Luis Cruz

Apr 20 2008, 12:59 AM

this fight was boring and yes it was mostly due to hopkins holding every damn time he threw. i had it 114-113 for calzaghe but was fine with 114-113 for hopkins, couple close rounds. i thought lederman was off as usual with his 116-111 card. calzaghe is still very overrated in my book, i hate pitty pat shit to try and steal rounds, to me thats not a fight. his cardio and punch output weren't overrated but his skill set definitely is. he looked like he was windmilling most of the time and i hate that. hopkins landed better shots most of the time but then held and acted the rest. all he had to do was let his hands go, his punches were harder and had more effect on calzaghe than calzaghe's had on him. yea he's 43 and it's about time the age thing caught up to him, he's still great for 43 but you can tell it's wearing on him. calzaghe's hype and overrated train keeps rolling now and next he'll be fighting a washed up roy jones to further overrate himself. how about he fight glen johnson, someone who punches as much and also doesn't tire and has a little power? bet he stays clear of him. i hate overrated fighters and i hate it even more when they showboat and buy into their own hype. i hope roy knocks him out anyways. this fight sucked, hopkins held joe broke it up, that was the whole fight. what's the next huge fight anyways....and i don't mean oscar's bullshit fight coming up?

Kass101

Apr 20 2008, 02:27 AM

heres my problem with you blaming hopkins for the holding, he isnt the one who punched and lunged every time he engaged. joe caused the majority of all those clinches. and i had b hop winning 114-113 but he could have one by another round very easily. big joe really does suck and the sad thing is that this fight still sucked with by far the best ref in business running things.

heavyweightboxer

Apr 21 2008, 12:46 AM

Here's the key points everyone in here seems to be missing. At the risk of sounding pompous, let me enlighten.

1.) Cortez was going to take zero of Bernard's bullshit. He was being generous with the "low blows" -- one of which was questionable, and one of which was just a load of CRAP. Cortez is not quick to take points, but quick to break up clinches. I think Cruz kinda picked up on this. Is he the best ref? No, that's for sure. But he did his job. Hatton's fans can argue that Cortez ruined the fight, and although I don't buy it, they can argue that he wasn't holding. Hopkins clearly was holding. And yes, Hopkins initiated probably 19 out of 20 of those clinches. If you don't believe so, you were watching the wrong damn channel. We're talking boxing, not CSI.

2.) Hopkins was complaining of being hit behind the head. He wouldn't have been if he didn't lead with his head. He barged forward with it and he bent down a lot, just like Kermit Cintron did. Unlike Cintron though, Hopkins was doing it as a dirty trick. He knew he was behind, and was aiming for a point deduction via "low blows" and "behind the head punches."

3.) Adalaide Bird was out of her goddamn skull to say that Hopkins and Calzaghe took six rounds a piece. That's a steaming slimy pile of crap.

4.) Here's the major key here. Think of it this way: Would you rather have 100 $5 bills, or 2 $20 bills? Likewise, would you rather be hit by one or two solid punches, or 15-30 less powerful but quick punches? They add up, people! You say his punches weren't effective, but tell me if you've ever seen Bernard Hopkins fight his age before last night.

The End.

Kass101

Apr 20 2008, 10:12 PM

heavyweightboxer

Apr 21 2008, 12:46 AM

Here's the key points everyone in here seems to be missing. At the risk of sounding pompous, let me enlighten.

1.) Cortez was going to take zero of Bernard's bullshit. He was being generous with the "low blows" -- one of which was questionable, and one of which was just a load of CRAP. Cortez is not quick to take points, but quick to break up clinches. I think Cruz kinda picked up on this. Is he the best ref? No, that's for sure. But he did his job. Hatton's fans can argue that Cortez ruined the fight, and although I don't buy it, they can argue that he wasn't holding. Hopkins clearly was holding. And yes, Hopkins initiated probably 19 out of 20 of those clinches. If you don't believe so, you were watching the wrong damn channel. We're talking boxing, not CSI.

2.) Hopkins was complaining of being hit behind the head. He wouldn't have been if he didn't lead with his head. He barged forward with it and he bent down a lot, just like Kermit Cintron did. Unlike Cintron though, Hopkins was doing it as a dirty trick. He knew he was behind, and was aiming for a point deduction via "low blows" and "behind the head punches."

3.) Adalaide Bird was out of her goddamn skull to say that Hopkins and Calzaghe took six rounds a piece. That's a steaming slimy pile of crap.

4.) Here's the major key here. Think of it this way: Would you rather have 100 $5 bills, or 2 $20 bills? Likewise, would you rather be hit by one or two solid punches, or 15-30 less powerful but quick punches? They add up, people! You say his punches weren't effective, but tell me if you've ever seen Bernard Hopkins fight his age before last night.

The End.

you just named all the reasons cortez is a great ref, he doesnt stand for shit and makes sure the fight is moving. he also doesnt stop fights early which is a rare find in todays refs.

second the fight easily was 114-113 hopkins with him winning 4 of the first 5 rounds so for you to claim otherwise really doesnt make much sense.

finally your analogy of the money doesnt work either, hears a better one. would you rather have 100 1 dollar bills or 2 fifty dollar bills, well unless your going to a stripper ill take the fifties. this is something that comes up time and time again in fights and that is a guy throwing more punches doing less damage and a guy throwing less punches doing more damage. hopkins did more damage and but threw less.

hopkins did not look like the hopkins of old but he still beat joe, and if the entire twelve rounds dont matter which is what has seemed to have happened in boxing why dont they just take the WCL rules and make it a 1 round fight. from what its been looking like lately, all you have to do to win a fight is try the last few rounds and wow you just won no matter what you did at the start.

heavyweightboxer

Apr 21 2008, 02:06 AM

And if you really think my money analogy is off, let me punch you 50 times. I'll only throw 75% power, because that's nothing to worry about, right? Effective agression, people!!! Joe's multitude of slappy punches kept Hopkins from doing his thing from the fourth round on. Hopkins' straight right-left arm grab technique was NOT effective. 10 points for Joe, 9 for Bernard, with the winner, done, fin, end scene.

Kass101

Apr 21 2008, 07:41 AM

heavyweightboxer

Apr 21 2008, 02:06 AM

And if you really think my money analogy is off, let me punch you 50 times. I'll only throw 75% power, because that's nothing to worry about, right? Effective agression, people!!! Joe's multitude of slappy punches kept Hopkins from doing his thing from the fourth round on. Hopkins' straight right-left arm grab technique was NOT effective. 10 points for Joe, 9 for Bernard, with the winner, done, fin, end scene.

that wasnt your analogy at all, you said 5 which is not 75% of 20 so that doesnt make any sense. like cruz said Joes punches are more like 25 percent or 15 percent most of the time, he like a bee buzzing around the other guys face, it doesnt do much but its annoying.

he has really good cardio and pressures guys so they cant get off but does little to know damage pretty much every fight.

Buffington

Apr 22 2008, 05:14 PM

I think that boxing is taking a turn for the worst. So many HORRIBLE fights in the past 6 months alone. Sounds like MMA might be taking over ((Waits for Ryan to flip his lid))