Joe_the_Lion Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 In the interest of balance I thought Hopkins won, I really did. It was ugly but I really didn't see how he lost the fight. He landed all of the best shots in most of the rounds. How the one judge had it as a 116 point fight for Calzaghe is beyond me - you cannot seriously be saying that he won 9 out of 12 rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryboy Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 Calzaghe outlanded Hopkins 2-1. Hopkins landed the majority of the real hard shots, but he didn't do enough. Calzaghe won on agression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Is God Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 Calzaghe won it on my card 115-112.From the fifth round on Hopkins barely threw the jab, held on every time Joe got close and tried to get by on sneaking in two or three clean right hands per round. In contrast Calzaghe forced the fight, threw and landed plenty of jabs, held his own with Hopkins on the inside and although he missed plenty, got through with enough to win every round from five onwards on my card apart from the 10th, to overhaul his early defecit clearly.Not a great performance by Joe but at least he wanted to fight. Hopkins didn't. But those who scored all the close rounds for Hopkins - and there were many close rounds- I can understand why they had the American winning. Like two of the judges, I thought Calzaghe just nicked most of those close rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stylin_and_Profilin Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 Some crazy scoring. I had Hopking winning by 2pts though it was tight no doubting that. However..............how the hell the third judge had it pencilled in for Calzaghe on 116 - thus meaning he won eight or nine rounds - is just lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_the_Lion Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 Calzaghe outlanded Hopkins 2-1. Hopkins landed the majority of the real hard shots, but he didn't do enough. Calzaghe won on agression.Sorry, I just hate that phrase. This isn't a question of nobility. Calzaghe walked forwards, threw lots (most of which caught the gloves/arms or were barely proper punches) and got caught by someone who is a better boxer. Hopkins is entitled to go backwards, he's 43 for fucks sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryboy Posted April 20, 2008 Share Posted April 20, 2008 And judges often give the close rounds to the guy who is bringing the fight, not the guy running a clinching. Hence why Calzaghe won. He threw about 300 more punches, landed twice as many and landed a higher percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_the_Lion Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 And judges often give the close rounds to the guy who is bringing the fight, not the guy running a clinching. Hence why Calzaghe won. He threw about 300 more punches, landed twice as many and landed a higher percentage.Think that depends on your definition of the word 'landed'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubbafish Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 setanta are shite at boxing if this was sky there'd be a good card before the main event..too much talkingIf this was on Sky, this would be the biggest thing in the country right now, rather than half a dozen posts on this message board. likewise if it was on itv..itv and sky have always been great at promoting big fights like this and stacking the undercardTV channels have no say at all in undercards of fights so saying if it was on another channel would make it better is BS. The whole card for that show was put together by Golden Boy Promotions who are normally astounding, this is the first card I have seen by them in about 2 years that was completely underwhelming. As for the fight itself, I saw Hopkins spoiling A LOT which some people hate and it appears the judges didn't like that style either so I can see how the cards came out as they did. Also, Buncey is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Stevie C Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Oh the side, just how shit did Audley Harrison look?The guy can not move at all. Yet he thinks he'll be ready for a Stadium fight for the heavyweight title in a few matches time?Come on Audley. You've got some power but that's it mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveo2007 Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 (edited) I've been told this Calzaghe fight was a good one, not really been into boxing but may try and find it somewhere. Edited April 21, 2008 by Steveo2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila_Boy Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 I know little about boxing and I'm confused, how does Calzaghe winning by 5 points mean he won 8 or 9 rounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryboy Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 (edited) I know little about boxing and I'm confused, how does Calzaghe winning by 5 points mean he won 8 or 9 rounds?On one juges card he won 9 rounds to 3, however it was a point closer as Hopkins got a knockdown in the 1st round, making that a 10-8 round. Edit: let me explain fully. Boxing rounds are scored 10 points to the winner, 9 to the loser. If a fighter is knocked down or really hammered, it would be a 10-8 round. Multiple knockdowns would lead to 10-7.I've been told this Calzaghe fight was a good one, not really been into boxing but may try and find it somewhere.Whoever told you that must be high. It was very scrappy, Hopkins used just about every dirty trick in the book, and there was little in the way of action. I'd try tracking down his exciting fight with Mikkel Kessler, or the one sided drubbing of Jeff Lacy, which was an entertaining masterclass by Calzaghe. Edited April 21, 2008 by Larryboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila_Boy Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Ah right ok, I always thought it was just based on how many punches were landed and they were added up with the winner being the one who threw the most. I wondered how people always seemed to score about the same amount of points in every match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Stevie C Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 (edited) Ah right ok, I always thought it was just based on how many punches were landed and they were added up with the winner being the one who threw the most. I wondered how people always seemed to score about the same amount of points in every match.It's known as the 10 point must system, the round winner gets 10 points. No matter what. The loser will get 9 (if it's fairly close) or 8 (if he gets a battering).I thought judgest can only score 7 but only if a fighter is getting a battering and loses a point because of persistant holding or an illegal punch? Edited April 22, 2008 by DJ Stevie C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 It really was an ugly fight that did neither fighter any favours. Hopkins threw very little, and cheated a lot. Calzaghe threw plenty of punches, but most of them would have struggled to knock out a child. Neither fighter looked at all hurt at the end of the fight, and it makes you wish for the days when they would have continued to fight until someone couldn't stand.I think Calzaghe looked the better fighter, but I can see why everyone's lining up to fight him now - he looks eminently beatable at this weight class, and he'd be a big scalp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts