So does this make Joe Calzaghe's win over Hopkins look even better?

[lfc19titles]

his best win is against p4p number 1 trinidad. he was 36 the same age as calzaghe was when he beat hopkins.

yea maybe but i go on what i see. maybe he was prime when he was 30 or maybe he was prime when he was 36. all we have to go on is how he looked and he looked the best when he was 36.

Nah man, logic and I mean common sense will tell you a man will be in his physical prime at around 28-30, not 36. Calzaghe would have been quicker, sharper and stronger at a younger age.

What we don't know is how good calzaghe was in his best shape, results suggests he would have been an excellent fighter.

|Calzaghe was a good fighter who managed to keep his best assets in tact to a good level despite having no power, this got him wins over other good fighters. But it is fair to suggest he was no great fighter, in my opinion hopkins is not a great fighter either.

The only great fighter was roy jones in his prime at that weight class, by great I mean judging a boxer by his skills, speed, power, sharpness and so on

There is no shame in that, in the last 12 years or so, I have only seen two great fighters, roy jones and the pacman. Everyone else at the top were good or very good fighters

[lfc19titles]

well you didn't watch closely obviously. no shame in that a lot of people didn't. my sig is just for fun it has nothing to do with scoring a fight. i score fights based on who is landing and hopkins outlanded calzaghe easily in at least 6 rounds. calzaghe fooled you into thinking he was landing. you refuse to re watch the fight yet defend calzaghe so hard. don't you think you should at least watch the videos i posted? don't you want to see the truth or is ignorance bliss?

Mate I have seen the fight like 3 times, all those 3 times in the past I had calzaghe winning, I judge a fight on more than out landing, after all a jab counts as a punch landed.

You just need to accept the majority had calzaghe winning

[OptimusWolf]

I've watched it a fair few times and it is clear calzaghe won - Hopkins fell apart in the second half of the fight. He did land cleaner shots over ther course of the fight though, but was so comprehensively outlanded it wasn't enough.

[daggum]

Mate I have seen the fight like 3 times, all those 3 times in the past I had calzaghe winning, I judge a fight on more than out landing, after all a jab counts as a punch landed.

You just need to accept the majority had calzaghe winning

how could you get it wrong 3 times? very puzzling. do you have vaseline smeared all over your tv screen? how are these rounds going to calzaghe? how many actual clean punches did he land in round 1? round 2? round 3? round 5? round 6? round 10? hopkins dominated all those rounds. outlanded him in hard punches from the outside and inside while barely getting touched besides 1 or 2 solid connects and some taps to the back. what more do you want? oh it wasn't aesthetically pleasing so give it to guy windmilling his azz off that looks great! doesn't make any sense.

[daggum]

I've watched it a fair few times and it is clear calzaghe won - Hopkins fell apart in the second half of the fight. He did land cleaner shots over ther course of the fight though, but was so comprehensively outlanded it wasn't enough.

i think their needs to be a mass recall of british television sets because its obvious they aren't working correctly. comprehensively outlanded? can you be more wrong? what you think you are seeing is not what is happening i can assure you.

[lfc19titles]

any video can make one guy look better, I suggest you watch the whole fight instead

Calzaghe clearly won the fight, your hate is blinding you mate

[OptimusWolf]

pls stop posting the same bogus highlights tape. It is boring. I can read the thread thanks.

Anyhow it is clear that Chuck Giampa, not known for getting many decisions wrong, called it massively for Calzaghe (wider than my scorecard).

[daggum]

pls stop posting the same bogus highlights tape. It is boring. I can read the thread thanks.

Anyhow it is clear that Chuck Giampa, not known for getting many decisions wrong, called it massively for Calzaghe (wider than my scorecard).

this gets me every time. you call it a highlight video when it is in fact the entire fight you just think its a highlight vid because hopkins is winning so easily.

[daggum]

any video can make one guy look better, I suggest you watch the whole fight instead

Calzaghe clearly won the fight, your hate is blinding you mate

it is the whole fight just broken down in slo-mo so people who think calzaghe was landing can see he wasn't and so they can see all the clean shots that they missed hopkins landing. this video makes hopkins look better because he was better.

[Pu$$yKiller]

well you didn't watch closely obviously. no shame in that a lot of people didn't. my sig is just for fun it has nothing to do with scoring a fight. i score fights based on who is landing and hopkins outlanded calzaghe easily in at least 6 rounds. calzaghe fooled you into thinking he was landing. you refuse to re watch the fight yet defend calzaghe so hard. don't you think you should at least watch the videos i posted? don't you want to see the truth or is ignorance bliss?

Calzaghe made people think that Hopkins was really old.

He just won it by 1 point myself.

Yes Hopkins hit him harder, but also he hit him very little.

It can be argued either side who won, but it was not a roberry, Hopkins did not dominate every round, they were tight rounds bar the first round KD.