Calzaghe vs Hopkins how did you score it?

I have known about this video series for a while, but because the fight was such a stinker I have been reluctant to watch it again.

There is a series of Youtube videos that show the Calzaghe vs Hopkins fight in slow motion and possibly shows why some people thought Hopkins won the fight. On watching it LIVE and subsequent times after, I have always had Cazlaghe winning, however it would be interesting to see it from a different point of view.

This is the first part to get you started, the rest of the parts are on the same channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyz2cws8LBE

Since people were mentioning this fight on another thread, why don't we have a watch and see what we think?

JC by a couple of round. Had it gne to Hop it would have been a robbery. Thanks for the link. I'll watch it as a cure for insomnia. In fact you may as well watch Hoppos last dozen fights for a cure for insomnia.

I'm going to be really interested to see what happens when the 'low blow' goes in...

What use is watching it in slow motion?

It wasn't a pretty fight but Calzaghe did enough down the stretch to deserve the win.

i always thought it was a entertaining fight, and wondered why it gets called a boring fight, as far as hopkins fights go it was one of the better ones. agree with a close decesion for JC, and remember how people where complaining at the time about hopkins been "past it"- the win looks better as time goes on.

dont think it warrents been watched in slow motion though.

Doesn't take much to please you does it?

i thought hopkins won it. ive scored it several times and had him by between 1 and 3 rounds. usually 1 i think. if mayweather had fought calzaghe like that people would be calling it a shut out.

however the fight was very close and an intruiging one. its certainly a very subjective fight to score. even buncey said at one point if they had a rematch hopkins would win comfortably. hopkins assumed he had won and didnt do enough in the later rounds. the story ive heard is hopkins blamed roach for the defeat, after some of the over confident prep talks between rounds. hopkins and roach didnt work together again i think.

Just got through watching it and it really opened my eyes, I had Hopkins winning clearly and it really was a bit of a schooling. I laughed at anyone who had Hopkins winning all those years ago, but I feel a bit silly now. Hopkins lands some excellent counter shots on the blind side of the camera angle, he lands plenty of great left hooks, I didn't even hear the commentator mention that punch.

I didn't really like Hopkins tactics of holding and hitting, throwing one right hand and then holding, however later on in the fight when Calzaghe comes rushing in, Hopkins is picking him off brilliantly with counters. He rocks Calzaghe badly on a number of occasions. Hopkins defence is also excellent as well. One of the problems with watching it in real time is you get distracted by the flashy combinations from Calzaghe that miss and you miss the clean counter landing.

116-111, here is how I scored it:

Round 1: 10-8 Hopkins
Round 2: 10-9 Hopkins
Round 3: 10-9 Hopkins
Round 4: 10-9 Hopkins
Round 5: 10-9 Hopkins
Round 6: 10-9 Hopkins
Round 7: 10-9 Calzaghe
Round 8: 10-9 Hopkins
Round 9: 10-9 Calzaghe
Round 10: 10-9 Hopkins
Round 11: 10-9 Calzaghe
Round 12: 10-9 Calzaghe

Bloody hell 88. That's a near rout.

Just scoring what I see, Like the video says, Calzaghe must have landed like 35 effective punches the entire fight. Hopkins made him miss and made him pay, it looks a lot different in slow motion, you need to watch the videos.

I am a massive Calzaghe fan, he is the reason I got into watching boxing, but I found it incredibly hard to give him rounds. Hopkins landed the best punches round after round.

I had it scored 116-112 the other way when I watched it LIVE.

i haven't watched it ( nor will i again) since watching it live in which i was rather tipsy. i had hopkins by one or two at the time although it was extremely close and many rounds could have gone either way. i remember alot of people being up in arms about hopkins spoiling tactics but not sure what everyone was expecting from a 40+ against calzaghe who always had great work rate. i do feel some scored hopkins less by being annoyed by him when they watched it live

both men fight pretty dirty when it suits them. hopkins spoils, and although we know calzaghe can actually punch, he does slap and and throw arm punches and rabbit shots when it suits him. you could say the slapping and arm throwing from calzaghe were just as spoiling on hopkins as what hopkins did to calzaghe. problem was hopkins assumed these light punches he wasnt worried about were not scoring punches, but clearly the judges did score them. if we went on effective, clean or hard punches only, then hopkins won this fight easily.

Just a terrible fight, no point scoring it, these sort of matches should be called be a 'void' as it's really too much of a stalemate.

For me Calzaghe's best win, by some distance, was against Mikel Kessler. The Hopkins, Jones and Lacy wins just had too many ifs, buts or maybes to be classed as significant victories on his CV.

I couldn't watch it again. I can't imagine it being possible to get through to the end. My abiding memory of it was that Hopkins spoiled, but that calzaghe never managed to land a clean shot. Slappy work rate vs one or two clean shots a round, what wins the round? I don't care enough to hold a view.

Had it even before I fell asleep..That's all I can remember!

Sorry but you can't effectively score a fight watching it in slow motion, watching an incredibly biased video at the same time is pointless.

Its in slow motion to show you the punches that land. Most of Calzaghes don't and most of Hopkins do.

Jimdig is spot on..........

The US government missed a trick instead of waterboarding terrorists..they should have shown this fight three times a day..

They would have sung like canaries............in no time!

You can't judge a fight like that, you have to watch it live motion.

It looks like what hes done is shown one punch or two from bernard then repeated them in the middle to buffer it.

Watched it a couples of times one live and another to see if I was swayed by the pro Calzaghe commentators, both times had Joe winning by 4 rounds, Hopkins didnt do anywhere near enough to win, in fact he was bordering disqualification for me, blatantly finding his way to the canvas when he was gassed should have been scored knockdowns.

Cheers Rodders

ShahenshahG wrote:It looks like what hes done is shown one punch or two from bernard then repeated them in the middle to buffer it.

He is showing in the exchanges exactly what punches are landing. For example a lot of the exchanges I thought Calzaghe got the better of it was actually Hopkins who avoided the flurry and landed a clean counter.

Hes not though - hes shown the knockdown in the middle shown the single punch that landed 4 times, twice from different angles from different angles, deliberatley missed out anything calzaghe landed of note and then repeated them again. He's done an hour and a halfs worth of editing and recording (and replaying) but claims he wants to save time and therefore isnt showing the rounds that Joe won. He's claiming the (illegal) rabbit punches arent being picked up by compubox and then repeating it all over again. What a waste of time

Shah nails it. Actually reminds me of the Frazier documentary in terms of its bias.

Although I do agree with BoxingFan that not enough credit was given by the commentators to Hopkins, Calzaghe nicks this fight every time I replay it.

ShahenshahG wrote:Hes not though - hes shown the knockdown in the middle shown the single punch that landed 4 times, twice from different angles from different angles, deliberatley missed out anything calzaghe landed of note and then repeated them again. He's done an hour and a halfs worth of editing and recording (and replaying) but claims he wants to save time and therefore isnt showing the rounds that Joe won. He's claiming the (illegal) rabbit punches arent being picked up by compubox and then repeating it all over again. What a waste of time

What a loser more like! Has the guy got nothing better to do than to put up some biased rubbish on youtube like its going to sway public opinion & change the result. I must admit I've not bothered to watch it, like many have already said it wasn't a great fight first time round in real time let alone in slo mo. I didn't actually score this fight but just felt Hopkins didn't do enough, spoiled, tried wasting time & looked to sneak the rounds which against a high work rate fighter like Calzaghe is a big mistake. I think Hopkins massively underestimated Calzaghe as well.

i just think its a subjective fight. different judges let alone different fans can find a case for either man.

Watching it live I thought the decision could have gone either way. Watched it again a few months later and thought Calzaghe took it quite comfortably. Struggled to score any of the last 9 rounds for Hopkins, Calzaghe just seemed to work him out and Hopkins only 'plan - B' was to hold and fake low-blows. IMO quite easy to score in the end 116 - 111 Joe Calzaghe.