So does this make Joe Calzaghe's win over Hopkins look even better?
Collapse
-
Calzaghe already had a good resume of wins before the hopkins fight...but yes this fight does make calzaghes win over hopkins make it look even better for him but with or without hopkins i reckon calzaghe had a good career in the first place but gets really underrated by general boxing fans but should not be....Comment
-
thank you finally some sense. the videos clearly show this. selective editing? it's the entire fight! calling it a hopkins highlight? it's the entire fight! when you are watching the fight and you think it's a hopkins highlight then yea hopkins probably deserved to win. some people will never let go and change their mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence. some would call them heroes for taking a stand. not me though i would call them ******s.Last edited by daggum; 12-19-2010, 10:06 AM.Comment
-
it's boxing there is no set way to win a fight. you can go backwards forwards side to side whatever. it's about hitting and not getting hit. hopkins did that much better than calzaghe.
his game plan was to walk calzaghe into punches and he did that clearly. and when calzaghe got close he beat him up on the inside as well. even when it looked like calzaghe had success with his slap furries he was almost never landing. why would the guy not landing punches ever win a boxing match?
some people really pervert the rules so their guy can get the win. clean punching all hopkins. defense all hopkins. effective agression all hopkins. ring generalship debatable i don't see anything here that says calzaghe deserved to win in any way. coming forward=win? so hatton was beating mayweather? same fight. one guy coming forward and getting countered. other guy countering and hardly getting hit.
More not getting hit reallly, let's be honest. Hopkins way to diminish Calzaghe's output was by clinching and being out of punching range not throwing any punches.
Sorry, he lost.
He was anti-fighting. The occasional right-hand and clinch combo changes precisely f.uck all.Comment
-
Comment
-
More not getting hit reallly, let's be honest. Hopkins way to diminish Calzaghe's output was by clinching and being out of punching range not throwing any punches.
Sorry, he lost.
He was anti-fighting. The occasional right-hand and clinch combo changes precisely f.uck all.
so if hopkins strategy was to hit calzaghe and not get hit. judging from the fight calzaghe's strategy was to get hit and not hit hopkins? and you think this somehow justifying winning?Last edited by daggum; 12-19-2010, 10:13 AM.Comment
-
oh i didn't realize being out of range wasn't allowed. should he stick his feet in cement?i don't know the rules as good as you apparently. moving and fighting on the inside=lose ok got it thanks for the tip
so if hopkins strategy was to hit calzaghe and not get hit. judging from the fight calzaghe's strategy was to get hit and not hit hopkins? and you think this somehow justifying winning?
Well, it's not conducive to winning a fight is it? You can't hit anybody from there. And, it's precisely where he spent the majority of the fight.
And by fighting on the inside you mean right-hand, butt, clinch = perfect.Comment
-
Damn I went to sleep for almost 12 hours, came back and daggum is still posting.
Daggum is outworking everyone on here like he was Calzaghe against HopkinsComment
-
Comment
Comment