So do I, but had Joe done his job it would've been by more than a point IMO.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Agree with this assessment. Hopkins also did a lot of good work in the clinches, he was rattling joe with right uppercuts and hooks on the inside.Terry D wrote:I thought Hopkins nicked it on first viewing. Better shots throughout and far more memorable. I think it he landed what you would call the more professional shots. A lot of Joe's work seemed amateurish.
That touchdown may not have hurt him greatly but it left him in two minds for at least 3-4 rounds and he was looking poor.
I thought it was a good fight. Wouldn't cry with a point or two either way. That 3rd card was a disgrace, someone obviously misread the fight when you consider the other two cards, that more than anything else galls me in boxing. Two men do a job and the 3rd makes a right arse of it.
Reminded me of Toney-Peter I. Do you like the guy hitting the other guy on the chin? Or the guy throwing more shots but not often landing the showier blows?
Credit to Hopkins, he may be a boring bastard but he said he would negate the speed and land on Calzaghe, and he did just that.
Anyone think Joe-Jones might be more competitive now, provided Jones' chin holds up? I can see Jones landing more often than Hopkins. Still, I would rather Pavlik-Calzaghe but no way does Joe get to 168 anymore.
I think Calzaghe v Jones Jr is now a 50/50 fight. If Bernard can floor him with an accurate punch, Jones's speed and power might stop him.
Great fight though, definitely gonna go.

