Time to lance this boil

I think I'm starting to despise the man:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/the-turnstile/lance-armstrong-just-happens-pose-next-tour-france-190124213.html

If he's not careful he's going to end up on my 'sporting figures hate list' alongside Alan 'world class' Shearer, Joe 'calslappy' Calzaghe and Co.

Say It Ain't So, Joe

It was disappointing to learn of Joe Calzaghe’s decision to retire from boxing. Despite his unbeaten record, it’s hard to call Calzaghe a true great – he just hasn’t fought enough quality opponents. Having dominated a largely uninspiring intermediate weight division, he’d finally moved up to a ‘true’ weight class. But he only fought twice at light heavyweight (being knocked down in both fights) – against a 43 year old who many experts thought beat him, and a 39 year old who was completely shot. Calzaghe claims that throughout his career he never ducked anyone, although Sven Ottke and Dariusz Michalczewski might disagree. Certainly, one has to question why Calzaghe wasn’t prepared to take a couple more fights at light heavy, against quality opponents such as Chad Dawson. And surely, given the closeness of their first fight, Hopkins deserved a rematch (apparently B-Hop was even prepared to come over to the UK for that). Calzaghe seems to think that by retiring undefeated he’s guaranteed his legacy, ala Rocky Marciano. Perhaps. But both Ottke and Ricardo Lopez also retired as undefeated champions – and who remembers them?

Joe Public

So Joe Calzaghe has suddenly ended his long relationship with promoter Frank Warren. Unfortunately, this suggests that he wants to make a fight with Roy Jones Jr. rather than face middleweight champion Kelly Pavlik (which Warren was apparently pushing). Rather than reiterate my views, here is some reaction from posters on the ESPN boxing comment board:

"Calzaghe is a coward. He knows he has no shot vs a fighter as skilled as Pavlik. If he got dropped by a 40 year old Hopkins, then he has no shot vs Pavlik"

"Pavlik is the prime fighter that could really give Calzaghe fits"

"Calzaghe is all hype until he beats a respected young formidable beast"

See, it's not just me...

Change the Rules! (No.1 in a regular series)

Having watched the Hopkins v Calzaghe fight again at the weekend, I was once again struck by the number of problems with the current scoring system:
1/ Judges are wrongly being discouraged from scoring rounds even. Many of the rounds in the Hopkins v Calzaghe fight were very difficult to call for either fighter, but the judges apparently felt obliged to score rounds 10-9, rather than 10-10.
2/ Why they use a “10-point must” system - where at least one of the boxers is awarded the maximum 10 points in each round - is beyond me (to give an extreme example, a round where both boxers stare at each other and don’t throw any punches must, presumably, be scored 10-10). This system tends to penalise fighters like Hopkins, who usually have a number of ‘big’ rounds in each fight, and rewards ‘plodders’ like Calzaghe. In their first fight, Hopkins dominated Taylor in a couple of rounds and had him in real trouble, yet, since there were no knockdowns, these were only scored 10-9 – the same score as those rounds which Taylor just edged. And why the heck should fighters be awarded the maximum score for a dull round? It makes no sense. I would advocate a system where each fighter is awarded between 0 and 5 points for each round. A fairly dull round could be scored, say, 2-1, a cracking round 5-5. If one fighter dominates in a particular round, that might be scored, say, 5-1.
3/ Judges (and the majority of people who watch boxing contests) don’t seem to understand that four areas of performance are being assessed - clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship and defence. Many observers gave Calzaghe the fight because he was continually going forward. However, if you move toward your opponent but can't land clean shots – as Calzaghe did for much of the fight - you don't have effective aggressiveness. Hopkins, as usual, excelled in the area of defence – but two of the three judges clearly didn’t reward him for the number of times he made Calzaghe miss. Boxing authorities either need to change the rules of scoring, or make sure the judges apply them correctly. But of course, boxing being boxing, neither of these things is going to happen.

Calzaghe v Hopkins - Reflections

Before the fight, my head said Calzaghe by decision, but my heart said that Hopkins, being such a legend, might be able to produce one final quality performance. And I also put £10 on a draw at odds of 18/1. So in some ways, I'd say I was right on all accounts!

But why is it that Hopkins never gets awarded close decisions? This felt like a repeat of the Taylor fights. In fact you could argue that Hopkins hasn't really lost a fight since Jones beat him in 1993 - some record. To fight that well at 43 is a great achievement - he ran out of gas towards the end, which was to be expected, and I suppose that ultimately cost him the decision (although the judge who gave it 9 rounds to Calzaghe, 3 to Hopkins, is a disgrace). The bottom line on the judging is: do you prefer quality or quantity? Did Calzaghe ever hurt, or even really trouble, Bernard? I don't think so (he was unmarked at the end of the fight), whereas Bernard clearly had Calzaghe in trouble in the early rounds.

I'm certainly still not convinced by Calzaghe - he doesn't punch hard, rarely hurts opponents, and is basically a pretty dull fighter. Okay, 22 world title wins at super middle - but who did he beat? And now he's moved to light heavy, at a time when there are no young dangerous guys to fight (Hopkins, Jones, Tarver and Johnson are all well past their best). I think Pavlik would beat him, even though he'd have to move up in weight. But I suspect Calzaghe will take the Roy Jones fight, which is a joke - Jones is shot. Calzaghe's got a great record based on a phenomenal work rate, a decent chin - and not having fought any great fighters at their prime. Had he fought Hopkins 2/3 years ago, Hopkins wins - no doubt about it. 5/6 years ago, when he was in his prime, Hopkins knocks him out. Same goes for Jones too. If Calzaghe fights Pavlik (or even a decent light heavy still in his prime, such as Chad Dawson) and wins, then I'll accept that he's a great fighter. If he just fights Jones and then retires, I'm not buying it. Very good - yes; great - no.