Calzaghe Vs Hopkins- Generally speaking what do Americans think of the judges decision?

Question

Calzaghe Vs Hopkins- Generally speaking what do Americans think of the judges decision?

Answer 1

I think that the general consencus from everyone, not just Americans, is that Calzaghe simply outworked Hopkins to win a decision.  Hopkins had the knockdown and he landed the harder blows, but Calzaghe outlanded him by over 100 punches.  When you get outlanded by that much, it is really hard to see the fight going your way.  I had Calzaghe winning 115-112- I think that the two who scored it for Calzaghe were on-point, but I don't think that the one judge who scored it for Hopkins did a bad job either.  It all came down to Calzaghe's quantity punches vs. Hopkins quality punches, and in this case, quantity outdid quality.

Answer 2

They got it right.

Answer 3

the judges made the right decision

Answer 4

even if hopkins had got every swing round it still should have been unanimus for calzaghe. even though i dont think one of calzaghes "punches" (if thats what you want to call them) hurt hopkins. regardless of the outcome i was not impressed with calzaghes performance but i was even less impressed with hopkins. pavlik, roy jones or any big name fighter not north of fourty should beat calzaghe.

Answer 5

Calzaghe SUCKS!!!! hes trying to be a legend by fighting a 43 year old man. Yes hopkins is great but calzaghee chose i fight he knew he'd win to shut up us americans up. Well ur not foolin me tea boy I personally am not impressed

Answer 6

I think the judges were actually very kind to Hopkins in giving him so many rounds. . . .I kinda figured one judge would give him the fight. . .we've all sorta come to expect these kinds of things from this sport.  

It's hard to give Hopkins more than four rounds, in all honesty.  Some were close, but Hopkins held so much, that it's hard to reward hitting once and then holding.  

Calzaghe's punches weren't always flush, but he landed so many of them, that it simply can't be disregarded.  The right man won.

Answer 7

Could have gone either way.

Answer 8

I wouldn't have been surprised if it went Hopkins way, a lot of those rounds had very little to score, and depending on what the judges were looking for they could have justified giving the round to either guy.  Both were pretty much established champions fighting at a catch-weight of sorts (neither weighed in at 173, and neither was looking to establish any sort of weight advantage).

I would have scored it for Calzaghe, personally, I just can't give a win to a guy who didn't really do anything but sit back and wait to throw one punch and clinch.  But, I wouldn't have faulted the judges for picking Hopkins because he was more effective with the punches he threw.

Answer 9

I thought Hopkins won only the first round.

Answer 10

I thought Calzaghe landed a lot more little punches and that's why he got the decision, but Hopkins dropped him and made him bleed.  Which guy would have you been?  You're stupid if you say Calzaghe.

Answer 11

In Other Words Since Chris Wrote So Much-----We Likey

Answer 12

Should have been unanimous Joe's way. Bernard should have known you can't throw one punch and hold. If i wanted to see wrestling i would have watched Wrestlemania.

Answer 13

Actually, I thought it should have been an unanimous decision. I struggled to find four rounds to give to Hopkins, especially since all except the first round seem like a carbon copy, with him throwing two or three punches and then clinch, which I thought hurt him somewhat.

Answer 14

I think the decision is fair. It exposed Joe Cazaghe as a good but not that good fighter. Joe barely beat a 43 years old man by split decision. Not too impressive.

Answer 15

Generally speaking? Calzaghe beat Hopkins and his mouth and on Hopkins own turf. That is as general as I can be.