Boxing Forum - Boxing Discussion Forums banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Spike Spiegel
Joined
·
7,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
20.04.08 - by James Slater: Let me start right off the bat by telling you I predicted a split decision win for Joe Calzaghe last night. Let me also tell you that I do not believe he deserved this winning result he actually got from the judges after his 12 rounds with Bernard Hopkins in Las Vegas last night. No, the result was far from an outrageous one, but at the same time it made me ask the question, what do judges look at as their priority when scoring a boxing contest these days?

Yes, Joe was the man coming forward, and he was the man with more aggression on his mind. But what about the masterful Hopkins' ability to control both the pace and the majority of the movement in the ring, his superbly delivered counter-punches - with the right hand mostly - and his superb defensive moves? As Hopkins said after the fight, he made Calzaghe look like an amateur at times. Are the subtleties of ring craft being disregarded by today's scoring officials? I think they were last night. Hopkins fought a near masterpiece. And the 43-year-old is not getting this praise simply due to his advanced age.

Hopkins made Calzaghe look a completely different fighter than normal. Joe looked frustrated, clumsy, quite easy to hit and, as Hopkins said, amateurish. Even those who feel Joe won would surely have to admit this was the least impressive he's looked for many a year. Hopkins, once again proving he is an absolute master at shutting a guy down, took the Welshman to school at times. Enzo Calzaghe, Joe's dad and trainer, could see this and was implored to scream at his son a number of times as he tended to him between rounds. The trainer knew his son was not looking his old self, and he also knew it was because Hopkins had made it his kind of fight.

"Do you want to stop him, or do you want him to stop you!?, Enzo bellowed between rounds 6 and 7. "Because that's the way it's going." The concern was all too real and Enzo knew his son was in serious danger of losing. "If you don't win this last round, it's over!," the trainer screamed at Joe before the 12th and final round. "You've got to stop him!" Did Enzo feel the points win was in the bag? Like hell he did. The fact that it actually was must have come as a huge relief to him, as it came as quite a shock to this writer - especially the ludicrously wide margin of one judge. 116-111! That was not only plain wrong, it was also an insult not only to Hopkins to but all the past old-school masters of the sweet science. Again, don't the subtleties of the ring masters count anymore?

I though Hopkins fought a superb and clever fight. Once again pacing him brilliantly, the older man never let Joe come anywhere close to putting on the type of "Jeff Lacy" performance some writers foolishly predicted beforehand. There were no windmill imitations from Calzaghe on this night. The knockdown Hopkins scored in the 1st round - a knockdown that was the result of a superbly delivered right hand - put paid to Joe’s desire to let it all hang out as has become his trademark. Joe knew the risks of adopting such kamikaze tactics that he’s made his own in the past. Tonight he was in with the most intelligent, dangerous and crafty opponent of his long career.

Calzgahe, to his credit, did come into the fight from the 5th round on (I gave B-Hop all of the first four), but he never really got into the groove we have all become accustomed from him. To me, Hopkins was the ring general last night, sometimes landing his counters almost at will. Apart from the two low blows, which Hopkins admittedly made too much of, the 43-year-old looked as though he was enjoying himself in the fight. I was certainly enjoying his quite magnificent showcase of the art of pugilistic skill. Two of the three judges, however, were sadly not doing the same.

Coming forward and trying to make a fight of it is an admirable thing, but when you find yourself getting counterpunched something awful by the man you’re chasing you have no right to claim a victory - something Joe Calzaghe did last night. For what it’s worth, I had the Ring magazine belt holder retaining his title by a 115-112 margin.

“The good thing about boxing,” Hopkins said after the result was announced, “is that the fans are the real judges.” I for one hope the fans saw what two of the three official judges never last night.
This is old news, yes. But I was just searching through archives to get opinions on a fight I'm still pretty bitter about. Then I came across an article that I found interesting, and truthful.

I didn't have Hopkins 115-112 like this guy, I had it 114-113 Hopkins. But does anybody else feel that judges aren't looking at the sweet science of boxing? The way Hopkins made Calzaghe look back in April yet it was completely underappreciated in favour of 200 slaps from Calzaghe.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
25,672 Posts
Calslappy lost every round.
 

·
Spike Spiegel
Joined
·
7,078 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Just thought I'd add that the decision was not controversial in my eyes, but I felt the way Hopkins panned out his boxing that night was almost masterful and that it wasn't appreciated enough.
 

·
Calvarez
Joined
·
7,453 Posts
This is old news, yes. But I was just searching through archives to get opinions on a fight I'm still pretty bitter about. Then I came across an article that I found interesting, and truthful.

I didn't have Hopkins 115-112 like this guy, I had it 114-113 Hopkins. But does anybody else feel that judges aren't looking at the sweet science of boxing? The way Hopkins made Calzaghe look back in April yet it was completely underappreciated in favour of 200 slaps from Calzaghe.
I had it 114-113 Calzaghe. Watching it live I was very nervous because Calzaghe snatched it at the end on my card. I was surprised to hear 2 of the judges scored it 115-112 and 116-111. In fact when Buffer said "Chuck Giampa 116-111" I was convinced Calzaghe had lost, because for Calzaghe to get 116 he needed 9 rounds, minus a point for the knockdown. Hopkins needed 8 rounds. I didn't see how Calzaghe could have got nine rounds. It was a big surprise. Judges do look to much at workrate now :thumbsdown:
 

·
Boxings Own Living Legend
Joined
·
8,579 Posts
This is old news, yes. But I was just searching through archives to get opinions on a fight I'm still pretty bitter about. Then I came across an article that I found interesting, and truthful.

I didn't have Hopkins 115-112 like this guy, I had it 114-113 Hopkins. But does anybody else feel that judges aren't looking at the sweet science of boxing? The way Hopkins made Calzaghe look back in April yet it was completely underappreciated in favour of 200 slaps from Calzaghe.
I had it 114-113 Hopkins. incorrectly delivered punches should not score. The judge that scored it 116-111 should be made to join eugenia williams judging flower shows
 

·
Boxings Own Living Legend
Joined
·
8,579 Posts
I had it 114-113 Calzaghe. Watching it live I was very nervous because Calzaghe snatched it at the end on my card. I was surprised to hear 2 of the judges scored it 115-112 and 116-111. In fact when Buffer said "Chuck Giampa 116-111" I was convinced Calzaghe had lost, because for Calzaghe to get 116 he needed 9 rounds, minus a point for the knockdown. Hopkins needed 8 rounds. I didn't see how Calzaghe could have got nine rounds. It was a big surprise. Judges do look to much at workrate now :thumbsdown:
Giampa is as crooked as a corkscrew :cheeky4:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,091 Posts
the article is good. it was a very close fight indeed. it could have gone either way, but i scored it 1 round to calzaghe too. he got out and tried to win the fight knowing that he had lost most of the early rounds.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,091 Posts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1000th post may it be etched in our minds forever:D
er well done on the 100th post. i'm not far behind you :p
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,091 Posts
Thanks


Your just one Calzaghe thread away, lol
lol. yeah i find myself defending him way too much, but sometimes you gotta preach to let other people see your point of view.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,456 Posts
This is old news, yes. But I was just searching through archives to get opinions on a fight I'm still pretty bitter about. Then I came across an article that I found interesting, and truthful.

I didn't have Hopkins 115-112 like this guy, I had it 114-113 Hopkins. But does anybody else feel that judges aren't looking at the sweet science of boxing? The way Hopkins made Calzaghe look back in April yet it was completely underappreciated in favour of 200 slaps from Calzaghe.
I totally agree with you, the judges are looking at a totally different fight nowadays. Take the Tito-DLH fight for example, Tito only landed 116 punches to DLH's 263 yet the judges didn't see that ratio, they looked at who landed the more effective shots. When you look at the power punching (the more effective punching) comparisons: Tito landed 124 punches to 120 punches, this shows a closer fight. If they did this with the B-Hop-Cal fight, the right guy would've won this fight. Hopkins last fight was the first fight that I've ever seen the winner look worse than the loser LOL, but it is what it is.
 

·
aka Dr. Real
Joined
·
8,103 Posts
I just want to ask how in the world did Cal land more power shots than B-Hop?

Basically the fight was the more effecient punches vs. the busy fighter. Obviously the judges liked the busy fighter I guess :dunno:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,091 Posts
I totally agree with you, the judges are looking at a totally different fight nowadays. Take the Tito-DLH fight for example, Tito only landed 116 punches to DLH's 263 yet the judges didn't see that ratio, they looked at who landed the more effective shots. When you look at the power punching (the more effective punching) comparisons: Tito landed 124 punches to 120 punches, this shows a closer fight. If they did this with the B-Hop-Cal fight, the right guy would've won this fight. Hopkins last fight was the first fight that I've ever seen the winner look worse than the loser LOL, but it is what it is.
strange that a lot of people feel calzaghe lost and oscar won though lol. i personally scored it 1 round to calzaghe. hopkins did not show me enough that he was the champ. he did not dominate. infact i would guess when it came to power punches connecting, hopkins threw perhaps 40 max. maybe even 30. that's a guess cuz i aint seen the fight since then. maybe you can find the stats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,432 Posts
This is old news, yes. But I was just searching through archives to get opinions on a fight I'm still pretty bitter about. Then I came across an article that I found interesting, and truthful.

I didn't have Hopkins 115-112 like this guy, I had it 114-113 Hopkins. But does anybody else feel that judges aren't looking at the sweet science of boxing? The way Hopkins made Calzaghe look back in April yet it was completely underappreciated in favour of 200 slaps from Calzaghe.
Look at that i had the same score as you :thumbsup: Told you people i'm not bad at scoring!
 

·
Calvarez
Joined
·
7,453 Posts
I just want to ask how in the world did Cal land more power shots than B-Hop?

Basically the fight was the more effecient punches vs. the busy fighter. Obviously the judges liked the busy fighter I guess :dunno:
A Calzaghe power shot ain't nowhere near as powerful as a Bhop power shot. That's why.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top