Page 4 of 4

Re: Hopkins-Calzaghe... With hindsight

Posted: 29 Jan 2011, 18:10
by iamasadlittleboy
Calzaghe was further gone than Hopkins.

Re: Hopkins-Calzaghe... With hindsight

Posted: 30 Jan 2011, 18:58
by Cyclops
observer1 wrote:
Joe did not really look small except giving off a few inches in height.

Hopkins moulded himself into LHW due to specialist training he recieved, whereas Joe starved himself to make SMW rather than fight at LHW.
Honestly did you watch the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gumwnng6U6g

Even though they both weighed in at 173, in the shoulders, in the back, the arms: Bernard is MUCH bigger than Joe. Joe's legs must be bigger or something, because he gave away a fair bit not only in height but in upper body strength. That's gonna suit a clinching inside fighter like Hopkins. Joe also still looked kinda drained, whereas Hopkins didn't at all. When I saw that weigh in, I guessed Calzaghe was gonna be in for a hard night.

Re: Hopkins-Calzaghe... With hindsight

Posted: 31 Jan 2011, 06:28
by stujones
I aint sure what the apparent size difference brings to the equation. Its hardly monsterous. One was a career long Middleweight, the other a career long Super Middleweight. Hardly much.

It could be bone densisty or anything (although Hopkins should have the greater bone density also) - thats the one thing that is quite fascinating about this sport, you can get two athletes, both looking cut, both the same weight(ish) but one looks so much bigger than the other. I don't think a fighter should be given extra (or less - depending on the result) credit for "looking the bigger man".

Hagler looked a decent sized Middleweight, till he fought Hearns.

Re: Hopkins-Calzaghe... With hindsight

Posted: 31 Jan 2011, 15:42
by Cyclops
stujones wrote:I aint sure what the apparent size difference brings to the equation. Its hardly monsterous. One was a career long Middleweight, the other a career long Super Middleweight. Hardly much.

It could be bone densisty or anything (although Hopkins should have the greater bone density also) - thats the one thing that is quite fascinating about this sport, you can get two athletes, both looking cut, both the same weight(ish) but one looks so much bigger than the other. I don't think a fighter should be given extra (or less - depending on the result) credit for "looking the bigger man".

Hagler looked a decent sized Middleweight, till he fought Hearns.
Yeah it's fascinating. I only thought about mentioning it because Observer1 said something to the effect that Calzaghe had been a LHW for a long time and had drained to make super middle. I had thought that to have been the case too, until I saw the weigh in and saw what appeared to me to be a noticeable size difference.

Actually I do still think that a size difference will have a bearing on a fight: that's the point of draining. The whole science behind weighing in is to get the biggest and strongest possible athlete to weigh in at the weight. Size DOES give an advantage, although it's down to the boxer to overcome that advantage. Like I said before, the apparent difference in upper body strength was gonna suit Hopkins in the clinches and Hopkins is a clinching fighter. I guess you could say Calzaghe didn't train to be a big muscle man: he trained for speed so he wouldn't have massive upper body strength.

When you said about "One was a career long Middleweight, the other a career long Super Middleweight" you kind of illustrated my point, because they were fighting at light heavy. That's TWO divisions up from Bernard's 'natural' weight, and only one for Joe, yet Hopkins was bigger. That's weird, no? He must have drained like crazy to make middleweight.

Re: Hopkins-Calzaghe... With hindsight

Posted: 31 Jan 2011, 17:38
by DaveyH
It's interesting to note that Hopkins made his debut at Light Heavy, back in 1988!
Might not mean anything, I've never seen footage of the fight he might have just been lardy, but to start out as a light heavy then compete at middle for the next 18 years until the Tarver fight, maybe thats why he quite easily bypassed Super Middle

Re: Hopkins-Calzaghe... With hindsight

Posted: 31 Jan 2011, 23:03
by observer1
DaveyH wrote:It's interesting to note that Hopkins made his debut at Light Heavy, back in 1988!
Might not mean anything, I've never seen footage of the fight he might have just been lardy, but to start out as a light heavy then compete at middle for the next 18 years until the Tarver fight, maybe thats why he quite easily bypassed Super Middle
In an article i read, he was looking to make a quick buck, and the opportunity was a cheap 4 rounder at Light Heavy; where he had to stuff himself with Junk Food and bulk up just to make the weight. No surprise it was a loss.

Re: Hopkins-Calzaghe... With hindsight

Posted: 01 Feb 2011, 05:23
by Asterix
crusader wrote:^^ I agree. I have watched it a few times and cannot see a Hopkins win. I though Calzaghe won by a wide margin.
Agreed.
Twinkle Toes wrote:When it comes to Calzaghe, Obsever is guilty of what he moans about when people knock Khan - I'll let you work it out.

:OhYes:
:TU:

Re: Hopkins-Calzaghe... With hindsight

Posted: 01 Feb 2011, 13:25
by observer1
Asterix wrote:
crusader wrote:^^ I agree. I have watched it a few times and cannot see a Hopkins win. I though Calzaghe won by a wide margin.
Agreed.
Twinkle Toes wrote:When it comes to Calzaghe, Obsever is guilty of what he moans about when people knock Khan - I'll let you work it out.

:OhYes:
:TU:
What's the problem though? Their two completley different scenario's.

I'm not even a fan of Amir Khan, i couldn't care less if he wins or loses.

All i'm saying he's only 24 years old, already left UK and left Frnk Wrren to face the big fights and is 24-1 and looking to unify the his weight class.

Calzaghe on the hand had 40+ bouts before he unifed the title in arguebally the worst division at the time bar the CW Division, then left the country to face his best opponent, who happened to be a 43 year old Hopkins who HBO were doing their best to shelve so he'd finally retire.

Re: Hopkins-Calzaghe... With hindsight

Posted: 01 Feb 2011, 14:55
by hurlock
sorry guy's i couldnt watch the whole fight as it was a stinker.i think stewards analysing is top quality & joe was failing to get into a rythum while hopkins done what he has pretty much done for his whole career & spoil & prevent the challenger to find hios range.

maybe judges scored hopkins tactics as cowardly & joe's pressing as making a fight regardless of not much clean work

Re: Hopkins-Calzaghe... With hindsight

Posted: 01 Feb 2011, 15:36
by Finn
hurlock wrote:sorry guy's i couldnt watch the whole fight as it was a stinker.i think stewards analysing is top quality & joe was failing to get into a rythum while hopkins done what he has pretty much done for his whole career & spoil & prevent the challenger to find hios range.

maybe judges scored hopkins tactics as cowardly & joe's pressing as making a fight regardless of not much clean work
I thinks thats exactly what it was.