52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 15 Dec 2016, 18:45

Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cee8xwCUeYo

Watch and discuss.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 15 Dec 2016, 18:46

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 15 Dec 2016, 18:46

Supplementary fight.

Howard Eastman vs Scott Dann.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZZA2ND20Lc

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 16 Dec 2016, 04:38

Poor effort from Eastman vs Hopkins in his first post de la Hoya fight.

Hopkins' spoiling, negativity and sporting dishonesty in full bloom OR cagey ring genius who could've held his own in any middleweight era - you decide.

Decide for yourselves but it's no wonder he was the lowest paid champ in boxing pre Trinidad.

davie · Post by **davie** » 16 Dec 2016, 23:51

Eastman vs Hopkins

1. 10 - 10 Nothing to report
2. 10 - 9 Eastman, edged it. Hopkins took 2 minutes to really throw
3. 10 - 9 Eastman, Could barely split them again, think there was maybe 1 scoring shot each with a handful of half connected jabs, Eastman at least looking for it
4. 9 - 10 Hopkins, good round for Bernard, clear winning round for him. Really quick with his counters for an older guy, still surprisingly quick now
5. 10 - 9 Eastman, ate a few single shots and counters but far busier and I think had a reasonable amount of success
6. 9 - 10 Hopkins, Never let Eastman get anything off and punished him every time he thought about it. Might have hurt him halfway with a right hand
7. 9 - 10 Hopkins. Eastman got a bit more involved but Hopkins controlling it again
8. 10 - 9 Eastman Hopkins had the majority of the round with single shots but a couple of flurries for Howard in the middle stole it for me
9. 9 - 10 Hopkins, good couple of exchanges in the first minute then a quiet round. Hopkins stole it with a couple solid single shots late
10. 9 - 10 Hopkins fairly easy now, real thudding sound to that Hopkins right. Eastman looking disheartened and losing confidence
11. 9 - 10 Hopkins really slow start but Hopkins took over in the second half
12. 9 - 10 Hopkins. Eastman tried to step in with shots and step up the pace but Hopkins just wont let you. Controlled the fight to the last bell

113-116 Hopkins

There's no doubt an ugly side to Bernards game and there is no doubt it is a hard job finding much in the way of entertainment for the most blood thirsty fight fans.
But you can't help give credit for what he does well. He judges distance and times shots perfectly at time, he's unerringly accurate and his shot selection is fantastic. It's easy to say just pick the right shot to throw, but he does that under pressure so well, because he never seems under pressure. He also evades punches beautifully, there's times he hardly moves to make you miss

Very few fighter were ever able to make him fight at there pace and that was key to his success. Eastman tried at times but Hopkins dictated the tempo of the fight and Eastman started to get disheartened when he was getting caught flush with those thudding counters.
Another talent that many don't enjoy watching but is an important part of the game, is Hopkins control of his opponent in clinches through leaning, hooking arms and positioning him and his opponent where he needs them to be. It may not be pleasing to watch but it is still a difficult skill (perhaps more appreciated to a wrestler) but he seldom seems to lose control in these situations

As for Eastman, he was a good fighter, I think I actually suggested this fight, so apologies for that. I actually watched it live and it was my first experience of seeing the executioner, I should have known better.
I could doubtless have chosen a more entertaining bout to observe Eastman at his best but I picked it as much to appreciate the great Bernard Hopkins as anything else. Hate him all we want, his longevity in the game and the skills he possesses and executes perfectly sometimes are still a thing to be admired

He is a dirty bastard though!

davie · Post by **davie** » 16 Dec 2016, 23:55

Autobarn wrote:Poor effort from Eastman vs Hopkins in his first post de la Hoya fight.

Hopkins' spoiling, negativity and sporting dishonesty in full bloom OR cagey ring genius who could've held his own in any middleweight era - you decide.

Decide for yourselves but it's no wonder he was the lowest paid champ in boxing pre Trinidad.

He was certainly negative in this fight but he was far from his worst when it came to the illegal stuff.
Tried the odd sneaky low blow but never had much success (which probably isn't the most convincing case for the defence) and the times he punched after the bell, they were both at it.
Relatively clean by Hopkins standards

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 17 Dec 2016, 14:55

Yeah anyway at some point around the mid 2000s I stopped thinking constant movement, holding and hitting,and waiting until the opponent is infuriated before luring them onto one punch "traps" was boxing genius.

davie · Post by **davie** » 17 Dec 2016, 15:40

Autobarn wrote:Yeah anyway at some point around the mid 2000s I stopped thinking constant movement, holding and hitting,and waiting until the opponent is infuriated before luring them onto one punch "traps" was boxing genius.

You'll have enjoyed Floyd Mayweather and Andre Wards careers then

handsofstone · Post by **handsofstone** » 19 Dec 2016, 16:07

118-110 Hopkins, even by his standards that was a tough watch,Eastman gave it his best shot and never stopped coming forward but he was largely ineffective especially in the 2nd half of the fight when Bernard moved up a gear, landing straight rights similar to the ones he had success with against Smith Jr at the weekend, Howard had a couple of moments early doors but not much in all honesty,Hopkins litteraly was running away at times early on,no wonder the crowd were booing

Crap fight

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 19 Dec 2016, 16:41

davie wrote:
Autobarn wrote:Yeah anyway at some point around the mid 2000s I stopped thinking constant movement, holding and hitting,and waiting until the opponent is infuriated before luring them onto one punch "traps" was boxing genius.
You'll have enjoyed Floyd Mayweather and Andre Wards careers then

These guys spoiled boxing. The sport needs brilliant attacking fighters.

davie · Post by **davie** » 19 Dec 2016, 16:59

Autobarn wrote:
davie wrote:
Autobarn wrote:Yeah anyway at some point around the mid 2000s I stopped thinking constant movement, holding and hitting,and waiting until the opponent is infuriated before luring them onto one punch "traps" was boxing genius.
You'll have enjoyed Floyd Mayweather and Andre Wards careers then
These guys spoiled boxing. The sport needs brilliant attacking fighters.

I'm generally of the opinion that boxing needs a good blend of different types of fighter, it does perhaps swing back and forth over the years between a trend of defensive style fighter dominating and attacking or pressure fighter dominating but there are always entertainers there if you want to see that.

I did worry with Wlad dominating the flagship division, Floyd topping the p4p rankings, Hopkins long, long reign and Ward always there or there about in the rankings that we might see it influence the next generation of fighter coming through

But I don't think it has. Even while those guys had their success we still had guy like Pacquiao to entertain us and now you look at the guys like GGG and Kovalev with their offensive heavy handed approach, Gonzalez pressure fighting, Lomachenkos dazzling skill, it's all there if you want a certain style of fighter.
Even the guys you though might mimic the Floyd/Ward/Hopkins types, fighters from America have 'broken the mould' if you will.
Spence, Crawford, Thurman, Jacobs, Andrade, Wilder etc, all fun to watch

davie · Post by **davie** » 19 Dec 2016, 19:18

Autobarn wrote:
These guys spoiled boxing. The sport needs brilliant attacking fighters.

I would add, I've really been enjoying watching fighters who can mix the 2 styles. Guys who can display all the defensive arts without becoming gun-shy, spoiling or boring the tits off you.
I've been watching a number of old fights including guys like Toney and McCallum and Pernell Whitaker

Toney had all of Mayweathers shoulder rolls and upper body movement, Hopkins awkward movement and counter punching.
But he stood there and fought you. Not a pressure fighter but one of the highest output punch rates of any top fighter I've seen. Happy to trade, stand in the pocket and a great infighter who had no interest in spoiligng or grabbing. A joy to watch and hard as nails

Many rate Whitaker as being every bit as defensively astute as Floyd and every bit as hard to nail down, but again, he let his hand go and I've not seen him in a stinker yet.

And McCallum was more orthodox but a boxer none the less, defence was good but he could hit hard and punished a fighter to the body

I'd rather watch these types than the guys at either end of the scale. Someone who completely disregards defence or someone who wont fight are not complete fighters

handsofstone · Post by **handsofstone** » 20 Dec 2016, 15:45

Decent enough start from Dann but once Eastman landed that right hand to put him down in the 3rd he never recovered

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 22 Dec 2016, 06:07

davie wrote:
Autobarn wrote:
davie wrote:
You'll have enjoyed Floyd Mayweather and Andre Wards careers then
These guys spoiled boxing. The sport needs brilliant attacking fighters.
I'm generally of the opinion that boxing needs a good blend of different types of fighter, it does perhaps swing back and forth over the years between a trend of defensive style fighter dominating and attacking or pressure fighter dominating but there are always entertainers there if you want to see that.

I did worry with Wlad dominating the flagship division, Floyd topping the p4p rankings, Hopkins long, long reign and Ward always there or there about in the rankings that we might see it influence the next generation of fighter coming through

But I don't think it has. Even while those guys had their success we still had guy like Pacquiao to entertain us and now you look at the guys like GGG and Kovalev with their offensive heavy handed approach, Gonzalez pressure fighting, Lomachenkos dazzling skill, it's all there if you want a certain style of fighter.
Even the guys you though might mimic the Floyd/Ward/Hopkins types, fighters from America have 'broken the mould' if you will.
Spence, Crawford, Thurman, Jacobs, Andrade, Wilder etc, all fun to watch

good point. A balance is important.

Barrera and Marquez, Juan Manuel, have been two of my favourites, required viewing for ability to both box and fight, going backwards or dominating coming forwards. Feinting people out of position then punishing them.

I just think right now, after Wlad, Mayweather etc that boxing desperately needs the good attacking fighters. And, in the biggest, most attractive fights. Thankfully, a great weekend just gone by, breakthrough wins by Gassiev and Smith Jr, give me some encouragement.

Think we need more Rafael Marquez v Israel Vazquez type battles. Always felt Kovalev v Stevenson would have been that kind of fight without wanting to compare the fighters in too direct a manner.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 22 Dec 2016, 06:13

davie wrote:
Autobarn wrote:
These guys spoiled boxing. The sport needs brilliant attacking fighters.
I would add, I've really been enjoying watching fighters who can mix the 2 styles. Guys who can display all the defensive arts without becoming gun-shy, spoiling or boring the tits off you.
I've been watching a number of old fights including guys like Toney and McCallum and Pernell Whitaker

Toney had all of Mayweathers shoulder rolls and upper body movement, Hopkins awkward movement and counter punching.
But he stood there and fought you. Not a pressure fighter but one of the highest output punch rates of any top fighter I've seen. Happy to trade, stand in the pocket and a great infighter who had no interest in spoiligng or grabbing. A joy to watch and hard as nails

Many rate Whitaker as being every bit as defensively astute as Floyd and every bit as hard to nail down, but again, he let his hand go and I've not seen him in a stinker yet.

And McCallum was more orthodox but a boxer none the less, defence was good but he could hit hard and punished a fighter to the body

I'd rather watch these types than the guys at either end of the scale. Someone who completely disregards defence or someone who wont fight are not complete fighters

McCallum was outstanding. Could do it all. Had every punch in the manual. And he punched in exciting combinations,and featured in a few great fights.

Toney was a really clean puncher, a razor sharp counter puncher, his only problem being stamina and struggling with balance the rare times he fought on the front foot (look st now he stumbles forward in fightsversus mobile opponents, a similar issue suffered by Eubank Sr and Hopkins). Killed him versus Jones Jr; would have even if he prepared properly for it.

I also love Terry Norris, a slick American who often used his athleticism to punish with exciting combinations; though he could go defensive and neutralise when necessary he liked to dominate.

Can't stand Andre Ward, jab, grab and throw a left hook to the body while clinching with the right does not make you a great fighter who can Box masterfully outside and dominate inside as somelike to claim. Froch, who boxed a terrible strategic fight that night, his disregard for the textbook really backfiring on him, got something right when he said Ward is a guy who fights too close or too far away.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 26 Dec 2016, 11:52

Eastman - Hopkins

1. 9 - 10
2. 10 - 9
3. 10 - 10
4. 9 - 10
5. 9 - 10
6. 9 - 10
7. 9 - 10
8. 10 - 9
9. 9 - 10
10. 9 - 10
11. 10 - 9
12. 9 - 10

117-112 Hopkins

Eastman seemed to be trying harder than I remember from the first time. Hopkins just outclassed him.

I believe that Eastman is the only British fighter to have fought for all 4 of the major titles in one fight.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 26 Dec 2016, 11:54

Eastman - Dann

1. 10 - 10
2. 9 - 10
3. - - - TKO

20-19 Dann

Terminator666 · Post by **Terminator666** » 26 Dec 2016, 15:04

Eastman always seemed a bit one paced for me- always when you wanted him to up the pace a bit he never would

dannyhalifax · Post by **dannyhalifax** » 26 Dec 2016, 15:50

I always thought this was a dodgy fight, first no titles were on the line and a few days before all the titles were on the line.

Eastman never really pushed as much as he could disappointing fight

I bought it on Virgin media for £7.50 as I remember.

jameswilson · Post by **jameswilson** » 26 Dec 2016, 16:02

Eastman was in a few exciting fights but by Christ he could stink the joint out at times.

52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins

Re: 52 fight challenge: Week 50 - Howard Eastman vs Bernard Hopkins