Will You Tell This Man He Will Lose to Joe Calzaghe April 19?
Bernard Hopkins at New York news conference, Feb. 19, 2008. Photo by Eddie Goldman.
Labels: Bernard Hopkins, boxing, Eddie Goldman, Joe Calzaghe
posted by Eddie Goldman @ 5:10 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Bernard Hopkins has stayed one fight too long, which I've been predicting he would do since he beat Oscar De La Hoya. I'd favor prime Hopkins over prime Calzaghe, however, Calzaghe being younger, has retained more of his physical skill. Hopkins has shown he's most vulnerable to hand speed and fighters who maintain a busy work rate, which is who Calzaghe is. Calzaghe is faster, won't be intimidated by Hopkins mentally or physically. Hopkins no longer moves his hands enough to concern a guy like Calzaghe. In this fight, Hopkins won't win by taking the opponent out of himself, and then win by default. No, Calzaghe will get there first, and he'll also end every exchange, or at least most of them. That translates into Calzaghe being busier and landing more clean and meaningful punches. It's doubtful that Hopkins can stop Calzaghe, nor do I see him being stopped by Calzaghe.
This fights going the distance. The fighter who can create his own offense and sustain it, instead of relying on the other to make a mistake before he can get off, will win. That fighter is Joe Calzaghe. When all is said and done, Hopkins needs Calzaghe to lose it, where as Joe can go out and take it and win.
Over the course of the past few years, I've been completely won over by Calzaghe. He would have held up in any era. He's the strongest 168 pounder I've ever seen (everyone will recall how easily he manipulated muscled-up Jeff Lacy anywhere he wanted him), he's in extraordinarily good condition, he's a true thinker in the ring, he never looks to the ref to solve his problems (to that end, he's a hell of a dirty fighter), and he's unflappable. Hopkins has no chance to beat him at this stage. I'd have loved to have had the chance to see the two fight while still in their primes.
I too have been won over by Joe Calzaghe over the last two plus years. And the fact that he doesn't look to the ref to bail him out, and takes matters into his own hands, will serve him in a big way versus Bernard Hopkins.
I cannot believe that Hopkins is only a 7-5 dog. 3-1 seems much more reasonable. That said, what kind of scenario would it take for Hopkins to win? Is there any possible way you could see Bernard earning the victory?
Okay, this shows how much I know--I posted this on the wrong thread. Here it is in its proper place.
Mike, I can't see any way for Hopkins to win. In the interest of full disclosure, please note that I said exactly the same thing about his chances against Antonio Tarver. It speaks volumes about Bernard's intelligence that he went right after Tarver's least obvious but most assailable defect: his character. He'll have no such luck with Calzaghe, who is as steady as the North Star.
I can't say that I don't see anyway Hopkins can win, (I too was sure he'd lose to Tarver). As much as we're all over Calzaghe, he is fighting Bernard Hopkins. Yeah, I know he just turned 43. I also believe with the possible exception of Archie Moore, no other fighter in history has retained the ability he has at such an old Boxing age. No, he's not the vintage Hopkins of 1997-99, but even at this age, Calzaghe has never seen anything like him, or close to it. I'm confidently picking Calzaghe, but I wouldn't consider it an upset on any level IF Hopkins won a decision over Calzaghe.
Okay, then this begs the question: if anyone sees a way that Hopkins can win (I don't, but I suffer from a lack of imagination), what might that way be?
Hopkins isn't capable of creating his own offense at this stage of his career. He needs his opponent to give him something to work with. IF Calzaghe stays busy, and isn't manipulated into trying to knock him out, he'll best nullify Hopkins, and decrease his chances of winning.
The only scenario I see where Hopkins may be able to pull it off is, IF he can bring Calzaghe to him, (which I think Calzaghe will do on his own) and lure him to stay and fight him there. IF Joe goes to Hopkins, gets off quickly and then moves away or to the side out of range, it'll be hard for Hopkins to get off with impunity. Since he's too smart to reach and lunge, the window for him to score and get off will close. IF Calzaghe adopts that strategy, it'll be almost impossible for Hopkins to win a decision.
I think Hopkins will attack Calzaghe the way he did Antonio Tarver and Winky Wright, which is the only way I see him being successful. And that is to go back on his own and look for clean-counters. It worked on Tarver because once he caught Antonio with stuff he had never seen before, he was undone mentally and worried about what might happen to him IF he took the lead and made a mistake. Therefor, Hopkins led when he had Tarver on his heels. This strategy worked on Wright for one significant reason. Like Hopkins, Wright likes to fight as the counter-puncher. Hopkins, by getting ugly in the first couple rounds, took Wright out of his game, and lured him to fight as the attacker, playing into Hopkins hands.
Off the top of my head, I think Hopkins best chance to beat Calzaghe is, somehow suck him in and keep him there for a while. Inside, Calzaghe will not be real effective landing big stuff, because Bernard knows how to protect himself. And most importantly, Hopkins won't have to create his offense, because he'll have Joe where he can land good and score, without having to work and use his legs.
This isn't directly related to this post, but can I say just how much I like 'The Boxing Standard' as an idea.
I heard about it through Eddie's podcast and think it's about time people started pointing oiut just how poor a lot of the existing so called "analysis" really is, and have decided to do something about it. I'll be a regular reader and good luck with the project.
Post a Comment
<< Home