posted Apr 27, 2008

Just watched the rerun on BBC - I scored it 115-114 Hopkins win, however I would have deducted a point for Hopkins persistent fouling, use of the head and his blatant conning of the ref with all those 'low blows' that earned him extended breathers that if he hadn't had would have left him weakened him in the later rounds where you would favour Joe to pick him off. I call it a draw, but still rate Joe as the better fighter and Hopkins the spoiler.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

If none of Calzages punches were effective I do wonder why Hopkins was blowing so hard in the 9th round. It certainly wasn`t from the exertion of his doing anything.

Calzaghe took 2-3 rounds to figure him out.

For all this "throwback" and "legend" business Hopkins was remarkably one dimensional here.

It wasn`t a techncal masterclass of thowing, slipping, moving round the ring, countering well.

It was "throw lead right then hold, try to hit on other side of clinch so ref can`t see".

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

Calzaghe should of fought roy jones,hopkins,tarver,winky wright,felix trinandad,de la hoya five years ago when they were all at there prime its no good now fighting a load of old men if he had fought them and won then he would of been one of the greatest fighters ever as it is he is just another good champion.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

Just saw the BBC coverage of the fight. Have to admit that Joe Calzaghe wasn't that great but he definitely did enough to win though. I think BBC really ought to look at Duke McKenzie as a commentator for Radio 5. He had me believe Calzaghe lost that comfortably, he thought BH would win before the fight and clearly let his pre-fight thoughts on the outcome affect his commentary throughout the fight.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

I'd agree with that. Just seen the fight again on BBC also and may be the first time I had it at 116-111 to JC but trying to score it again without the bias I still had it at 115-112 to JC. I don't know what fight the guy who scored the bout in BHop's favour was watching.

BHop didn't throw enough punches nor connect with enough. You can't land 10 "good" punches and knock a guy down and think thats it, fight won, guy "schooled". If anybody got schooled it was Hopkins who had to take 2 outrageous breathers, presumably because he couldn't handle the heat of JC's work-rate. Even the knock-down had a pushing aspect to it as Hopkins followed through on JC after the punch stunned him.

I don't think JC was that impressive either but did enough to win what should have been a competitive UD or MD at the least. Very good fighter is BHop but b!oody boring to watch.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 27, 2008

Now after watching the fight again, I'm beginning to see the Hopkins viewpoint.
An old school warrior who regards counter-punching, crafty, tricks of the trade-style fighting as the truest form of boxing.
Not boxing as they teach it for the Olympics, but a fighter using each of his advantages to outwit and outthink the opponent in the ring. Henry Copper probably loved every minute of it.
That Calzaghe won on punching points is undisputed, but in terms of a fight, you would have to say Hopkins finished the 12 rounds with his head held high, and unsubdued.
He didn't look uncomfortable at all I didn't think, even after the so-called low blows.
He may have lost on the scorecards - no doubt - but he was still there at the end looking untroubled and organised.
For a guy from the Philidelphia projects with a stretch inside behind him, I can see why he might be wondering how anyone could think that Calzaghe had beaten him in a fair fight.
It just wasn't that kind of result.
Calzaghe outworked him and scored the points, but certainly didn't beat him up. And at the end of the day only one man got knocked down, and that was JC.
A win for Calzaghe a fair result, but nevertheless a level contest.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 29, 2008

Joe Calzaghe said "Who's he (Hopkins) kidding? He's an excellent fighter but at the end of the day he has lost five times now and he'd have you believe he is the best fighter in the history of boxing."

Didn't Ali lose 5? I'm not saying this means hopkins is the best, but very stupid comment from Joe. Fighters care about that 0 on their record too much. Joe has taken a few risks in his career, but not to the extent Hatton did against Mayweather, Joe should take on Pavlik.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 30, 2008

I give Calzaghe credit for winning in america. I belive he lost the bout and hopkins has a right to be upset over the decision.
Now he wants roy jones jr who i belive is past it now after hes defeats but like others have said he worries to much bout remaining undefeated,don't get me worng if you can go your career undefeated good luck to you but he should take on Pavlik Taylor or Traver next.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 5, 2008

Just watched the fight yet again. It wasnt great, but its quite clear that jc won on many levels.He wanted to win and so did hopkins but he was willing the tarnish the contest with his stupid time wasting and dirty tactics. Whats all this nonsense about old school? Any boxer in the gym understands thats another way to explain trying to win the fight without fighting! Nothing wrong with fighting Jones next, this industry is about entertainment as much as anything with big names to show their skills. Pavlik and Antonio can they match Jones's pulling power? Especially Antonio Joe would destroy him

add comment | complain about this comment