Calzaghe IS an overrated, protected loser. Congrats to joe for beating a 43 year old boxer, big deal. Joe looked like an amateur and the fight was scored purely on compubox numbers with Calzaghe obviously having the advantage with his slap punches. Dont be so bias when analyzing a fight just because you have your money on one side as it'll burn you eventually.
Who did it burn this time Smokey?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Smokeythebear:
Calzaghe IS an overrated, protected loser. Congrats to joe for beating a 43 year old boxer, big deal. Joe looked like an amateur and the fight was scored purely on compubox numbers with Calzaghe obviously having the advantage with his slap punches. Dont be so bias when analyzing a fight just because you have your money on one side as it'll burn you eventually.
I am assuming you are saying that I was burned? I didn't bet on the fight. The people calling out Calslappy will continue to do so because he proved to be exactly what everyone thought he was on Saturday night, an overrated, slap punching, protected fighter.
0
I am assuming you are saying that I was burned? I didn't bet on the fight. The people calling out Calslappy will continue to do so because he proved to be exactly what everyone thought he was on Saturday night, an overrated, slap punching, protected fighter.
LetMeSpin, you have to wonder why all these guys are calling out JC. No one calls out dangerous fighters. Sure hes getting old as well, but when Roy Jones is calling you out, saying he'll come and fight you across the sea, then you gotta think hes a bit over rated. Roy knows those pitty pat punches won't do anything to him, and Roy's straight right hands and fast combinations will probably knock JC out. I scored the fight 114-113 for BHop but I guess I can see a decision for JC, but still feel he is very amateurish. You might want to check what wins rounds in real boxing and then think about what JC really did in this fight.
0
LetMeSpin, you have to wonder why all these guys are calling out JC. No one calls out dangerous fighters. Sure hes getting old as well, but when Roy Jones is calling you out, saying he'll come and fight you across the sea, then you gotta think hes a bit over rated. Roy knows those pitty pat punches won't do anything to him, and Roy's straight right hands and fast combinations will probably knock JC out. I scored the fight 114-113 for BHop but I guess I can see a decision for JC, but still feel he is very amateurish. You might want to check what wins rounds in real boxing and then think about what JC really did in this fight.
LetMeSpin, you have to wonder why all these guys are calling out JC. No one calls out dangerous fighters. Sure hes getting old as well, but when Roy Jones is calling you out, saying he'll come and fight you across the sea, then you gotta think hes a bit over rated. Roy knows those pitty pat punches won't do anything to him, and Roy's straight right hands and fast combinations will probably knock JC out. I scored the fight 114-113 for BHop but I guess I can see a decision for JC, but still feel he is very amateurish. You might want to check what wins rounds in real boxing and then think about what JC really did in this fight.
I can't believe you think that RJJ would KO Calzaghe! Hopkins and Zags are in a class above RJJ at this point in their respective careers. If he'd fought anyone other than a blown-up welterweight in his last fight, he'd be the one tasting the canvas.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan8890:
LetMeSpin, you have to wonder why all these guys are calling out JC. No one calls out dangerous fighters. Sure hes getting old as well, but when Roy Jones is calling you out, saying he'll come and fight you across the sea, then you gotta think hes a bit over rated. Roy knows those pitty pat punches won't do anything to him, and Roy's straight right hands and fast combinations will probably knock JC out. I scored the fight 114-113 for BHop but I guess I can see a decision for JC, but still feel he is very amateurish. You might want to check what wins rounds in real boxing and then think about what JC really did in this fight.
I can't believe you think that RJJ would KO Calzaghe! Hopkins and Zags are in a class above RJJ at this point in their respective careers. If he'd fought anyone other than a blown-up welterweight in his last fight, he'd be the one tasting the canvas.
There are other fighters out there that RJJ could call out, so why pick a so called, "top pound for pound" fighter, if he didn't think he couldn't beat him. I think RJJ needs to do something to cement his place in boxing history, and a win against JC will do that. If hopkins put down JC with that straight right hand, do you know how much faster and probably harder RJJs right hands will be against JC? Again its just my opinion, but I think RJJ would beat JC KO or not.
0
There are other fighters out there that RJJ could call out, so why pick a so called, "top pound for pound" fighter, if he didn't think he couldn't beat him. I think RJJ needs to do something to cement his place in boxing history, and a win against JC will do that. If hopkins put down JC with that straight right hand, do you know how much faster and probably harder RJJs right hands will be against JC? Again its just my opinion, but I think RJJ would beat JC KO or not.
There are other fighters out there that RJJ could call out, so why pick a so called, "top pound for pound" fighter, if he didn't think he couldn't beat him.
Because of this:
Bagel Sandwiches Suck
0
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan8890:
There are other fighters out there that RJJ could call out, so why pick a so called, "top pound for pound" fighter, if he didn't think he couldn't beat him.
Who is Roy supposed to call out, a guy on the way out like Jermain Taylor? If Roy is deluded enough to believe he is still among the elite, he is going to call out the elite. As for the notion that no one calls out dangerous fighters, what are you talking about? Who did Ricky Hatton take a shot at when he beat Castillo? What did he get for it? Floyd has had guys yelling his name for years because he is the best pound for pound in the world and guys want to take what he has. Do you consider Floyd Mayweather a dangerous fighter?
0
Who is Roy supposed to call out, a guy on the way out like Jermain Taylor? If Roy is deluded enough to believe he is still among the elite, he is going to call out the elite. As for the notion that no one calls out dangerous fighters, what are you talking about? Who did Ricky Hatton take a shot at when he beat Castillo? What did he get for it? Floyd has had guys yelling his name for years because he is the best pound for pound in the world and guys want to take what he has. Do you consider Floyd Mayweather a dangerous fighter?
Roy was on top of the world once, now he's scuffling for attention and paydays. Joe would give him a payday, media attention, and a serious beatdown. Just a cash grab.
0
Roy was on top of the world once, now he's scuffling for attention and paydays. Joe would give him a payday, media attention, and a serious beatdown. Just a cash grab.
Been idle from the thread for a few days. Looks like there has been some heated discussion going. I like it.
LetMeSpin- I'm glad you finally admitted it was a close/tight fight. You are usually pretty solid in your scoring of fights, I was really surprised that you considered 116-111 Calzaghe card very credible.
Pushingit- Who was comparing Hopkins to those fighters on here? Agree, to even put Hopkins and Ray Robinson in the same sentence is wrong.
Sportsfan- Calm down man, like LMS said we will chalk this up to speaking in the heat of the moment. How can you say that Roy Jones would KO or even beat Zags? Jermain Taylor? Come on, that's pretty bad too. Of course Roy is calling out Calzaghe, as G8RB8 said the money. Roy is only concerned about making moola at this point, why else fight Tito.
Smokey-Agree on the compubox point. I actually think that compubox and the way HBO pushes it has really hurt boxing. Showtime doesn't always have the biggest names, but they do put on good fights along with NO compubox which is big in my book. Fans see those numbers and automatically just side with what they see on the screen in front of them, that's not how you score boxing. People don't understand that compubox is very susceptible to human error, it is just a guy pressing a button when he thinks that a punch lands. This isn't amateur boxing, does a clean/crisp/powerful shot equal a pity pat punch in your opinion? Listen, I thought Calzaghe won 114-113, anyone who scored this large for Zags is just scoring his arms moving and agreeing with the Compubox employee who tallied what punches landed.
A2C- Spot on with both statements.
Crazyremy- I thought I would save the best for last. "Clowned him and beat him convincingly," wow are you delusional? If you want to suggest bias on anyones part you should just look in the mirror. You don't simply reward someone for pushing the other fighter back to the ropes and being aggressive, "effective aggression" is a criteria used to score fights, but that entails punches landing. Calzaghe may not have been hurt, but the bottom line is only one man's tail touched the canvas for a KD and that was Joe's. Did I bet on Hopkins, yeah, but I try to be very unbiased even when scoring fights I bet on. Calzaghe won, but it was super close on my card. Lots of major news outlets had Hopkins winning, I guess they bet on Bernard or fans of his. Your statements of clowning are absolutely rediculous.
0
Been idle from the thread for a few days. Looks like there has been some heated discussion going. I like it.
LetMeSpin- I'm glad you finally admitted it was a close/tight fight. You are usually pretty solid in your scoring of fights, I was really surprised that you considered 116-111 Calzaghe card very credible.
Pushingit- Who was comparing Hopkins to those fighters on here? Agree, to even put Hopkins and Ray Robinson in the same sentence is wrong.
Sportsfan- Calm down man, like LMS said we will chalk this up to speaking in the heat of the moment. How can you say that Roy Jones would KO or even beat Zags? Jermain Taylor? Come on, that's pretty bad too. Of course Roy is calling out Calzaghe, as G8RB8 said the money. Roy is only concerned about making moola at this point, why else fight Tito.
Smokey-Agree on the compubox point. I actually think that compubox and the way HBO pushes it has really hurt boxing. Showtime doesn't always have the biggest names, but they do put on good fights along with NO compubox which is big in my book. Fans see those numbers and automatically just side with what they see on the screen in front of them, that's not how you score boxing. People don't understand that compubox is very susceptible to human error, it is just a guy pressing a button when he thinks that a punch lands. This isn't amateur boxing, does a clean/crisp/powerful shot equal a pity pat punch in your opinion? Listen, I thought Calzaghe won 114-113, anyone who scored this large for Zags is just scoring his arms moving and agreeing with the Compubox employee who tallied what punches landed.
A2C- Spot on with both statements.
Crazyremy- I thought I would save the best for last. "Clowned him and beat him convincingly," wow are you delusional? If you want to suggest bias on anyones part you should just look in the mirror. You don't simply reward someone for pushing the other fighter back to the ropes and being aggressive, "effective aggression" is a criteria used to score fights, but that entails punches landing. Calzaghe may not have been hurt, but the bottom line is only one man's tail touched the canvas for a KD and that was Joe's. Did I bet on Hopkins, yeah, but I try to be very unbiased even when scoring fights I bet on. Calzaghe won, but it was super close on my card. Lots of major news outlets had Hopkins winning, I guess they bet on Bernard or fans of his. Your statements of clowning are absolutely rediculous.
116-111 is two close rounds for Calzaghe different than your card FB. If a judge is rewarding mere activity and aggression, or even punishing holding and inactivity, you can get to 9-3. You may disagree with scoring a fight that way, but apparently there are professional judges who do it. That card doesn't even approach some of the bad ones we've seen recently. The 9-3 split for Hopkins over Winky was much more out of line in my view, and obviously 7-5 Pacman over Marquez was preposterous to me.
0
116-111 is two close rounds for Calzaghe different than your card FB. If a judge is rewarding mere activity and aggression, or even punishing holding and inactivity, you can get to 9-3. You may disagree with scoring a fight that way, but apparently there are professional judges who do it. That card doesn't even approach some of the bad ones we've seen recently. The 9-3 split for Hopkins over Winky was much more out of line in my view, and obviously 7-5 Pacman over Marquez was preposterous to me.
Smokey-Agree on the compubox point. I actually think that compubox and the way HBO pushes it has really hurt boxing. Showtime doesn't always have the biggest names, but they do put on good fights along with NO compubox which is big in my book. Fans see those numbers and automatically just side with what they see on the screen in front of them, that's not how you score boxing. People don't understand that compubox is very susceptible to human error, it is just a guy pressing a button when he thinks that a punch lands. This isn't amateur boxing, does a clean/crisp/powerful shot equal a pity pat punch in your opinion? Listen, I thought Calzaghe won 114-113, anyone who scored this large for Zags is just scoring his arms moving and agreeing with the Compubox employee who tallied what punches landed.
It's tough but it seems to be the way boxing is headed these days and the only person on HBO who I can stand listening to these days is Kellerman because he is a true student of the game and never brings a bias opinion to his commentating. If you purely analyze the fight punch by punch are the compu box numbers even correct for the Hopkins/Calzaghe? imo no.
It brings up the point like you said how do you judge when comparing a high amateurish work rate in comparsion to clean effective punching...in the case of this fight it wasn't too hard because Hopkins clearly just didnt do enough in my eyes and clearly most who watched the fight, he had to throw more punches and probably would have won fairly easily if he did. That being said I thought it was still very close decision and Hopkins exposed Calzaghe imo.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Fullbrights:
Smokey-Agree on the compubox point. I actually think that compubox and the way HBO pushes it has really hurt boxing. Showtime doesn't always have the biggest names, but they do put on good fights along with NO compubox which is big in my book. Fans see those numbers and automatically just side with what they see on the screen in front of them, that's not how you score boxing. People don't understand that compubox is very susceptible to human error, it is just a guy pressing a button when he thinks that a punch lands. This isn't amateur boxing, does a clean/crisp/powerful shot equal a pity pat punch in your opinion? Listen, I thought Calzaghe won 114-113, anyone who scored this large for Zags is just scoring his arms moving and agreeing with the Compubox employee who tallied what punches landed.
It's tough but it seems to be the way boxing is headed these days and the only person on HBO who I can stand listening to these days is Kellerman because he is a true student of the game and never brings a bias opinion to his commentating. If you purely analyze the fight punch by punch are the compu box numbers even correct for the Hopkins/Calzaghe? imo no.
It brings up the point like you said how do you judge when comparing a high amateurish work rate in comparsion to clean effective punching...in the case of this fight it wasn't too hard because Hopkins clearly just didnt do enough in my eyes and clearly most who watched the fight, he had to throw more punches and probably would have won fairly easily if he did. That being said I thought it was still very close decision and Hopkins exposed Calzaghe imo.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
