Calzaghe V Hopkins

I'm going to see the snooker and have to be up at 5:30 tomorrow and I'm torn as to whether I should stay up for this fight and then just be knackered tomorrow and probably f*cked for work the entire week. I think I'll give this one a miss though as really, Joe should knock him out, and by staying up I probably won't miss anything particularly special. If Joe loses then I'd have stayed up to be really pissed off and tired the following day, and if he wins then I'll have stayed up to see exactly what I thought what was going to happen.

The only scenario that it would be worth staying up for would be if it was the fight of the century with Joe winning by knockout in the 12th after being down by 1 point, but that's probably not going to happen so I'll probably give it a miss.

Predictions? On the one hand, Hopkins has an exceptional record against southpaws and has a knack for making class fighters look average. I don't think he is just there for the pay day either, he REALLY wants to win this one I think, especially with the infamous "I won't be beaten by a white boy" comments".

On the other hand, he is 43 and Joe is one of the best British fighters of all time. I can't see anything but a resounding Calzaghe win, even if he doesn't knock him out then I anticipate another boxing lesson similar to the one he gave to Lacy. If Calzaghe does lose it though then his legacy will be ruined. I'm going with Calzaghe in 9.

CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALZAGHE BOY!

Debating whether to stay up.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Debating whether to stay up.

What? Only a bird would miss this one. For the first time in my life I'm sat on the fence. Imho there are so many imponderables surrounding this fight picking a winner is almost impossible. Personally I've always had my doubts about any boxer moving up a division, especially if they're stepping up a weight to fight someone of the calibre of Bernard Hopkins, but at 43 you've got to think Hopkins best days are behind him. 5-10 years ago it would have been a no-brainer, Hopkins would have been my choice. Put on the spot and given a choice, if what I've read and heard leading up to the fight is true and Hopkins is the dedicated health freak we've been led to believe with the body of a 27 year old, being 43 shouldn't be a problem, and if that's the case all known form suggests a good biggun will allus beat a good littlun.

However, if Joe is the fitter man and can keep Hopkins at arms length he should win on points without too many problems.

Can't wait.

Big Audley's back in the ring.

Here we go then. I'm going for Calzaghe on points.

Great that the Welsh fans didn't boo the American anthem unlike some of Hatton's twattish cockheads.

O shit. This is tighter than I thought it would be.

Joe by a split decision.


Did anyone watch it - was it a good fight?

The BBC made it sound like quite a one sided fight and that Hopkins was robbed...

It wasn't a good fight at all. Hopkins did nothing but be ultra defensive, he grabbed Joe at every opportunity, he led with his head when he did want to get in a fight. Caught Joe with some peaches though.

Las Vegas judges usually like work rate and Calzaghe landed 33% of something over 700 punches, Hopkins landed something like 25% of 450 punches. In essence, if you liked execution of good shots the Hopkins probably won, if you dislike cynicism and a style that makes for a boring fight and like a bloke to come forward onto his opponent and actually throw a punch then Joe won with consumate ease.

Furthermore, Calzaghe literally patted Hopkins around the crown jewels and Hopkins minced for about 3 minutes - quite 'cute' but a little dishonourable and it just showed me how tired he was and how he didn't want a rumble. 'Coincidentally' he livened up after his loung soujorn.

Not sure how any of the judges reached their conclusion, for me it was Joe by 3 rounds.

Another little point is that Joe Cortez, the referee who didn't let Hatton fight on the inside at all against Mayweather, let Hopkins do exactly what he wanted. That IMO is massive bias towards the Yanks.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Great that the Welsh fans didn't boo the American anthem unlike some of Hatton's twattish cockheads.

Because we aren't a nation of Cockheads you see

Big boxing fan and a big Calzaghe fan. This fight had me more excited then anything Cricket has done for a while.

Though the fight was a slight let-down as I knew in the back of my mind it would be. For 2 reasons - The Ref is terrible and not strong enough to punish what needs punishing and the other was Hopkins' tactics. Hopkins could not win that fight by out-boxing or out-fighting Joe, he had to be clever and counter punch and win by a knock-out or stoppage. He got away with too much holding, two or three headbutts and play-acting. On another night with a better ref Hopkins could have had two points taken off. This was the only way he could beat Joe and it failed. Joe wasn't at his very best, he should have jabbed more early on but as the fight went on he became in control whilst still being careful of Hopkins' big right hand. Joe deserved to win because he did everything by the rules and was out there doing his best win, Hopkins was running away and being dirty and hoping to win by just throwing the odd big right hand.

Calzaghe is a great champion of this and any era.

I think that quantity and intent (aided by mindless compubox stats that are often wrong IMO) take too much precedence over quality counterpunching and power.

If I'm in a fight and I "slap" my opponent 20 times but he catches me 5 or 6 times with rock hard counterpunches, I wouldn't feel like I'd won the fight.

However, unlike the Marquez-Pacquiao fight, I think the right decision was reached here. Old B-Hop couldn't keep it going for the whole fight. If he had, it'd have been his. It was a brilliant performance by a man of his age against a prime p4p fighter like Joe and like he said, it was "old school". Brilliant fighter and definitely a great.

I thought Cortez was exactly the same as he was for Mayweather-Hattom in terms of breaking up the clinches every two seconds. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is for the individual to decide. But he didn't favour Hopkins at all IMO.

Had this fight taken place in Wales with a British ref I think Calzaghe would have dominated from start to finish and Hopkins wouldn't have been allowed to piss about so much and Joe would have been a bit sharper being on home soil.

Joe has gone there and done the job. Someone better tell Bernard that Joe proved him wrong, as the white boy beat him.

It's a bit of a shame that Calzaghe is only now fighting the biggest names. A fight against Hopkins 3-4 years ago would've been something else (although i understand there was a deal in place until Hopkins backed out over money)

Possibly Roy Jones next...again like Hopkins past his very best but still a massive scalp if Joe gets it.

spangler wrote:Possibly Roy Jones next...again like Hopkins past his very best but still a massive scalp if Joe gets it.

Aye, he wanted Jones at his best as well - was talking all sorts of trash to get Jones to fight him(which was pretty embarassing). But, typical Roy Jones Jr., he avoided him. TBH, I reckon Hopkins would be many an opponent still. Don't think he lost either fight to Taylor, for instance.

Jones wants Clazaghe in a 2 leg affair!

Hmmmm, I'd see no point, especially if he wants to retire. Personally, if he were to have two fights left in his career, he may as well do Jones and then Pavlik. Still if the Jones fight is a cracker, then a rematch is feasible. Another Hopkins/Calzaghe really, really isn't for the promoters - it would be another grab-fest. The only person I've seen grab as quickly and willingly is Audley Harrison and that's saying something.

I've just seen the fight, it was close but Joe was clearly the winner in my opinion. You can't grab, hold and run away for 12 rounds whilst landing less than one decent shot per round and expect to win. Really sore loser as well.