MTF Where is the sig that I owe you. Don't want you to think that I'm not gonna hold up to my end of the agreement. I'll Holla 5000
All I can do is take your word for it... though given the fact that the board was down the week of the fight (as well as the night of, if I'm not mistaken) and you're rarely in Gen. Discussion, I'm kinda curious as to who exactly you said it to. It was anything but dominant, especially when you consider the number of people who believe Hopkins won. That's the point I was making. To say you said it for effect doesn't make it any less of an exaggeration, in fact flat out wrong. He won the fight, but it was still ugly both ways. There you go speaking out of turn again. No Petre, I joined the ranks of oh so many others wondering aloud why the fuck Roy didn't take advantage of the moment... at that point confirming the belief that he's... (wait for it) mentally shot. Who is among this many that you speak of? the Ajamu and Hanshaw fights barely registered. The Tito win was a money grab, and again, I saw more disappointment in his inability/unwillingness to close the show than anything else. My argument was that the list of fighters who beats him today runs deeper than Calzaghe and Dawson. So no, we don't agree, not the way you're selling it. not worth arguing. and please quit acting like you never got a fight wrong. The "greatest" reference was regarding Roy, countering YOUR claim: Jones gets in the ring with someone a bit slower , who doesn't throw 100 punches a round . Who's not a slick and hard to hit ... and he'll be the greatest again. :notallthere: To which I named three fighters that were made to order for Roy... and at no point did anyone suggest that Roy was the greatest again. Capiche? I'm sorry Petre, but this is where any sensible argument ends. If any further proof was needed that you're way out of your element on this one, it's that claim right there.
The overall opinion was overwhelmingly that Calzaghe won. Let's cut the bullshit. It was not a controversial fight. I honestly can't see anyone legitimately making the case that Bhop really won. Hopkins has a legion of apologists. Hopkins even tried to quit. Hopkins is a negative fighter and every close round should go the person who is trying to do their job and fight.
True Free,.. Imagine if Hopkins swept rounds 4 through to 12, and had Calzaghe rolling around the canvas crying like a bitch,.. - would Hopkins groupies be in here making a determined case for Joe?..
Petre - nobody in their right mind hailed Roy's heart for going the distance against Tarver, in fact they questioned Roy's heart for going the distance with Tarver. That was the majority opinion. Because that's ALL he tried to do, go the distance like a journeyman, he didn't try to win. And Jake, nobody in their right mind thought Nard won the fight. It was a shit, ugly fight, but one that Calzaghe clearly won, and one that Nard actually tried to quit, and get Joe DQ'd. But Petre, Calzaghe did make Roy look shot, but do you know why? Because Roy IS shot ::
Yahoo, ESPN and AP all had Hopkins winning. I agree that Calzaghe won (I had it 114-113, I think; I watched it once, then erased it and tried to pretend it never happened). But it wasn't a foregone conclusion that Joe won with room to spare, much less dominated. That's been my contention all along.
There's always a few morons that scored it for the other guy. Always. The fight was not close. Calzaghe was the aggressor and landed far more punches. Creeping around the ring throwing 2 or 3 counter right hands per round does not win you the fight. Calzaghe was slapping him up and down from round 4 onwards. And honestly - after exceeding my expectations by far, I was rooting for Hopkins after the first 3 rounds - I was impressed. But he didn't come close to winning the fight. The Taylor fights? Yes, but not Calzaghe. Hopkins DID win the first 3 rounds clearly, perhaps even easily. But after that it was all Calzaghe, save the odd counter right hand and headbutt. The only other round you could give to Hopkins would have been the round he tried to quit in, he came back strong after his quitting tactics failed.
That's the thing, though... I know plenty of people who had it 115-112, 114-113 Joe, but few of whom had Hopkins sweeping the first three rounds. I actually just found by r-by-r scorecard, and I had Joe winning 115-112, but with two rounds circled. I gave Hopkins 1, 2, 6 and 10, and had 3 and 8 as close rounds (I scored both for Joe, but was on the fence about the 3rd round). Anyone looking for a reason to score against Joe - there are your six rounds. Amazingly enough, all three official judges gave Hopkins' the 11th round. Two of the three gave Calzaghe the 10th. Even more amazing - all three judges only had Joe sweeping four rounds (7, 8, 9 and 12), and were unanimous in only six of the twelve rounds (all three scored rounds 1 and 11 for Hopkins)
Hopkins with his 40+ year old ass fought like a complete bitch in that fight and still dominated that overrated f*ck Calzaghe.::
Jake, put it this way, You had Calzaghe winning 8 rounds to 4, so I only gave him 1 round more than you. I mean, I struggle to call it a "dominant" victory, because as you know it was a shit fight, and Hopkins is incredibly difficult to fight, and incredibly difficult to look good against. But 8 rounds to 4 or 9 rounds to 3 speaks for itself, it might not have been "dominant" but I thought it was very clear. Honestly, hopkins just did fuck all for most of the fight. Just crept backwards throwing the odd counter right. I must say I am very surprised that anyone scored round 3 for Joe, I seem to recall that being a pretty clear Nard round.
sorry petre but NOBODY gave roy props after tarver 3...most everybody on here didnt want to see him again after the johnson fight. struggling (as opposed to dominating) HANSHAW and AJAMU im suprised anyone thought roy stood half a chance against calzaghe. roy is no longer a top 5 fighter at lt heavy.
Petre, are you basing your opinions strictly off of alleged FB banter? Every response is "Go back and read the threads" - fittingly for threads that no longer exist. (and apparently posters that no longer exist, judging by the responses) Not that I spoke to everyone in the arena, but there were upwards of 20,000 fans who vehemently booed Roy's quit job in the Tarver fight. I don't know too many people who left the arena that night claiming Roy "showed heart." Honestly, I don't know of anyone, certainly not in press row (unanimously disgusted with his performance). That you mentioned it was news to me. The rest of the stuff is just the two of us repeating ourselves in disagreement...
When it refers to opinions by fans here about a fighter , of course I am. What sense would it make otherwise? As for the fight itself with Tarver ... I'm not suggesting that Roy's performance was hailed as some great achievement ... I'm saying that his fans were looking in a positive light his not being KO's and finishing the fight. Like I said ... I cracked on him about that fight , but I definitely recall many saying he'd shown heart to finish that fight and quite honestly it irritates the fuck out of me that it will be denied now and the threads no longer exist. Hell I remember the comments also about Roy's big final round where he gut checked it and actually tried to win it. What we're getting now is a lot of re-writing history and everyone knew better.
Petre - nine out of ten people (including REED) - shat on Jones for his "performance" against Tarver. He bitched out and fought like a journeymen, and everyone knew it. You're talking nonsense.
Joe is a bitch and I think worse of him now he got dropped and struggled wth a 40 year old Roy with one eye
dsimon writes: Just admit it mex some people did have hopkins winning... live with it and not all of them were morons like you. Oh well!
A very small percentage of people had Hopkins winning, just like every big fight, regardless of how close it was. And that small percentage are clearly morons :kidcool:
dsimon writes: why would you become an apologist... you know what? ok the judges gave it to Joe... I think it is bullshit but I won't say its a bad decision. Nobosdy should have to explain why they thought Hopkins won that fight. It depends what you are looking for. Idiots will often make a statement like "ony a moron".... when it is obvious that the fight could be scored any number of ways, as incidentally one judge had it scored.
Because it's such a rare occurance these days, since Tua retiring et al, I didn't realise how bad Petre was at discussing boxing :kidcool:
When one fighter lands twice as many punches as the other, and only got knocked down once in the process, then no it couldn't be scored "any number of ways" :: Joe clearly won. Ugly but clear.
