KO Artist wrote:115 - 113 for Hopkins for me. More accurate shots, harder shots. Calzaghe threw a lot, but not many landed and very few, if any, landed clean.
One 10-8 round for Hopkins and one round even.
The other rounds 5 each.
I dont think Joe landed enough clean shots to justify taking Bernards title.
Hopkins should retire and Joe should fight Jones then retire.
Sums up my reading of the fight as well, but I'm glad Joe won as Hopkins over-stepped the mark with his 'gamesmanship' regarding the low blows.
REAL_DEAL wrote:How can you have it for Hopkins if you didn't score it. Watch it again (the pain) and score it give us a review. A lot of yanks are saying Joe won.
Cause I can think of 5 rounds of the top of my head that I scored for Hopkins. And one of these was a 10-8.
1-3, 7(or 8), 10. So that would make it a draw. Calzaghe sweep the rest? Without a level round.... well I thought the 12th was level.
Some of you guys are fcuking mad and you need to watch the fight again with your flag tinted specs firmly shut up in their case. Hopkins won that fight by a mile, I gave JC three or four rounds. A schooling if ever there was one. One of the worst robberies in boxing history. I am utterly disgusted. This only happened to allow them to hype Calzaghe vs Pavlik.
Hopkins got off to a great start and after round 5 did jack shit. Got outworked and lost the fight. I don't see how anyone had Hopkins winning. Hopkins could have won convincingly if he stopped counter fouling... I have never seen that to such an extent before.
Calzghe deserved to win! He did more, threw more punches and made the fight and finished stronger.
Red Medicine wrote:Punchstats: 232 for Calzaghe, 127 for Hopkins. I didn't see it as a close fight at all; most of the people who are crying robbery at the Current Scene forum are either Americans or blacks.
Red Medicine wrote:Punchstats: 232 for Calzaghe, 127 for Hopkins. I didn't see it as a close fight at all; most of the people who are crying robbery at the Current Scene forum are either Americans or blacks.
Carlos-Wigan wrote:Hopkins got off to a great start and after round 5 did jack shit. Got outworked and lost the fight. I don't see how anyone had Hopkins winning. Hopkins could have won convincingly if he stopped counter fouling... I have never seen that to such an extent before.
Calzghe deserved to win! He did more, threw more punches and made the fight and finished stronger.
Eamonn Magee vs Hatton?
But I still think Hopkins won... so he was holding - Calzaghe was letting him and not trying to do anything about it. He don't score either then.
Carlos-Wigan wrote:Hopkins got off to a great start and after round 5 did jack shit. Got outworked and lost the fight. I don't see how anyone had Hopkins winning. Hopkins could have won convincingly if he stopped counter fouling... I have never seen that to such an extent before.
Calzghe deserved to win! He did more, threw more punches and made the fight and finished stronger.
Eamonn Magee vs Hatton?
But I still think Hopkins won... so he was holding - Calzaghe was letting him and not trying to do anything about it. He don't score either then.
I don't know... thats all Hopkins did after the 5th and no points were took off him!
The thing is Stu, all Hopkins fan must be annoyed about the tactics their man employed because he had the power to beat up and stop Calzaghe inside the distance and he didn't do anything. When he went forward he hurt Calzaghe. People are saying that he landed the cleaner shots but he landed nowhere near enough to win that fight. When
they were in close Hopkins fouled consistently anyway and deserved at least two point deductions.
Carlos-Wigan wrote:Hopkins got off to a great start and after round 5 did jack shit. Got outworked and lost the fight. I don't see how anyone had Hopkins winning. Hopkins could have won convincingly if he stopped counter fouling... I have never seen that to such an extent before.
Calzghe deserved to win! He did more, threw more punches and made the fight and finished stronger.
Eamonn Magee vs Hatton?
But I still think Hopkins won... so he was holding - Calzaghe was letting him and not trying to do anything about it. He don't score either then.
I don't know... thats all Hopkins did after the 5th and no points were took off him!
The thing is Stu, all Hopkins fan must be annoyed about the tactics their man employed because he had the power to beat up and stop Calzaghe inside the distance and he didn't do anything. When he went forward he hurt Calzaghe. People are saying that he landed the cleaner shots but he landed nowhere near enough to win that fight. When
they were in close Hopkins fouled consistently anyway and deserved at least two point deductions.
But he didn't get them deducted... so you shouldn't score a fight - "well, cause he didn't get a point deducted - I'll do it anyway, by awarding it to Calzaghe".
But I still think Hopkins won... so he was holding - Calzaghe was letting him and not trying to do anything about it. He don't score either then.
I don't know... thats all Hopkins did after the 5th and no points were took off him!
The thing is Stu, all Hopkins fan must be annoyed about the tactics their man employed because he had the power to beat up and stop Calzaghe inside the distance and he didn't do anything. When he went forward he hurt Calzaghe. People are saying that he landed the cleaner shots but he landed nowhere near enough to win that fight. When
they were in close Hopkins fouled consistently anyway and deserved at least two point deductions.
But he didn't get them deducted... so you shouldn't score a fight - "well, cause he didn't get a point deducted - I'll do it anyway, by awarding it to Calzaghe".
Calzghe went forward, landed the clean shots, landed more shots and he won the bloody fight.
As for the persistent fouling. Thats no Calzaghes job to sort it out... its the referees! Cortez needs to jack it in as does judge Byrd - they were both a disgrace as were Hopkins.
After round 5 Hopkins did nothing and he lost a fight he could and should have won (I'm saying the latter bit with hindsight)
Last edited by el_grande_mauro_mina on 20 Apr 2008, 00:15, edited 1 time in total.
Twinkle Toes wrote:No offence Stu, but I rarely agree with your reading of a fight - Your scoring of Holy winning the first Lewis encounter always makes me laugh.
So tell me how you made the 12th an even round in the fight tonight, because there is no way on this earth it was.
I HAVE NEVER SCORED HOLYFIELD vs LEWIS 1 to HOLYFIELD.
As for the 12... lot of holding, lot of stalking on both acounts. Kind of cancelled each other out.
Last edited by stujones on 20 Apr 2008, 00:26, edited 1 time in total.
Carlos-Wigan wrote:
I don't know... thats all Hopkins did after the 5th and no points were took off him!
The thing is Stu, all Hopkins fan must be annoyed about the tactics their man employed because he had the power to beat up and stop Calzaghe inside the distance and he didn't do anything. When he went forward he hurt Calzaghe. People are saying that he landed the cleaner shots but he landed nowhere near enough to win that fight. When
they were in close Hopkins fouled consistently anyway and deserved at least two point deductions.
But he didn't get them deducted... so you shouldn't score a fight - "well, cause he didn't get a point deducted - I'll do it anyway, by awarding it to Calzaghe".
Calzghe went forward, landed the clean shots, landed more shots and he won the bloody fight.
As for the persistent fouling. Thats no Calzaghes job to sort it out... its the referees! Cortez needs to jack it in as does judge Byrd - they were both a disgrace as were Hopkins.
After round 5 Hopkins did nothing and he lost a fight he could and should have won (I'm saying the latter bit with hindsight)
Hopkins landed the quality punches and always seemed to have a response, even if it was hitting after a clinch. When Joe would land a sustained attack - Hopkins pot shotting would nulify it.
I am not saying it wasn't close.... of course it was close... you must admit it was close - well you're saying after 5 round. So if, Hopkins sweeped the first 5 - with a 10-8 round. Then thats Calzaghe by 1.
mrbassie wrote:Some of you guys are fcuking mad and you need to watch the fight again with your flag tinted specs firmly shut up in their case. Hopkins won that fight by a mile, I gave JC three or four rounds. A schooling if ever there was one. One of the worst robberies in boxing history. I am utterly disgusted. This only happened to allow them to hype Calzaghe vs Pavlik.
Wow
Hopkins did well to negate Joe's workrate, but he didn't land enough punches of his own to win the fight. Calzaghe landed more punches on Hopkins than any of his previous opponents. I suggest you take off those 'old school' tinted specs and catch the replay....'Nard mugged you.
stujones wrote:
But he didn't get them deducted... so you shouldn't score a fight - "well, cause he didn't get a point deducted - I'll do it anyway, by awarding it to Calzaghe".
Calzghe went forward, landed the clean shots, landed more shots and he won the bloody fight.
As for the persistent fouling. Thats no Calzaghes job to sort it out... its the referees! Cortez needs to jack it in as does judge Byrd - they were both a disgrace as were Hopkins.
After round 5 Hopkins did nothing and he lost a fight he could and should have won (I'm saying the latter bit with hindsight)
Hopkins landed the quality punches and always seemed to have a response, even if it was hitting after a clinch. When Joe would land a sustained attack - Hopkins pot shotting would nulify it.
I am not saying it wasn't close.... of course it was close... you must admit it was close - well you're saying after 5 round. So if, Hopkins sweeped the first 5 - with a 10-8 round. Then thats Calzaghe by 1.
It was close Stu... Hopkins landed the harder punches but if fights were won on the velocity of punch then Joe Fraizer would have beaten Ali twice! Thats not how boxing works from my standpoint. Calzghe landed more punches and the punches Calzghe landed were good punches, he went foward and made the fight. Hopkins let himself down with the rough stuff IMO and should have had points deducted.
And besides Stu... its not like us Welsh have loads of sporting heroes to honour in this way so cheer up man!
Carlos-Wigan wrote:
Calzghe went forward, landed the clean shots, landed more shots and he won the bloody fight.
As for the persistent fouling. Thats no Calzaghes job to sort it out... its the referees! Cortez needs to jack it in as does judge Byrd - they were both a disgrace as were Hopkins.
After round 5 Hopkins did nothing and he lost a fight he could and should have won (I'm saying the latter bit with hindsight)
Hopkins landed the quality punches and always seemed to have a response, even if it was hitting after a clinch. When Joe would land a sustained attack - Hopkins pot shotting would nulify it.
I am not saying it wasn't close.... of course it was close... you must admit it was close - well you're saying after 5 round. So if, Hopkins sweeped the first 5 - with a 10-8 round. Then thats Calzaghe by 1.
It was close Stu... Hopkins landed the harder punches but if fights were won on the velocity of punch then Joe Fraizer would have beaten Ali twice! Thats not how boxing works from my standpoint. Calzghe landed more punches and the punches Calzghe landed were good punches, he went foward and made the fight. Hopkins let himself down with the rough stuff IMO and should have had points deducted.
And besides Stu... its not like us Welsh have loads of sporting heroes to honour in this way so cheer up man!
I think I had Hopkins up by 1 round going into the last. Hopkins faded but what can you expect from a 43 year old. If only Hopkins was 10 years younger for those last 6 rounds.
