BoxRec

stujones wrote:I agree with everything you say there Kingfinn with the exception of your first paragraph - which being honest I think is a little rediculous. Hopkins as light heavyweight champion had plenty of other options available to him - he fought Pavlik after stinking the place out against Joe.

I definately don't think Hopkins knew he had "no chance" against Joe (you make it sound like they were leagues apart). Hopkins tried to "cheat" to win - I don't think Hopkins tried to look for a DQ win myself but that's my take. I'll agree to disagree.

I largely agree with the rest of the post - but not always did he get tagged do to wanting a tear up. The Hopkins fight being an example of this.

I think you're miss understanding my point or i havent put it across very well. Hopkins knew he couldnt outbox Calzaghe so chose to try and spoil, wrestle, cheat, and then nick points in the rounds by throwing the odd eye catching combo. j cortez allowed him to do that, if he had been made to fight, calzaghe would have clearly outboxed him.

Hopkins career had stalled and he needed that fight. The pavlik fight and the calzaghe fight in size and monetry value are nowhere in the same league. Calzaghe v Hopkins was a super fight. Also calzaghe had to offer a 50-50 split to get him to agree to the fight.

Hopkins knew how good calzaghe was and chose to pull out of signing the contract the day it was due to be signed when they were both in their prime, he didnt take up the opportunity to fight calzaghe until he needed the fight he was only getting one fight per year previous to it.

Davey,

ummm... yes and no is my answer to whether it was me. Yes, I thought Joe lost to Hopkins and Reid and yes my round by round for Kessler had it a draw. However, I have never said Calzaghe's record should be this. The Reid fight was very very close - Joe won the first four rounds at a canter. Kessler fight I admit I am in a massive minority with the scoring and the Hopkins fight was also close (although I did think Hopkins won that one by at least a couple).

I never called for a Joe vs Reid rematch - I never thought there was "unfinished" business there. Reid caught Joe on his very very worst night. He really shouldn't have fought and the fact Reid didn't put it out of sight given the problems Joe had.... it shows the different levels between the two. You won't hear me screaming an injustice was done for either the Reid or Kessler fights - and definately in a non round by round scoring of the Kessler fight, then Calzaghe clearly won.

Hopkins though, for me is a different story. Not in terms of the scoring, it was a close one. I do think there was unfinished business there. I do feel Hopkins had an answer for everything Joe threw at him and I do wonder what might have happened had Hopkins had Richardson in his corner. Roach seemed so sure he was winning the fight. When the 116-111 deciding scorecard was announced I was convinced it was going to Hopkins. I really cannot see how anyone could score the fight for Calzaghe by 5 rounds. It was a close fight, for me Hopkins by a couple - but can see why some scored it for Joe.

stujones wrote: Hopkins though, for me is a different story. Not in terms of the scoring, it was a close one. I do think there was unfinished business there. I do feel Hopkins had an answer for everything Joe threw at him and I do wonder what might have happened had Hopkins had Richardson in his corner. Roach seemed so sure he was winning the fight. When the 116-111 deciding scorecard was announced I was convinced it was going to Hopkins. I really cannot see how anyone could score the fight for Calzaghe by 5 rounds. It was a close fight, for me Hopkins by a couple - but can see why some scored it for Joe.

Interesting argument, but equally I think it would be prudent to say that Cortez might as well have let Hopkins referee the fight himself for all the good he did in ensuring a fair contest. And even then, Calzaghe was a good 2-4 points ahead on my card - and I think on most others.

But, yeah, I can see the unfinished business argument. But the chances of Hopkins coming to Britain and having a decent referee were pretty slim, and in any event his disgraceful play acting - no, lets call it what it was, cheating - robbed him of any right to claim even a sliver of the high ground!

stujones wrote:Davey,

ummm... yes and no is my answer to whether it was me. Yes, I thought Joe lost to Hopkins and Reid and yes my round by round for Kessler had it a draw. However, I have never said Calzaghe's record should be this. The Reid fight was very very close - Joe won the first four rounds at a canter. Kessler fight I admit I am in a massive minority with the scoring and the Hopkins fight was also close (although I did think Hopkins won that one by at least a couple).

I never called for a Joe vs Reid rematch - I never thought there was "unfinished" business there. Reid caught Joe on his very very worst night. He really shouldn't have fought and the fact Reid didn't put it out of sight given the problems Joe had.... it shows the different levels between the two. You won't hear me screaming an injustice was done for either the Reid or Kessler fights - and definately in a non round by round scoring of the Kessler fight, then Calzaghe clearly won.

Hopkins though, for me is a different story. Not in terms of the scoring, it was a close one. I do think there was unfinished business there. I do feel Hopkins had an answer for everything Joe threw at him and I do wonder what might have happened had Hopkins had Richardson in his corner. Roach seemed so sure he was winning the fight. When the 116-111 deciding scorecard was announced I was convinced it was going to Hopkins. I really cannot see how anyone could score the fight for Calzaghe by 5 rounds. It was a close fight, for me Hopkins by a couple - but can see why some scored it for Joe.

Honestly i think he beat hopkins handily for the simple fact hopkins didnt really box. I think the punch stats showed that calzaghe landed more shots on hopkins than anyone hopkins has ever fought. Noone wanted to see a rematch because it was god awful to watch - i believe calzaghe tried to pitch a rematch to HBO shortly after he retired - who declined.

The Hopkins fight does polarise opinion. For Calzaghe to go to America to fight an American with three American judges, and an American ref who didn't get a grip of Bernards spoiling and still get the win shows to me there was nothing dodgy about the judging. No one can claim that Joe got the hometown decision or anything like that. I feel Joe won the fight but just was not able to look good because Bernard was so negative. The fact Joe was not able to look good translates to a lot of his critics as a lost fight, but that shouldn't be the case. I agree on the unfinished business part though, I felt a rematch with a ref who was willing to get a grip of Bernards spoiling was what Joe deserved to have a go at silencing the doubters.

As for Kessler, I've got the fight on dvd, I've watched it recently. It was a tough fight and Kessler definitely had a few moments and gave Joe a hard nights work, but I just feel that you'd have to go into the fight with anti Calzaghe glasses on to equate that to a draw. 116-112 to me is a very fair result for that fight.

Anyway I apologise for derailing the thread, I still think Calzaghe beats Ward

jessi wrote:Super middle, ward present form, and calzaghe at his peak !
I really couldn't call anything else then a draw.
Thoughts ?

calzaghe is far superior....

I think Calzaghe would have ground him down. One way or another Calzaghe would have won. Ward started to struggle when Froch threw caution to the wind in round 10 onwards, Calzaghe would do that from round 2 or 3 if he was struggling.

DaveyH wrote:The Hopkins fight does polarise opinion. For Calzaghe to go to America to fight an American with three American judges, and an American ref who didn't get a grip of Bernards spoiling and still get the win shows to me there was nothing dodgy about the judging. No one can claim that Joe got the hometown decision or anything like that. I feel Joe won the fight but just was not able to look good because Bernard was so negative. The fact Joe was not able to look good translates to a lot of his critics as a lost fight, but that shouldn't be the case. I agree on the unfinished business part though, I felt a rematch with a ref who was willing to get a grip of Bernards spoiling was what Joe deserved to have a go at silencing the doubters.

As for Kessler, I've got the fight on dvd, I've watched it recently. It was a tough fight and Kessler definitely had a few moments and gave Joe a hard nights work, but I just feel that you'd have to go into the fight with anti Calzaghe glasses on to equate that to a draw. 116-112 to me is a very fair result for that fight.

Anyway I apologise for derailing the thread, I still think Calzaghe beats Ward

good post ive got the kessler fight and alot of the rounds were close especially in the 1st half before calzaghe figured kessler out. However those close rounds were still clearly Calzaghes imo they werent pick em rounds they were just competative.

DaveyH wrote:The Hopkins fight does polarise opinion. For Calzaghe to go to America to fight an American with three American judges, and an American ref who didn't get a grip of Bernards spoiling and still get the win shows to me there was nothing dodgy about the judging. No one can claim that Joe got the hometown decision or anything like that. I feel Joe won the fight but just was not able to look good because Bernard was so negative. The fact Joe was not able to look good translates to a lot of his critics as a lost fight, but that shouldn't be the case. I agree on the unfinished business part though, I felt a rematch with a ref who was willing to get a grip of Bernards spoiling was what Joe deserved to have a go at silencing the doubters.

As for Kessler, I've got the fight on dvd, I've watched it recently. It was a tough fight and Kessler definitely had a few moments and gave Joe a hard nights work, but I just feel that you'd have to go into the fight with anti Calzaghe glasses on to equate that to a draw. 116-112 to me is a very fair result for that fight.

Anyway I apologise for derailing the thread, I still think Calzaghe beats Ward

Lots of websites scored the fight to Hopkins (I would be inclined to say more websites scored it to Hopkins than Calzaghe - but I am sure I didn't trawl through them all). It was close, no doubting that - and great that Joe has said it was close.

Kessler - I do know lots (and I do mean lots) of big big Joe fans who scored it 7-5 to Joe. Those who were in Cardiff, and those who watched it on Setanta. My card was a straight 6-6 (so only one round out from these fans) - although yes....I cannot see a Kessler win at all. I cannot at all give him a 7th round - and yep I will hold my hands up and see why some have as big as 8-4 to Joe (9-3 would be very extreme the other side IMO). So I am quite happy to say I got that one "wrong" - although I aint changing my card. Bizzarely, I know lots of Big Joe Fans who actually thought the Kessler fight was closer than the Hopkins one (but give both to Joe).

Anyway, digressed again.... I'm largely on the fence for such a fight. IMO its hard to say a "clear cut" win for either, as both has looked class against class opposition and had long long unbeaten runs. Both are obviously doing lots of things very right.

Calzaghe v Ward, for me Ward would completely dominate Joe. I think it would be a fairly similar outcome as last night.

Ward can match Calzaghe for speed no question. Futhermore the Kessler who fought Calzaghe did with one hand. Another case of historic subjectivity here.

Calzaghe would struggle immensely with Ward and quite possibly lose. I really do feel that some of the opinions here are based on more of the hype surrounding Calzaghe (the '0', beating Lacy & Kessler). Calzaghe barely (and in some peoples opinion 'lost' that fight) beat Hopkins. Ward is quicker, equally versatile and just as strong, if not stronger than Calzaghe.

Logic tells you that this is a tight fight. I'd lean towards Ward and to call this a routine win or dominant fight for Calzaghe, is absurd, really.

bengulnaci1 wrote:Ward can match Calzaghe for speed no question. Futhermore the Kessler who fought Calzaghe did with one hand. Another case of historic subjectivity here.

Calzaghe would struggle immensely with Ward and quite possibly lose. I really do feel that some of the opinions here are based on more of the hype surrounding Calzaghe (the '0', beating Lacy & Kessler). Calzaghe barely (and in some peoples opinion 'lost' that fight) beat Hopkins. Ward is quicker, equally versatile and just as strong, if not stronger than Calzaghe.

Logic tells you that this is a tight fight. I'd lean towards Ward and to call this a routine win or dominant fight for Calzaghe, is absurd, really.

bengulnaci1 wrote:to call this a routine win or dominant fight for Calzaghe, is absurd, really.

Amen brother.

Hmmm, I think how a lot of websites call a fight depends very much on the agenda of that particular website, and like I say Joe definitely had a lot of people back then just itching for a chance to criticise him. The fact the Hopkins fight stunk out the entire Atlantic ocean and Joe was unable to look anything like as good as some of his previous performances is enough for many to suggest he lost. But if you watched that fight completely unbiased (ie never heard of or seen either of them compete before) then I would say most would see Calzaghe winning a very dull, awkward fight. I won't deny Calzaghe looked out of sorts, Bernards style made Calzaghe very uncomfortable but not as uncomfortable as it made the paying public!

We can all say we knew thousands of people who scored a fight this way or that, I could say I was backpacking in Copenhagen the night that Kessler fought Calzaghe and that a hundred Danes scored the fight 9-3 for Calzaghe, it doesn't really mean a great deal in the grand scheme of things. The obvious point is we all see fights differently for different reasons and I firmly believe a lot of that relies on someones opinion of a fighter prior to the fight. If you dont like a fighter it's easy to conveniently ignore good work that fighter does and hang on to every jab the opponent lands. The commentary doesn't help either, for example, last night. Ward clearly beat Froch but Froch landed some decent stuff, but you wouldn't think so to listen to Jim Watt. He almost had to be reminded at times that Froch landed a few decent shots in different exchanges but even then he'd dismiss it in his frenzy of salivating excitement everytime Ward did anything.

Are any of us completely unbiased when we score a fight?

Bengulnaci- I'm sure I heard Kessler himself say the hand wasn't a problem in his post fight interview? Or was he really lying and yousaw right through him, Tim Roth style, by the way his eyes moved as he said it?

If a 43+ Hopkins can lose a highly debatable SD to Joe, then i feel Ward would beat Joe comfortably.

If anyone mentions how Joe beat the 17-0 Legend that was lacy, i'll go over to their house and throw their Computer out the house.

kamicazze wrote:I think Calzaghe would have ground him down. One way or another Calzaghe would have won. Ward started to struggle when Froch threw caution to the wind in round 10 onwards, Calzaghe would do that from round 2 or 3 if he was struggling.

exactly and calzaghe can fight like that for every minute of every round for 12 rounds....look at what he did to brewer and lacy. I would see joe doing to ward what he did to lacey....joe would make this BS that ward is "so fast" look the myth it is. i also think kessler had a off night with ward.

mugabi wrote:

kamicazze wrote:I think Calzaghe would have ground him down. One way or another Calzaghe would have won. Ward started to struggle when Froch threw caution to the wind in round 10 onwards, Calzaghe would do that from round 2 or 3 if he was struggling.

exactly and calzaghe can fight like that for every minute of every round for 12 rounds....look at what he did to brewer and lacy. I would see joe doing to ward what he did to lacey....joe would make this BS that ward is "so fast" look the myth it is. i also think kessler had a off night with ward.

I'm sorry, but i read your post, and it appears that you were comparing Lacy and somebody called Brewer: To Andre Ward?

Is that the case, or do my eyes deceive me?

DaveyH wrote:Hmmm, I think how a lot of websites call a fight depends very much on the agenda of that particular website, and like I say Joe definitely had a lot of people back then just itching for a chance to criticise him. The fact the Hopkins fight stunk out the entire Atlantic ocean and Joe was unable to look anything like as good as some of his previous performances is enough for many to suggest he lost. But if you watched that fight completely unbiased (ie never heard of or seen either of them compete before) then I would say most would see Calzaghe winning a very dull, awkward fight. I won't deny Calzaghe looked out of sorts, Bernards style made Calzaghe very uncomfortable but not as uncomfortable as it made the paying public!

We can all say we knew thousands of people who scored a fight this way or that, I could say I was backpacking in Copenhagen the night that Kessler fought Calzaghe and that a hundred Danes scored the fight 9-3 for Calzaghe, it doesn't really mean a great deal in the grand scheme of things. The obvious point is we all see fights differently for different reasons and I firmly believe a lot of that relies on someones opinion of a fighter prior to the fight. If you dont like a fighter it's easy to conveniently ignore good work that fighter does and hang on to every jab the opponent lands. The commentary doesn't help either, for example, last night. Ward clearly beat Froch but Froch landed some decent stuff, but you wouldn't think so to listen to Jim Watt. He almost had to be reminded at times that Froch landed a few decent shots in different exchanges but even then he'd dismiss it in his frenzy of salivating excitement everytime Ward did anything.

Are any of us completely unbiased when we score a fight?

Bengulnaci- I'm sure I heard Kessler himself say the hand wasn't a problem in his post fight interview? Or was he really lying and yousaw right through him, Tim Roth style, by the way his eyes moved as he said it?

Impartiality is the key. If your honest then does it matter if people disagree or agree with you? I thought Calzaghe beat Hopkins, but that's my opinion. A fair few did not, which is their opinion. That's fine. However to go down the road of having an agenda, 'not liking him' is really a poor and pretty ignorant argument. I can't say I am a fan of Ward's but he beat Froch. I am not a fan, in any sense of the word, of Dirrell and he should have got the win vs Froch.

Your sure Kessler said his hand was fine? Well you would say that. I know, from, reports etc that the hand was not fine. Time to stop watching Tim Roth and going on the assumptions of 'I am sure I heard...' and look at the facts.

Ward would be tough for Joe and in my opinion and has a great chance of winning that fight.

I have the DVD, Kessler says the hand was not a problem, interviewed immediately after the fight. Simple as that.

DaveyH wrote:I have the DVD, Kessler says the hand was not a problem, interviewed immediately after the fight. Simple as that.

Which a lot fighters say, as to not sound a sore loser. However his hand was damaged which also came to light after that. So there you go.

And my argument of having an agenda is not poor or ignorant at all! Are you saying that every single "fan" on here calls fights with impartiality? The key to me are fights that are close, if a fight is close it appears that people will call the fight in favour of the one they like the most. The Khan-Peterson fight is a good example of this, it was a very good close fight that neither deserved to lose, but shockingly most Khan haters had Peterson winning even without the deductions.

I applied this theory to Stu as well. Obviously puts his arguments across very well and I always enjoy the discussion, but Calzaghe had 2 close fights in his career (Hopkins and Reid) and Stu had Hopkins and Reid winning both. Calzaghe had one close-ish fight in his career (Kessler)he scored it a draw. His opinions and I respect them but I just think you'd have to really look hard against Calzaghe to not have him winning ANY of those three fights.

bengulnaci1 wrote:

DaveyH wrote:I have the DVD, Kessler says the hand was not a problem, interviewed immediately after the fight. Simple as that.

Which a lot fighters say, as to not sound a sore loser. However his hand was damaged which also came to light after that. So there you go.

So Kessler was lying then, as I said in my original post? Obviously you and the "reports" you've read know Kessler's injuryies better than Kessler himself, and you accuse others of historic revisionism! Laughable!

Obviously, you don't watch much boxing but that's ok. We all have to start somewhere

If in doubt, throw a crap insult out

As you have been doing. Which is fine, I am a big boy and can take it. Moving on, you won't change my opinion and others who hold the same opinion, so better to respect that, by all means voice your opinions and leave it at that.