Disgrace

[observer1]

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.

your own fault for reading the tabloid mate

Surprised thought, not as bad as i thought..

"Legend killer" ?

lol.. Behave... He's beating up old Men

[DIRT SUGAR]

And one thing I don't seem to see mentioned is that Hopkins' siege mentality has done him no favours in close fights, much in the same way Larry Holmes totally alienated Nevada officials with 'they can kiss my ass' comments.

Not that your personality should have anything to do with winning fights, but shit sticks and Bernard's paid the price against Taylor (twice) and now Calzaghe.

Like I said, crisp, clean boxing off the back foot, countering your man, turning him and making him pay wins fights... hanging on, punching then clinching and trapping your opponent's arm so he can't work freely up close is not outboxing your opponent.

Yet... a certain Money Mayweather seems to get away with it every time.

Boxing's like women sometimes... very painful and not worth the effort of trying to figure out.

[observer1]

And one thing I don't seem to see mentioned is that Hopkins' siege mentality has done him no favours in close fights, much in the same way Larry Holmes totally alienated Nevada officials with 'they can kiss my ass' comments.

Not that your personality should have anything to do with winning fights, but shit sticks and Bernard's paid the price against Taylor (twice) and now Calzaghe.

Like I said, crisp, clean boxing off the back foot, countering your man, turning him and making him pay wins fights... hanging on, punching then clinching and trapping your opponent's arm so he can't work freely up close is not outboxing your opponent.

Yet... a certain Money Mayweather seems to get away with it every time.

Boxing's like women sometimes... very painful and not worth the effort of trying to figure out.

Well There is Tactical Clinching, and There is Panic Clinching.

Face it, Hopkins is a 43 year old man. As good as he is, 43 is OLD!

He clinched to slow the pace of the Match Down to his level.

That is tactical Clinching.

Panic Clinching is where you are scared of getting beat.

Take Tyson-Bruno 2 for example.

Bruno was so petrified of Tyson he kept holding and holding and holding. Threw NO punches what so ever..... He even got a point deducted but still kept holding.

they are two different Things.

[TerribleTerry]

And one thing I don't seem to see mentioned is that Hopkins' siege mentality has done him no favours in close fights, much in the same way Larry Holmes totally alienated Nevada officials with 'they can kiss my ass' comments.

Not that your personality should have anything to do with winning fights, but shit sticks and Bernard's paid the price against Taylor (twice) and now Calzaghe.

Like I said, crisp, clean boxing off the back foot, countering your man, turning him and making him pay wins fights... hanging on, punching then clinching and trapping your opponent's arm so he can't work freely up close is not outboxing your opponent.

Yet... a certain Money Mayweather seems to get away with it every time.

Boxing's like women sometimes... very painful and not worth the effort of trying to figure out.

Well There is Tactical Clinching, and There is Panic Clinching.

Face it, Hopkins is a 43 year old man. As good as he is, 43 is OLD!

He clinched to slow the pace of the Match Down to his level.

That is tactical Clinching.

Panic Clinching is where you are scared of getting beat.

Take Tyson-Bruno 2 for example.

Bruno was so petrified of Tyson he kept holding and holding and holding. Threw NO punches what so ever..... He even got a point deducted but still kept holding.

they are two different Things.

Excessive clinching - tacticle or otherwise - should be penalised and stamped out. Its boxing not wrestling.

[Deserter]

And one thing I don't seem to see mentioned is that Hopkins' siege mentality has done him no favours in close fights, much in the same way Larry Holmes totally alienated Nevada officials with 'they can kiss my ass' comments.

Not that your personality should have anything to do with winning fights, but shit sticks and Bernard's paid the price against Taylor (twice) and now Calzaghe.

Like I said, crisp, clean boxing off the back foot, countering your man, turning him and making him pay wins fights... hanging on, punching then clinching and trapping your opponent's arm so he can't work freely up close is not outboxing your opponent.

Yet... a certain Money Mayweather seems to get away with it every time.

Boxing's like women sometimes... very painful and not worth the effort of trying to figure out.

Well There is Tactical Clinching, and There is Panic Clinching.

Face it, Hopkins is a 43 year old man. As good as he is, 43 is OLD!

He clinched to slow the pace of the Match Down to his level.

That is tactical Clinching.

Panic Clinching is where you are scared of getting beat.

Take Tyson-Bruno 2 for example.

Bruno was so petrified of Tyson he kept holding and holding and holding. Threw NO punches what so ever..... He even got a point deducted but still kept holding.

they are two different Things.

Excessive clinching - tacticle or otherwise - should be penalised and stamped out. Its boxing not wrestling.

I asked in another post some time ago why we don't ban holding full stop? I realise there's a skill to it, but it's a nightmare from an entertainment perspective...

[E]

double post

[E]

double post

[E]

Well There is Tactical Clinching, and There is Panic Clinching.

Face it, Hopkins is a 43 year old man. As good as he is, 43 is OLD!

He clinched to slow the pace of the Match Down to his level.

That is tactical Clinching.

Panic Clinching is where you are scared of getting beat.

Take Tyson-Bruno 2 for example.

Bruno was so petrified of Tyson he kept holding and holding and holding. Threw NO punches what so ever..... He even got a point deducted but still kept holding.

they are two different Things.

Excessive clinching - tacticle or otherwise - should be penalised and stamped out. Its boxing not wrestling.

I asked in another post some time ago why we don't ban holding full stop? I realise there's a skill to it, but it's a nightmare from an entertainment perspective...

That is a very good point and one I have thought about often. There is little justification in clinching and it is a visual and entertainment nightmare. I think it remains because of tradition and the difficulty in defining what constitutes an actual clinch....

I mean - does it mean holding with one arm or both? and what exactly is holding?Does that mean you can't rest your arms on the opponent?

[shakermaker]

boxers need a break guys every so often!!!

[stujones]

Holding is part of the art of self defence.

[Wrists]

Funny that Stu - if Calzaghe was a perpetual holder like your man Hopkins you would call it cheating!

Here are some other examples of what you would say:

Hitting low - Hopkins = clever, streetwise Calzaghe = cheat
Age - Hopkins 43 and past it Calzaghe 36 and pre pubescent
Power - Hopkins = in abundance Calzaghe = slaps
Prime Hopkins in 2001 would have beaten Calzaghe (not forgetting that in 2001 JC was younger too).

Taking 5 minutes after a low blow - Hopkins = old skool Calzaghe = borderline women

Calzaghe beating Hopkins mate - PRICELESS

Wrists

[observer1]

Indeed. You cannot just Stamp Out Holding. That is Part of Boxing.

I agree, Over-excessive Clinching needs to be penalized.

But as Hopkins Over-excessive?

It's not as if he refused to Fight, we have to consider he is 43, and to Bring things to his Pace, Clinching is the best way.

[Deserter]

boxers need a break guys every so often!!!

But as you know only too well, all the best fights over the years have featured comments like "there's been hardly any holding", "it's been a clean fight" etc.
I'd also argue from the safety aspect that the ability to hold leads to excessive punishment in the long-term as it allows you to 'artificially' prolong your involvement in the fight.
Stu, hear what you're saying, but surely blocking, parrying and slipping are sufficient in terms of defensive options?
I've yet to see anyone make a strong, valid argument for the retention of holding.

[Poncey]

Holding is part of the art of self defence.

Ali used to hold on lots. The second Frazier fight saw him grabbing by the back of the head and pulling Joe in.

There is a difference between what Hopkins does and what Ruiz does.

You think? I believe that Hopkins holds more now because of his stamina issues, like Ali did in his later years.

I was suprised, given his conditioning, that he couldn't keep up the pace. Yes he's in the mid-life crisis zone, but he doesn't smoke, drink, trains more than he should and hardly eats anything bad.

[stujones]

Funny that Stu - if Calzaghe was a perpetual holder like your man Hopkins you would call it cheating!

Here are some other examples of what you would say:

Hitting low - Hopkins = clever, streetwise Calzaghe = cheat
Age - Hopkins 43 and past it Calzaghe 36 and pre pubescent
Power - Hopkins = in abundance Calzaghe = slaps
Prime Hopkins in 2001 would have beaten Calzaghe (not forgetting that in 2001 JC was younger too).

Taking 5 minutes after a low blow - Hopkins = old skool Calzaghe = borderline women

Calzaghe beating Hopkins mate - PRICELESS

Wrists

And when have I said ANY of that?

[stujones]

Holding is part of the art of self defence.

Ali used to hold on lots. The second Frazier fight saw him grabbing by the back of the head and pulling Joe in.

There is a difference between what Hopkins does and what Ruiz does.

I don't think there is anything wrong with what Ruiz does, sure its a bit excessive, but if it means nulifying the opponent (who in Ruiz's case often have alot of physical advantages) then whats wrong with it. Never heard a ref say "don't hold excessively" in his pre-fight introductions.

Sure, I don't think Ruiz/Hopkins, should score points for Holding (cue a comment from wrist indicating that you must have done to give the fight to Hopkins) - but Holding after landing, or holding, breaking and landing - yes, they score points.

Holding has WON many a fighter fights.... its up to the non holding fighter to re-counter it. Not even greats like Hagler could manage it (vs Leonard) and the ability to hold and smuther certainly played a big part in two sensation upsets both internationally (Douglas vs Tyson) and domestically (Terry Marsh vs Manley).

If the fighter cannot handle the style, uppercuts would be the key, then that shows a limitation on their behalf also.

[DavidPayne]

Holding is part of the art of self defence.

Ali used to hold on lots. The second Frazier fight saw him grabbing by the back of the head and pulling Joe in.

There is a difference between what Hopkins does and what Ruiz does.

Watch Lewis v Michael Grant for a lesson in effective holding!!!!