I think bernard hopkins should of won?

Question

i know joe calzaghe won, but really i dont think he did enough to win. dont get me wrong i think joe calzaghe is one heck of a fighter but on that day i beleive bernard hopkins did enough to win, just because his style of fighting was a bit dirty as he was using his head alot and didnt let joe calzaghe get into an actual fight i beleive that was what he did well because he didnt allow joe calzaghe to do what he does best. when i saw his fight against Kessler joe calzaghe destroyed him wereas he was nothing like this in the match. Bernard Hopkins on the other hand knocked hime down in the firts round and made joe calzaghe stumbel a few times, and the low blow was real joe calzaghe di was real and bernard hopkins had a right to recooperate however the second low blow was a complete fake and the refferee was right to carry on. what do you think who should of really won.

Answer 1

The right man won.  Anyone who fights dirty ( your words) should not only lose but should be at least fined and a ban should always be considered.

Joe Rules.

Answer 2

Well then you must be blind because Calzaghe clearly won.

Answer 3

did you watch that boxing match or what...you must have been pissed...joe calzaghe deserved to win and im not just saying it because im welsh....hopkins was out of breath and resting at every opportunity..i cant be bothered to answer this properly.

Answer 4

It should have been ruled a draw neither fighter did enough to get the win. And I like both fighters

Answer 5

Hop lost the fight.  I s'pose you could say that he was "the champ" and you have to thoroughly whip "the champ" to take his belt.  But that really doesn't apply to today's boxing.  Your man lost, but at 43 held up better than anyone could have expected.

Answer 6

He didn't do enough to win. If you watch the fight with the volume down it's obvious for all to see ......... too much bias involved in the commentary and the decision !!

Answer 7

Don't wate your breathe......even Hopkins knows that Calzaghe really deserved his win.

Answer 8

I went to Vegas to watch it. I agree with the decision, although I do wish Calzaghe would stop slapping his opponents, and start punching them. The ref. missed a couple of low blows from Hopkins. Hopkins did spoil the Calzaghe style in the early rounds, but Joe did do enough, even Hopkins admits this.

The US female judge who gave the fight easily to Hopkins, should be investigated, either on the grounds of incompetence, or worse. I really do wish also, that they would stop involving women in the male boxing game. It really is totally inappropriate.

Answer 9

I thought Joe Calzaghe won, and this is coming from someone who wanted Hopkins to win. You say Calzaghe didn't do enough to win. Well, I don't think Hopkins did enough to keep Calzaghe from winning their bout. Looking at the punch stat numbers, it showed that Calzaghe indeed did enough or more than Hopkins to win the fight.

With the exception of the first round, I thought every round looked the same with Hopkins throwing two or three punches and then throw himself into a clinch after the final punch of his short combos. I think Hopkins robbed himself of golden opportunities to score big when he would go into his clinching. It seem at times that Calzaghe was open for additional shots, but Hopkins would hastily go into the clinches, instead of scoring with a punch or two. It was very difficult for me to even give Hopkins four rounds. I just thought Calzaghe out hustled Hopkins and deserved the win.

Answer 10

Im glad he lost for talking junk!! Now he got beat by a white man so what does he got to say now!!

Answer 11

Taffsandy is right. I am British, but unlike a lot of Brits on here, I tend to have an impartial view on things, and more importantly, live in the real world. 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.

Answer 12

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.

Answer 13

Ive watched the fight numerous times and with sound off and I give bernard the decision,and im mnot a 'fan'of either fighters,Hopkins should have won that

Answer 14

UR NOT THE ONLY ONE SAYING THAT.....ONLY THING I CAN SAY WAS BERNARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ACTIVE........HE DID SCORE A KNOCK DOWN IN THE FIRST ROUND, AND SOMETIMES THAT CAN HURT A FIGHTER.