside fight with scrappy fighting? Give us a break! They meant nothing, just as most of Calzaghe's shot did, but in this instance you call them good scoring shots for Hopkins and Calzaghe's shots like that useless non scoring shots.

You say a shot straight into the chest from Calzaghe missed, when it clearly didn't etc etc.

Anyway, the point is that judges don't have the luxury of watching tape over and over and over and over and over again as you did for this video. They can't sit down and replay one bit over and over again. They have to take everything on face value from where they are seated. It's why some fighters try different tactics for different fighters. Calzaghe knew he couldn't outbox Hopkins so he went for the most obvious tactic of simply trying to smother Hopkins and look as though he outlanded him. Whether he did or not doesn't matter to the judges because they don't get compubox. In this case it's the facade of effectiveness that Calzaghe put on by throwing lots of punches without getting obviously outlanded by harder shots from Hopkins. They have to make their decision then and there, and the majority of people had it a one or two point fight either way on the night. It was a close fight and could have gone either way. The fact you can't see that it could have gone either way makes you blinder than everyone who does.

Now, why don't you go do this for every other fight that has a one or two point difference and you feel the guy that lost should have got the nod? Why don't you do it for every fight like this? There are thousands of fights like this. Do you rant on about every one or just Calzaghe's? It was funny for a while, but now just seems a bit creepy and overly obsessive.

good post and excellent points here...similar situation with srl/hagler....i thought hagler won the fight, but you gotta give srl credit for landing the eye catching combinations and making hagler miss a lot..., but you don't see any hagler fans obsessing over it...thats why hopkins fans are the worst...even when he loses, they'll swear up and down he won...

[Disposable Arts]

B-Hop edged it for me, in a thoroughly boring and worthless fight.

[daggum]

Is it every fight that's one or two points either way that you do this for, or just this fight? Man, get over it. I had Hopkins just sneaking this fight too from memory, but some of the stuff in that video is blinded toward Hopkins.

You'll show a bunch of crap from the first round, which means nothing because Hopkins had already won it. All you needed to show was the KD. Two point round for Hopkins.Nothing else mattered in it, but, you then show these taps from Hopkins inside which had less effect than Slappies slaps and call them scoring shots saying Hopkins won the inside fight with scrappy fighting? Give us a break! They meant nothing, just as most of Calzaghe's shot did, but in this instance you call them good scoring shots for Hopkins and Calzaghe's shots like that useless non scoring shots.

You say a shot straight into the chest from Calzaghe missed, when it clearly didn't etc etc.

Anyway, the point is that judges don't have the luxury of watching tape over and over and over and over and over again as you did for this video. They can't sit down and replay one bit over and over again. They have to take everything on face value from where they are seated. It's why some fighters try different tactics for different fighters. Calzaghe knew he couldn't outbox Hopkins so he went for the most obvious tactic of simply trying to smother Hopkins and look as though he outlanded him. Whether he did or not doesn't matter to the judges because they don't get compubox. In this case it's the facade of effectiveness that Calzaghe put on by throwing lots of punches without getting obviously outlanded by harder shots from Hopkins. They have to make their decision then and there, and the majority of people had it a one or two point fight either way on the night. It was a close fight and could have gone either way. The fact you can't see that it could have gone either way makes you blinder than everyone who does.

Now, why don't you go do this for every other fight that has a one or two point difference and you feel the guy that lost should have got the nod? Why don't you do it for every fight like this? There are thousands of fights like this. Do you rant on about every one or just Calzaghe's? It was funny for a while, but now just seems a bit creepy and overly obsessive.

the whole point of the videos is to prove it couldn't have gone either way. yes it could have gone either way if you weren't paying attention but if you like to know the truth it was a hopkins win. obviously the judges only have one chance and make mistakes because of the pro calzaghe crowd and his flashy style but that doesn't mean we have to repeat those same mistakes.

[djtmal]

B-Hop edged it for me, in a thoroughly boring and worthless fight.

if they scored the fight on entertainment value solely, calzaghe would have won by unanimous decision...lol

[daggum]

good post and excellent points here...similar situation with srl/hagler....i thought hagler won the fight, but you gotta give srl credit for landing the eye catching combinations and making hagler miss a lot..., but you don't see any hagler fans obsessing over it...thats why hopkins fans are the worst...even when he loses, they'll swear up and down he won...

terrible comparison. hagler and leonard were both landing punches. it's personal preference which guy to give the round to. in the hopkins-calzaghe fight only hopkins was landing the clean punches. in hagler-leonard you can choose who's punches you liked better but in hopkins-calzaghe the only choice you have is should i give the round to the guy landing punches or the guy not landing punches but throwing a lot? a very easy choice to most but apparently it's not since so many people are impressed with the wild swings and misses.