Disgrace

[Coco]

JC won the fight, no doubt about it, the early knockdown and the fact the Welshman took a few rounds to clear his head made my score close.
However the final two thirds of the fight was all Calzaghe's.
Hopkins fought like a journeyman, his tactics ended up being to survive and spoil, while just potshotting.
The two times he went down for phoney low blows showed he was desperate in the hope of getting points off and to gab breathers.
Joe did all the work and forced the fight wile the Americans main success was the fact home town ref Cortez allowed him to hold so much, and let him get awat with blatent misuse of the head.
How can anyone score the fight to a man who was so negative??
Calzaghe did not look good, but how can anyone look good against someone content to only spoil, no one looks good against Peter Buckley!
JC did what he had to do to win and all credit to him

[DavidPayne]

Well, if we want to see a sport with little skill and just pure agression we have found it, what a load of ass that was!!!

Hopkins did all the cleaner work, made Joe fight at his pace...I was supporting Joe but Im not going to join in with any 'Oh, hes British so its OK 'crap, I love this sport and that was just wrong, whether Joe was from Wales, England or Blood Guatemala!!!

Got to disagree. I had Hopkins ahead after six 58-56 but trailing by three in the end. Though many rounds were hard to score.

But you dont win rounds with one clean shot. It did expose thngs that have been evident in Joe's style for a long time, it also showed Calzaghe's hands aren't as fast as he thinks they are but it also showed his heart, adaptability, stamina nd he deserved the nod. I could see some having it closer but it would have been very, very hard on Joe to give it Nard.

And I have huge respect for Nard and his tactical nouse.

[DIRT SUGAR]

If controlling the pace of a fight means throwing a punch then holding on to the other guy and holding for dear life and clinching his right arm and holding it under your left arm constitutes being a great fighter then yes, Hopkins truly is just that. But it doesn't IMO.

I'm all for awarding effective counterpunching but holding, leading with a punch then your head and constantly holding does not win you fights.

But even though I thought Calzaghe boxed a poor fight, he did try to do that... fight!

Now if Hopkins had been using a clever cross-armed defence, making him miss, spinning, turning then countering Joe with clean punches then I'd say well done Bernard.

And Joe Cortez... firm but fair my ass. Hopkins stuck his nut in Calzaghe's face in the sixth round and he didn't say jack shit. Disgraceful.

Hopkins is remarkable in that he's 43 and he nullified an all-action, busy fighter. But he did not deserve to win that fight.

[DavidPayne]

I think it is the sixth or 7th, at 1.30 of the round, Hopkins, out of habit, tries to stick the nut on Cortez.

[Goz]

Hopkins is remarkable in that he's 43 and he nullified an all-action, busy fighter. But he did not deserve to win that fight.

Exactamundo.

[MightyWarrior]

Maybe BHOPS would have beat Hagler, its a tough 1 to call

Hagler would have shown Hop to be just another decent contender.
No comparison. You'd NEVER have seen Hagler dropping to his knees, faking agony, in an attempt to nick as few points.

[DavidPayne]

Hopkins is an exceptional athlete, and exceptional strategist and an exceptionally driven human being.

But he's old and the persona he's created, in order to sell fights, has grown larger than any style he's shown in the ring.

I do however, believe he's done. I cannot see another opponent that can summon Hopkins' blood.

Johnson? Nope, Tarver done him already, Dawson, a very, very dangerous fight for Hopkins - he can leave the elite fight game as he entered it. As an outsider, a non-conformist. With a degree of dignity that he dropped Calzaghe at the age of 43.

But he's become a self-parody. Scientific shot selection to the point of no output at all.

When he went toe-toe in the 10th or 11th, forget which, he looked able to match Cal for hand speed and shot selection, and more than likely power.

But he doesn't have the engine any more. Fact.

And I think he knows it. I wished he not done the histrionics, the cheap low blows afterward, the head etc.

But he did. He'll always be slightly misunderstood I suppose.

Very, very good fighter.

Hagler would have beaten him but I question any-one's belief that a peak Hopkins doesn't afford anyone in history a tough nights work.

[thepocketrocket]

I think we are underating the amount of good shots Hops threw...this 'one shot a roun garbage is well...garbage!!! The sneak hooks, turning Joe and snapping out a shot and all round bossing of the fight was sublime!!

Many are here are suffering from what 2 of the judges had, they are getting so obsessed by Hopscotches gamesmanship they are missing the good work!!

If Cortez had docked points then very well, but he didnt and the quality of shots came from Bernard, Bernard won the fight and thats that!!!

Is Bernard a bit of a cheat?? Well we knew the answer to that before so why the indignation???

[DavidPayne]

Pocket,

A case can be made. But the punch stats dont support your view and from the 7th onward Hopkins did far too little of what you suggest to be given the rounds.

He was blowing until a late, late round rally. The mid rounds he just conceded.

Calzaghe employed, fitfully, good tactics and landed more leather. And ultimatley, that can't be argued with.

He didn't boss the fight, he made Calzaghe look off-balance and open but not enough to win rounds.

It was close and my card of Calzaghe by 3 is probably the highest conceivable margin, as such a Hopkins win isn't beyond the realms of possibility in the scoring but I truly felt Calzaghe was the moral victor.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Maybe BHOPS would have beat Hagler, its a tough 1 to call

Hagler would have shown Hop to be just another decent contender.
No comparison. You'd NEVER have seen Hagler dropping to his knees, faking agony, in an attempt to nick as few points.

BHOPs has the better jab, defense, tactics, better at range (reach). He may just pick Hagler off, another contender? Hagler hasn't fought a middleweight as good as Hopkins by a long way

When did Hagler retire, 32? He was starting to slip then. Lets see a 43yo Hagler take on Calazage and do as well as BHOPs did. On the subject has their even been a boxer as well conditioned and as sharp at 43, I know Moore competed at a ripe old age but was he this good? I think what's being ignored is how special that performance was at the age of 43. On mine and 30% of cards (including the BBC RBR), BHOPs won a decision against a P4P top3 fighter at teh age of 43

[MightyWarrior]

Maybe BHOPS would have beat Hagler, its a tough 1 to call

Hagler would have shown Hop to be just another decent contender.
No comparison. You'd NEVER have seen Hagler dropping to his knees, faking agony, in an attempt to nick as few points.

BHOPs has the better jab, defense, tactics, better at range (reach). He may just pick Hagler off, another contender? Hagler hasn't fought a middleweight as good as Hopkins by a long way

Hagler fought and beat the best Philly middleweights of the 70's, including the great Bennie Briscoe, who would have beat Hop like his red headed step child. He was the undisputed champ, not defending some watered down belt like Hop did for so many years.
C'mon man, no comparison.

[Lickszz]

[quote="thepocketrocket"]I think the issue is do you prefer milling, cuffing shots with little skill, just pure volume or proper counters, superb defence and ring generalship??

If I want to watch poor technique I will go and watch UFC, after watching the fight again I maintain Bernard put on a masterclass and made Joe look like an amateur, the wrong man won[/quote]

Agree. It seems to win in America you just have to throw a bucket load of punches and it doesn't seem to matter whether or not they actually land.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Hagler would have shown Hop to be just another decent contender.
No comparison. You'd NEVER have seen Hagler dropping to his knees, faking agony, in an attempt to nick as few points.

BHOPs has the better jab, defense, tactics, better at range (reach). He may just pick Hagler off, another contender? Hagler hasn't fought a middleweight as good as Hopkins by a long way

Hagler fought and beat the best Philly middleweights of the 70's, including the great Bennie Briscoe, who would have beat Hop like his red headed step child. He was the undisputed champ, not defending some watered down belt like Hop did for so many years.
C'mon man, no comparison.

Bennie Briscoe isnt a great fighter, hes strong, hit hard and brought pressure and roughness. He didnt have great skills, he lost against all the contenders he faced, yet hes beating Hopkins? You need to take the Rose tinted glasses off.

Hopkins became undisputed against Trinidad and cleaned out the division, you can't ask more than that. Hopkins middleweight competition was on par with haglers if not better overall

[DavidPayne]

Did someone ask if Archie Moore was as good as Hopkins when he was 43?

Yep, and he'd also had 150 more fights.

[MightyWarrior]

Bennie Briscoe isnt a great fighter, hes strong, hit hard and brought pressure and roughness. He didnt have great skills, he lost against all the contenders he faced

You better have another look at his record I think, some of the contenders he beat would've beaten Hop as well. The middleweight division back then, compared to the threadbare 90's, was like night & day.

[DavidPayne]

There were precious Hakkar's thats for sure.

Hopkins has been a very, very good fighter and would have been a leading contender in any era.

But he doesn't oust the best at the weight, not by a long chalk.

I'd have loved to have seen a 1994ish Hopkins v Eubank, wouldn't have meant much at the time but their respective personalities would have been very interesting. Both stubborn hardheads.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Bennie Briscoe isnt a great fighter, hes strong, hit hard and brought pressure and roughness. He didnt have great skills, he lost against all the contenders he faced

You better have another look at his record I think, some of the contenders he beat would've beaten Hop as well. The middleweight division back then, compared to the threadbare 90's, was like night & day.

Like who? Briscoe wasn't elite, he didnt have elite level skills, he was Hagler's Rock Allen, nothing more, Briscoe lost every round against Monzon, he got beat by journeymen, let me guess even the journeymen Peter Buckley equivilents with no wins on their record beat BHOPs too, what a decade the 70s was (Im sure all the hallucengenic drugs helped)

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Did someone ask if Archie Moore was as good as Hopkins when he was 43?

Yep, and he'd also had 150 more fights.

Most of them against low level knock over jobs. I know he fought everyone BUT there plenty of easy pickings making up all those fights. Plus BHOPS beat great welters, Moore lost to the great Welter he faced

[MightyWarrior]

Like who? Briscoe wasn't elite, he didnt have elite level skills

George Benton
Stanley Kitten Hayward
Jimmy Lester
Vincent Rondon
Billy Douglas
Tony Mundine
Tom Bethea
Eddie Mustafa Muhammad
Eugine Cyclone Hart
Emile Griffiths

Plus he drew with Carlos Monzon in Argentina.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Like who? Briscoe wasn't elite, he didnt have elite level skills

George Benton
Stanley Kitten Hayward
Jimmy Lester
Vincent Rondon
Billy Douglas
Tony Mundine
Tom Bethea
Eddie Mustafa Muhammad
Eugine Cyclone Hart
Emile Griffiths

Plus he drew with Carlos Monzon in Argentina.

I won't pretend I know about the rest bt:

Monzon - shut out and a draw in Argentina, which sounds good but draws wer very common for fights going the distance in Argentina
Tony Mundine - CHINNY
Eddie Mustafa Muhammad - VERY green (13fights?)
Eugine Cyclone Hart - He was decent but how good was he? Seemed limited from what I saw
Emile Griffiths - lost and drew and Griffith was past prime and above his best weight and inconsitant anyway

In fairness he has a better resume than I realised BUT he still doesn't have the skillset to beat BHOPS, I don't he'd win many rounds at all.

[Arbachakov]

I doubt you've even seen him fight more than two or three times.Saying he lost to every contender he faced is laughable.

I'd pick Hopkins over him closely.It would't be an easy fight though.

Briscoe was far superior to any middleweight Hopkins ever beat, Tito aside.

[J]

not a disgrace but could have gone either way.
THink it puts to bed the who prime vs prime would have own though hopkins all day long.

Was dissapointed with Joe thought he played into Nards hands, think there are some harsh critics onhere of hopkins he fought the only way he could and excellently troo foran old man this wasnt the one sided beatdown 75% of people were predicting but thats boxing I guess.

I do feel some of the over the top shit in the press is a bit of a joke though, Joe went to Vegas and struggled to beat a 43 year old grandad, a good one at that and now wants to feast on the remnants of Roy jones.

bout sums up his career in the great scheme of things to me.

great fighter sure, but top five all time brit not for me. Too protected and too managed.

[lefthook82]

I read one tabloid piece gthat started off with

'Joe Calzaghe batterred Bernard Hopkins to become a two-weight world champion and then roared. Bring on the next legend!'


Come on !!! Batttered. He did nothing of the sort. He only comes out of this fight with margianlly more credit than Bernard Hopkins and he won the damn thing

Also not liking this legend killer nonsense. How can you struggle to beat someone and say you are a legend killer.

[Autobarn]

I read one tabloid piece gthat started off with

'Joe Calzaghe batterred Bernard Hopkins to become a two-weight world champion and then roared. Bring on the next legend!'


Come on !!! Batttered. He did nothing of the sort. He only comes out of this fight with margianlly more credit than Bernard Hopkins and he won the damn thing

Also not liking this legend killer nonsense. How can you struggle to beat someone and say you are a legend killer.

it's like calling Holyfield a legend killer in 1992 for uneasy wins over aged Foreman and Holmes.

[sharpei_louis]

I read one tabloid piece gthat started off with

'Joe Calzaghe batterred Bernard Hopkins to become a two-weight world champion and then roared. Bring on the next legend!'


Come on !!! Batttered. He did nothing of the sort. He only comes out of this fight with margianlly more credit than Bernard Hopkins and he won the damn thing

Also not liking this legend killer nonsense. How can you struggle to beat someone and say you are a legend killer.

I think he said that cause someone says 'what next for JC - the legend Roy Jones?' and his reply was I've already beat one legend in BHop, so bring on the next, I'm a legend killer' - ok a bit ott, but it was essentially a very leading question so don't go too far