The Executioner who cried wolf
"We have judges, we have officials. In the end, it's the fans who know who won the fight.
"I just feel like I made him look amateurish."
(Quotes from ESPN.com)
![]() |
|
Photo © Eric Jamison / AP
|
Bernard Hopkins lost last night to Joe Calzaghe, making Calzaghe the rare European star to come to America and succeed in knocking off a major American fighter.
If you've seen my scorecard, you know that I don't think this was a close fight. I thought some of the rounds were close and tough to score, but not all of them. I thought many of them were clearly won by Calzaghe. And the only rounds that I thought Hopkins did win were the first, when he got a flash knockdown, and the tenth, when he was Daniel Day-Hopkins in There Will Be Low Blows. Seriously, could he have milked that any harder? The fact that he came out of the recovery period throwing big shots doesn't make it any better, if you ask me.
But let's say Bernard really was that hurt. (He says his junk was knocked outside of his cup, which is what hurt.) The fact that he started changing his gameplan would mean that, for once, someone got to Bernard. Bernard didn't get to Joe Calzaghe.
There's a first time for everything. And if you believe Bernard Hopkins, there's a fifth time for everything.
He doesn't think Roy Jones, Jr., beat him. He doesn't think Jermain Taylor beat him either time. I'm sure he doesn't think that Clinton Mitchell beat him in his professional debut. And he's saying he doesn't think Joe Calzaghe beat him.
But I look at the situation a little closer, and I see a beaten man within the fight. A man that knew he was losing. A 43-year old legend that can still go, but not with someone like Joe Calzaghe.
It took a hell of a long time for the ruthless "Executioner" to look his age, but last night's fight in Vegas -- where most of the 14,000 in attendance rooted for the Welshman, Calzaghe -- was where it happened.
Bernard Hopkins knows he didn't beat Joe Calzaghe. But why would he say it? When has he ever? To Hopkins, there has always been a vast conspiracy against him. He's a different man who has seen a far different world than most of us. I'm sure a lot of what Hopkins will tell you about certain situations is truth.
Both Hopkins and Glen Johnson in the past two weekends have made massive to-dos about "robberies," and I think it's a shame. Johnson's loss to Chad Dawson was a true toss-up decision. I had it a draw, and I really think that the fight was even steven. Johnson is making it sound like Lewis-Holyfield.
I think Calzaghe dominated Hopkins. I didn't see any massive difference in Calzaghe's fight with Hopkins compared to Calzaghe's fight with Kessler, one where everyone agreed that Joe had decisively won the bout despite Kessler doing some things well and probably boxing to the best of his ability.
The difference is that this is Bernard Hopkins, not an undefeated Dane of whom most folks had, at best, a mild amount of knowledge and opinion.
Look at Hopkins during this fight. His endless clinching of Calzaghe was a wise tactic, because when Calzaghe let his hands fly, Bernard looked really bad. He not only couldn't fire back in trade past one counter shot, he couldn't even defend fast enough to keep up with Calzaghe.
"My face isn't marked up," said Hopkins. Calzaghe carries with him a small cut on the bridge of his nose from the opening round, when Hopkins did land one beautiful right hand. So what?
It was even Hopkins that caused the Oscar nominee low blow, as Calzaghe's punch was going to the body and Bernard pushed his head down, which lowered the fist's destination point. Calzaghe clinches, too. BLH's Matt Miller noted after the Calzaghe-Kessler fight how much of a master of the offensive clinch Joe is, and it's very true. He uses it to disrupt rhythm, neutralize counter opportunities, and as an opening for more offense of his own.
Hopkins does something similar, but against Calzaghe, it looked like a fighter that couldn't combat the hand speed and the athleticism of his opponent. The two things that have given Bernard Hopkins trouble in his career have been hand speed and great athletic fighters. Jones. Taylor. Calzaghe. It is not a coincidence.
Watch him huff and puff in between rounds for much of the fight. As Freddie Roach and others talk strategy, Hopkins has other things on his mind, asking for towels and such at a point where you'd expect, "OK," or, "Alright." Joe Calzaghe never seemed to be approaching the realm of tired -- he was dealing with a fiery father-trainer, and I think this may have been the best job Enzo Calzaghe has ever done. Enzo kept it in Joe's head that he couldn't let up for even a second if he wanted to beat Hopkins. He sent him into the 12th round telling his son that he needed a knockout.
Bernard Hopkins is a great fighter, even still. He is in all-time ranks in the sport of boxing. He is one of the best middleweights ever. He may not always be a favorite (or ever, if you aren't from Philadelphia), but he's always either been the man winning or the guy across the ring when the winner says, "That was maybe the toughest fight of my career."
No one is unbeatable. Roy Jones had Antonio Tarver. Shane Mosley had Vernon Forrest and Winky Wright. Vernon Forrest had Ricardo Mayorga, of all people. Calzaghe is the exact type of fighter that makes Bernard Hopkins struggle and makes Bernard Hopkins look bad. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and if Hopkins decides to hang up his gloves, he should do so with his head held high.
But he lost. I think if you take the name "Bernard Hopkins" out of it, it's very clear that he lost. People say they like the aggressor. Calzaghe was the aggressor for 100% of the fight. People always talk about momentum and rhythm -- Calzaghe had that for the majority of the bout. They talk about dictating the pace, and I guess you could say Bernard did that. He dictated a pace that didn't get him pummeled with combinations. But Calzaghe was enough to pull that favorably toward his side anyway, outlanding and outworking the chess master. Those that want big, meaningful punches won't find a ton of it from Joe, but you won't find much more from Hopkins, either.
As always, it's very easy to respect Bernard Hopkins, as everyone should. But like too many times in his Canastota-bound career, it's also very easy to find his complaints to be the same old song and dance.
At the end of the day, ignoring all analysis and everything else, I just have a hard time believing this one: a European star comes to America for and is rewarded with a decision he didn't earn over a big-time, star American fighter. Maybe "anti-American" can be Bernard's newest conspiracy theory.
And as for chess masters, even Fischer and Kasparov lost. The crown to Calzaghe, if you please.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Scoring
by Kevin Gonzalez on Apr 20, 2008 9:37 AM EDT reply actions
re:
I have watched the fight two more times today trying to see it. I cannot. I could give Hopkins the third, which I gave to Calzaghe. So the best I can come up with for Bernard is 116-111 in favor of Calzaghe.
I usually am a fan of counter-punching and it tends to catch my favor. It just didn't this time. I didn't see his counter-punching as being terribly effective. The few times Bernard dug down and threw punches just wasn't enough. He lost his timing more and more as the fight went on. Calzaghe got better and better, peaking probably the eighth or ninth around.
But I also thought it was a good fight in spite of its predictable shortcomings (clinching, disruption of action in general, etc.) and the fact that I thought it added up to be lopsided.
by Scott Christ on Apr 20, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions
ESPN
by Kevin Gonzalez on Apr 20, 2008 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
116-111 Calzaghe
I went 1-2 on the night on predictions, with only Diaconu proving out. Thanks for calling that one while it lasted - my computer's apparently way too old to transmit Don King's cyber-world. Not taking anything away from Tomasz, who looked very good, but I still can't believe how bad Bell looked. Now I can't even imagine him doing well in the sloppy heavyweight mix.
Bell looked hideous
Of course, Adamek didn't quit after seven rounds.
by Scott Christ on Apr 20, 2008 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions
British boxing fans
Here's the thing. For those that don't know the layout at Jack's, there are three floors. The ground floor has a pretty big bar, with a couple of older TVs and one mounted 42" flat-panel. The upstairs bar is a bit small with crowded lounge seaating, but an array of big HD monitors. There's also a small basment "pit" area, which has a corner bar the length of my arm (two people may sit at it compfotably, and three tiny old 17" sets mounted in the other for corners. There are about six small tables down there, the rest of the seating accomodated by the kind of cheapo folding chairs you'd see at a PTA meeting.
Of these areas, guess where the Hopkins/Calzaghe fight took place? Literally ALL of the top two floors were devoted to the UFC fights. I got there kinda early, and when I asked the manager if he could run boxing on just ONE of the sets, he sorta shrugged his shoulders sadly. The crowd for UFC was HUGE, young and almost exclusively American. By comparison, downstairs was packed to the gills with British fight fans (well - as packed as that tiny space could get), and it was largely standing room only with no reasonable way of getting a drink. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, considering the card. But still, what will it take to get Americans interested in boxing again?
a start...
I'm PRAYING that the Hatton card on Vs. leads to us getting actual cards on that channel that people might want to see. Top Rank shoved their thumbs up their collective asses with that program and squandered a decent opportunity with a bunch of fucking Tye Fields fights. It wasn't the best thing in the world, but it was something. UFC got on SpikeTV at a point where UFC wasn't a huge deal and Spike wasn't, either. And all Spike has is UFC anyway.
UFC (and as a result of their success, other MMA promotions in the States) have done well because they have been run by people who actually understand marketing. Boxing has no such person -- not Arum, not Shaw, not anyone at Golden Boy, nobody. They market directly to boxing fans, to the point where ESPN's pathetic SportsCenter recap of Hopkins-Calzaghe last night featured Bernard being punched in the nuts and several mentions of "Calziggy," who was shown winning the fight via decision inexplicably.
I'm not the world's biggest Bill Simmons fight, but he said that boxing's current quality -- which is quite high -- is basically a well-kept secret by the sport. He's absolutely right. It starts with the promoters learning how to actually promote to someone other than you and me and the other people who are already watching.
For instance, did you watch the Oscar-Forbes Countdown yet? Check it out. I am now really interested in that fight. It made me like Stevie Forbes more than I already did, and gave me a different look at Oscar. And who saw it? Guys like me that are already interested.
HBO does a lot of great boxing programming, but who sees it?
by Scott Christ on Apr 20, 2008 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah
HBO
Thanks
Who knows? Maybe we can meet up for a fight at Dempsey's some time and talk boxing over a couple of drinks. Thanks again for the post.
No Problem
I actually work in bar and restaurant design for a living, so I know a lot of owners on the lower east side that I've been lobbying for years to run big fights - with varying success. I mean it's been my way of trying to help micro-market, and there are a few places that'll do it if I ask but the atmosphere just isn't the same. Like, mo and joe yuppie are in the bar and decide to pretend to pay attention to it for awhile, but everything they say is grating. Jack's is usually okay, I don't mean to slam it. But that night, the class warfare with MMA was deafening, and boxing lost bigtime.
The low blows...
Really? Because if I got hit in the balls, you better believe I'm going for your head after that. Do you guys have balls of steel where a shot to the nuts isn't enough to piss you off to where you wanna just rip the other guys head off? C'mon now.
"I think Calzaghe dominated Hopkins"
I disagree. The weak flurries won him the rounds. None of them were anywhere close to being effective. Hopkins landed the cleaner punches, but they weren't big enough to warrant him winning the rounds were Calzaghe was more active. The same thing happened against Taylor, but Taylor throws his punches with more authority and power then JC.
"I didn't see any massive difference in Calzaghe's fight with Hopkins compared to Calzaghe's fight with Kessler"
I did, namely that Joe never landed any big punches against Hopkins. Kessler got tagged numerous times, especially in the late rounds with some good straight lefts. Did B-Hop get hit with some straight lefts? Yeah, but nothing truly flush like he did against Kessler.
re:
Calzaghe didn't land as many big punches against Bernard as he did against Kessler, but he landed about as many good shots as Hopkins did. He also landed a lot more than Hopkins did. He also was more active, which I know you aren't arguing. (And I'm not really arguing with you -- I'm not a dude that thinks everyone has to agree with me, nor am I someone that thinks a fight like this is "obvious.")
And the flurries WERE effective, I think. They were effective in (1) winning rounds, (2) keeping Bernard from countering and forcing him to tie up, and (3) winning rounds, which was Calzaghe's goal, I believe.
by Scott Christ on Apr 21, 2008 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions
re:
I should probably clarify what I meant by effective. I meant effective in the sense that they hurt Hopkins or caused any type of damage. Point 1 and 3 (which are actually the same) I agree on. Which is why I hate Joe Calzaghe. (I don't really hate him, but I hate his style of fighting.)
I know they're the same
I like his style. I know it's not for everyone. I like watching Floyd fight, too.
by Scott Christ on Apr 21, 2008 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions

by 


















