so how did calzaghe win then? it certainly wasn't with clean punches as the calzaghe deception video clearly proved. hopkins outlanded calzaghe easily in 7 rounds and with the harder punches so what was it? calzaghe came to fight? calzaghe made the fight? calzaghe was fighting his fight? or how about the scoring criteria of hopkins faked low blows? we all know that's one of the 4 scoring criteria. how about calzaghe made hopkins tired in the later rounds therefore calzaghe deserves to win the early rounds that he clearly lost? maybe you will just get frustrated and quote compubox.
I remember how great you thought brook looked when he beat porter even though he clinched way more than hopkins so you are just a hypocrite. it seems that whatever the british boxer does=winning to you where as I think hopkins won because he landed the better punches and I think brook won because he landed the better punches. The clinching was bad in both fights but then again it was bad in calzaghe-lacy but you wouldn't say a peep about that fight. you picked this one fight to pretend you cared about clinching because calzaghe looked like complete ass. I hate clinching in every fight but that doesn't mean i ignore who is punching the other guy.
Calzaghe-Lacy now is tainted
Just retire gracefully, daggum. You had your time.
The likes of Kid Lewis and Fitzsimmons and Lennox Lewis and Hamed and Eubank would rank among some of the very best boxers ever...without the British tag being necessary. Froch doesn't quite fall into that category. But he is just below some of the truly elite greats from the british isles.
Just retire gracefully, daggum. You had your time.
there were a lot of clinches in that fight. you act like i'm just making up things but reality is reality. just because you remember a fight a certain way doesn't mean your memory trumps reality. you also never answered why calzaghe deserved to get the decision over hopkins. if it wasn't clean punches it was____________fill in blank with nonsense
our carl looked embarrassed after fighting andre ward, but he's a great fighter! look at his face.
you can rank your best fighters. don't call them all greats because they're your best. there are very few great british fighters from the modern era. you've got to have a standard for greatness lower than i'm willing to allow to consider somebody like carl froch a great fighter.
very good is fine. great is a huge stretch. his best wins are taylor, bute, kessler [when he was ancient and going blind,] a poor showing against andre dirrell, arthur abraham.
I haven't heard him use this argument until recently. It's always been the Hopkins fight. And now he even says Matthysse won the Garcia fight
The guy has really become a caricature of himself now. Still comes out with the odd zinger but he's lost the plot overall.
yes i think hopkins won the calzaghe fight but i've at least provided a ton of reasons and details such as breaking down number of punches landed in each round. i try not to use subjective scoring criteria because anyone can say the guy coming forward is in control just like anyone can say the counter puncher is in control. the one thing that doesn't change are the punches landed and that was in hopkins favor. and i said matthysse would have won the garcia fight if the knockdown didn't count(imo it shouldn't have) which is just a fact since the cards would have went from 114-112 garcia to 114-113 matthysse. not sure why that's so crazy? once again you are acting like a close fight was a blow out. what purpose does that serve?
Comment