Hopkins vs Calzaghe, do you think it was fair...?

Question

that Calzaghe won? Cuse it looks like Hopkins took the best punches to Calzaghe even tough Hopkins faked 2 punches to the groin Hopkins looked dominant in the fight and punches.

Answer 1

Yes it was a fair decision in my view although it could not have been closer it was a fight of two halves really and in closely fought contests such as this it is much better to be the fighter finishing strongly and this is probably why Calzaghe got the decision.

Answer 2

Calzaghe easily won. He threw more punches and effectively backed up Hopkins. Calzaghe was smart in throwing the shorter, lighter, faster punches and treating the mobile Hopkins like a SPEEDBAG and not like a heavybag. Hopkins never got any punching rhythm going except for the occasional lead right hands that stopped working as the fight progressed. You could say that Hopkins should have won the fight but what really made the difference for me was Hopkin's blatant acting job on the two supposed low blows. This isn't the NBA! This is HBO PPV boxing, dangit! Hopkins clinched, stalled, held, leaned with his head, and did everything he could to buy time and try and disrupt Calzaghe. In the end, Calzaghe praised Hopkins, and Hopkins didn't reciprocate the respect. Like the 2 sides of any coin, Hopkins is great in being able to fight like a younger fighter, it's unfortunate that he acts like one, too.

It was still entertaining because you're watching two great boxers going at it.

Answer 3

Yes it was, although Calzaghe did not seem to have any power he still did a lot more work

Answer 4

Yeah, I thought it was. I scored it 114-113 for Calzaghe - I gave Joe all of the last 5 rounds. He was coming on really strong, whereas Hopkins seemed to tire, evidenced by his gamesmanship in rounds 10 (which he was awarded a time out for), and round 12 (which Joe Cortez did not let him off with). But whereas Hopkins won the rounds he won clearly, I thought there were maybe 3 or 4 rounds that I gave Calzaghe that were real close, that if the judges were feeling particularly malicious, would have gone to Hopkins. But yeah, I do believe that did enough to get my vote, and indeed the split decision (goodness knows which fight Chuck Giampa was watching. 116-111 for Joe? All I can assume is that he must have been asleep for the first 5 or so rounds!). And therefore, Hopkins was beaten by a white boy...oh, the indignation!

Just as a side note - I believe referee Joe Cortez redeemed himself in the eyes of the British fans with his performance. No controversial incidents (apart from the 10th, I guess, when Hopkins went down in a heap to nick a breather), let the fight flow, and called it right down the middle, when most other referees would have crumbled, lost control and authority of the fight, and let Hopkins use all his stalling and dirty tricks. Cortez says that is fair but firm, and he was. A brilliant performance, further showing why he is the best in the business at what he does.

Word out.

Answer 5

Yeah joe won fair and square so tough. Stop crying america and get over it.

Answer 6

I hate watching hopkins fight. Almost as much as I hate watching Floyd Jr. fight. The reason why Calzaghe didn't look good, was because Hopkins ran away the entire night, much like Mayweather does. Backpeddling continuously and hiding is not fighting. Calzaghe is used to fighters not hiders.

Answer 7

yeah just like the de la hoya - mayweather fight it was boring it could of gone either way.

but this is certain calzaghe is no legend.

Answer 8

I am not sure if you were watching the same fight, but Hop-man all he did was hold and hold and hold Calzaghe. And fake low blows. He had no chance with Cal trading pounches.

man was wrong with you.

he lost to a great boxer named Joe Calzaghe. Possible the best boxer ever come out of Wales.