How can there be anybody crying about Hopkins losing?

Question

I ask this to the minority, because most people seem to be ok with the judges decision. But even if you somehow thought Hopkins should have won.....On what basis do you make this decision? Dont say stupid **** like Joe wasn't impressive. Who has ever looked impressive against Hopkins??? Jones sure didn't, and Taylor could have easily lost those fights on the cards. Its not easy to look good against Hopkins, let alone do enough to win. Point is that Hopkins looked even WORSE than Joe, landed fewer shots and a smaller connect rate. And then the constant holding by Hopkins with his cute little acting from the "low blow". Hopkins is 43, this was going to happen sooner or later. And he definitely didnt go out on his back or with his *** whooped, so consider that a good thing!

Answer 1

Hopkins landed the harder punches but he just was'nt active enough to win that fight.  It would have been tough to score but I think they got it right.  Hopkins looked old.

Answer 2

Neither of them look good. Hopkins was more effective with his punches, once again Joe used his slapping technique and score points. I don't see how anyone can say that Calzaghe won by a landslide or anything but he won. I know why i'm mad.....Joe slaps and scores points i feel that  his style is very umm p***y fighting. Hopkins was actually landing punches and swinging unlike Joe. Anyway Hopkins needed a little more spark like he once had, Joe slaps and scores points what more can i say. If you think he is a true boxer you need to go watch rugby or arm wrestling seriously. I will give Joe Calzaghe some respect when he beat Kelly Pavlik or Roy Jones.

Answer 3

Hopkins won the first round on a good punch and a better push! Calzaghe won the next eleven rounds. Only two of those rounds were close enough to maybe call a draw on. What fight was that girl judge watching?

Answer 4

The AP, the commentators, most ringside observers, and myself all had identitical scorecards.  114-113 Hopkins.

There is little doubt that calzaghe was too cagey the first three rounds, and the first six rounds were a borefest regardless of who you were rooting for.

I don't know about crying over the decision, but I certainly can see where people would question a 116 - 111 scorecard favoring Calzaghe.

BTW, the judge who scored it 116 - 111 Calzaghe is responsible for some very very questionable scorecards.

I thought BHop won the fight on effective clean punching and ring generalship.  In the criteria for scoring a round there is no mention of playing paddy-cakes to rack up points.  However, I have seen far worse decisions than this one.

EDIT: I suppose I should watch it again.  I thought the first 6 rounds BHop landed a few really clean punches.  I gave him rounds 1,2,4,5,6 & 8 and Calzaghe 3,7,9,10, 11, 12.  

I think if rounds 8 & 4 go to Calzaghe on workrate as apposed to one or two hard shots landed by BHop you could get a card 115 - 112 Calzaghe, and that I would agree to.  116 to 111, That I can't see.  Overall I thought it was not a terribly difficult fight to score.

Answer 5

Its always like this after a fight. A fighter can get knocked out cold, counted to 10 and then some dufus comes on here saying he was robbed.

Its obvious who controlled the fight and who won, anyone who sees anything other than Joe as the winner isnt a boxing fan.. they are a B-Hop butt buddy groupie.

Answer 6

I had it 112-115 for Joe.  after thee 6th Bernard looked old.  I swear he should have burns across his back from running away all night long and sliding across the entire ring.  I just can't see how anyone could have Bernard on that fight just my opinion