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

[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).

well if chuck giampa says calzaghe won then i'm on board! who da **** is that? he's a 65 year old man(possibly blind) who retired immediately after the fight(probably in shame)

[daggum]

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.

isn't the objective just to out land your opponent and he clearly did that. there isn't a set number of punches someone has to land to win a round he just has to do better than his opponent. yea he didn't land a lot compared to ward-gatti but he landed a lot compared to calzaghe. and when exactly was calzaghe landing? you think he was landing but he wasn't. this is confirmed by the videos i posted which show him missing virtually everything.

[Pu$$yKiller]

isn't the objective just to out land your opponent and he clearly did that. there isn't a set number of punches someone has to land to win a round he just has to do better than his opponent. yea he didn't land a lot compared to ward-gatti but he landed a lot compared to calzaghe. and when exactly was calzaghe landing? you think he was landing but he wasn't. this is confirmed by the videos i posted which show him missing virtually everything.

I shall have to look at it again, but I feel Calzaghe outlanded Hopkins.

Very close rounds, but he just did enough to squeak out a win.

In fact if Hopkins didn't drop on the floor, he may have won it. That gave Calzaghe time to compose himself perhaps, but it's been a while since I have seen the fight.

I agree that it doesn't matter how much you land, aslong as you land more. Just I saw Calzaghe landing more overall.

What was your scoring BTW?

[Sparked_1985]

people still had Calzaghe losing that fight.

Oh sneaky-right-hand and clinch. 'He wins the round - he wins the round.'

Come on now. I've watched that fight again, and you have to try and give Hopkins rounds.

[Miburo]

I had Hopkins winning that one too, 114-113 (the only possible score to have Hopkins winning by, six rounds to six with the KD deciding it), so no

[daggum]

I shall have to look at it again, but I feel Calzaghe outlanded Hopkins.

Very close rounds, but he just did enough to squeak out a win.

In fact if Hopkins didn't drop on the floor, he may have won it. That gave Calzaghe time to compose himself perhaps, but it's been a while since I have seen the fight.

I agree that it doesn't matter how much you land, aslong as you land more. Just I saw Calzaghe landing more overall.

What was your scoring BTW?

i had hopkins winning at least 7 rounds or more depending on how generous i feel towards calzaghe that day.

[daggum]

people still had Calzaghe losing that fight.

Oh sneaky-right-hand and clinch. 'He wins the round - he wins the round.'

Come on now. I've watched that fight again, and you have to try and give Hopkins rounds.

you don't have to try to do anything. you ask yourself ok who landed punches that round. hopkins landed a bunch while calzaghe didn't. hopkins gets the round. if you ask yourself who had a better windmill impression? well yea calzaghe gets the round then.

[OptimusWolf]

It is not the whole fight - it is selective evidence.

[seany1]

It is not the whole fight - it is selective evidence.

its a 14 min video of a 36 minute fight lol hes been trying to convince himself for 2 yrs

[daggum]

It is not the whole fight - it is selective evidence.

it's every punch thrown. only non active parts are cut out. you just think it is selective because hopkins is dominating.