Why is Calzaghes win over Hopkins so underated?
Collapse
-
-
-
Faking low blows so you don't have to quit and holding while the other guy is punching means you lost the fight.
Hopkins won the first round. After that he got sonned all night long.Comment
-
Comment
-
He's white and European. Calzaghe is very under appreciated for that like the Klits. It's like basketball Olympics, U.S. dominated and when it loses they discredit the loss.Comment
-
because the way he 'won' it looked like he would have lost to a younger version of Hopkins. I'm not saying hopkins was shot, he certainly wasn't, but neither was he prime, Calzaghe was prime and won thru sheer work rate, Hopkins looked like the more skillful fighter and landed the cleaner shots all night long. imo i had hopkins edging the fight.Comment
-
While I think he just about squeaked it, he looked dreadful, even worse than Hopkins did.
He was a big favourite going into that fight too.
What do you want, for people to laud a win where he looked mostly hopeless and got knocked down in the process too?
It's not a great win simply because of the performance and that the decision was so razor-thin. It's not a meaningless win like, say, the Jones win ofc - B-Hop's career after that proves it, and I do give Calzaghe some credit for willing himself to win (I do believe his desire took him through in the end).
But let's not make out it was something it isn't.
He should've rematched Hopkins. Yeah, it might've stunk again but it would maybe provided some more answers. But not doing so kinda sums up his career - getting out while he could.Comment
Comment