Succeeding and being talented are two completely different things. I am not speaking at all about his success level, either as an individual or as compared to anyone else. I am speaking of his talent as such. Also, you can't say that he is successful compared to other successful pros, then cite the 1000 other pros per division--only about the top 50 in each division would be cited as successful in any capacity, and really only top 10 or 20 would be successful enough to compare with him.
You said he sucks relative to other successful pros, so you are speaking about success. The issue for me is how you define that, because you make that comment but then say he'd be top 5 in many divisions, which seems inconsistent with your assertion.
-I did qualify my "Kovalev sucks" statement in my last post--once again, I'm using sucks as far as comparing him to other elite or so-called elite fighters. Again, he clearly doesn't suck when compared to most pro fighters--however, you also must realizes that the vast majority of pro fighters have no business being pro fighters and wouldn't even be pro level in any other sport.
Ok, so now you say elite fighters, but earlier it was simply 'other successful pros' which seemed to be much more inclusive. I also don't get why you would make an unqualified statement when you mean that he sucks compared to the absolute best of the best. Basically you're suggesting that someone sucks if they're not an elite fighter.
-He would be top 5 in many of the 17 divisions. If we still only had 8 divisions, the way it should be, the talent would be consolidated into those 8 divisions instead of spread out over 17, and he would be lucky to crack the top 10 in most if not all, and I'm not sure he would be top 5 in any. He would basically be a fringe contender at best.
Again, that doesn't scream 'he sucks compared to other successful pros" to me, and I disagree that he'd be a fringe-contender at best. I think he'd be a serious contender at 175, for example, even assuming that guys like Froch and Ward moved up rather than down.
For super middle, Ward and Froch would beat him for sure, and I think there's a good chance even someone like Chavez Jr. gets him.
This sure doesn't sound like the comment you made earlier about him being dominated be everyone in the top 3-5 at SMW. Who is the third, and perhaps 4th and 5th guys who would do this? You mention Chavez, but do you actually think it's safe to say that he dominates Kovalev? The same guy who had close fights with Zbik and Vera? The same guy with the shortcomings in footwork, defense, and technique that you claim Kovalev has?
For junior middle, Mayweather, Alvarez, Lara, and even Andrade all get him. Why should you believe it? That's up to you. I pointed out Kovalev's shortcomings in other posts--poor balance and footwork, mediocre defense, mediocre technique--it is up to you to think about it, study him, and either change your mind or stay with your current thinking.
I can see some of those names beating him, and Mayweather dominating him, but not the others. I'll be very conservative and give you Alvarez (though I disagree), but I think Lara would be overly passive and allow him to outwork him for many rounds, and even fighters like Angulo and Molina were highly competitive with him. You criticize Kovalev's opponents and claim that much of his success is down to their mediocrity, but what about Andrade? His best win is over Vanes, another fighter who is fairly unproven himself, and aside from that his best opponents are probably Grady Brewer and Freddy Hernandez. He looks promising, but I also think his chin is questionable, he seems to have balance issues as well to me, and I've yet to see him produce the type of showing against a good enough opponent to conclude that he dominates Kovalev.
-You disagree with which part? That he would get dominated by those fighters I mentioned (Qawi, Spinks, Jones, etc.)? Or that he would be forgotten today like Sears, etc.?
I think Kovalev would be successful enough and produce the type of knockouts that would prevent people from forgetting about him. I also think he'd have a very good chance of being compeitiive with Tarver, Saad (look at all the fighters who were competitive with him), and perhaps Qawi.
I don't think he does those things well. I think everything that you say he does well is just an extension of his power and the fact that he has fought, other than an older Campillo, a list of par or sub-par fighters. His timing isn't anything to write home about. He is a good finisher against the level of opposition he's been facing, but being able to finish Blake Caparello when he hurts him isn't the same as being able to finish Hopkins or, better yet, a prime elite fighter, when he hurts him--and that is assuming that he can hurt him first. Curtis Stevens was seen as a great finisher too--until he stepped up his competition (for the record, I do think Kovalev is better than Stevens, but that isn't saying an awful lot).
Right, no matter what I mention you just conveniently dismiss it as an extension of his power; what would it take for him to show you that he has good abilities that are not just extensions of his power? I've given several examples and can give several more examples of his punch diversity, combination punching, finishing ability, and other abilities, but no....he doesn't actually posses those because of his power and opposition, even though loads of fighters who are generally considered hard punchers (I'm surprised you're not saying his power is unproven because of his opposition) don't show the same abilities against the same type of opposition. We'll have to disagree on his abilities.
And when did Stevens show that he wasn't a good finisher? Aside from the fact that he's never even beaten guys like Cleverly and Campillo, I can't remember instances of him stepping up his opposition, hurting them, and being unable to finish them.
Hopkins has never really been much of a combination puncher or a finisher, at least not in the last 10-12 years. His game is to slow the pace down, pot shot, frustrate you, and take advantage of the mistakes his opponent makes with sneaky single shots and ring generalship/craftiness. He does show a better punch selection, just not necessarily in combination.
How is Hopkins' punch selection better? I already gave examples of Kovalev's offensive diversity, and I don't see how Hopkins' has shown he's superior in this respect. If anything I think he's overly reliant on jabs and overhand rights and somewhat predictable in that respect.
Again, just because his Campillo/Cleverly weren't showing visible signs of being hurt doesn't mean that his power wasn't affecting them. They can still feel his power, they still know about it, and as a result they are going to fight differently or try to adjust to it, which may make them vulnerable in ways they wouldn't normally be if his power weren't a factor. You may now ask why it would be any different with Hopkins then. I'll tell you--it is because Hopkins is much more talented and experienced then they are, so he knows how to handle it better.
I agree that Kovalev has good mobile power--but he still has to show an ability to land against Hopkins. You're right that his timing, if it is as good as you say, would offset the speed advantage, but I don't think his timing is better than Hopkins'.
So on what basis could you say that Kovalev showed abilities that weren't simply a product of his power?
His timing doesn't have to be better than Hopkins' to mitigate a speed disadvantage. Hopkins being able to time his punches better doesn't mean that he wouldn't also be able to effectively time Hopkins' attacks, and hence do better than he would without such an ability.
Sillakh moves more than Hopkins, but that doesn't mean his movement is better. Sillakh is a classic example of someone who moves too much so that he is frequently vulnerable and out of position and never set to do much of anything. He fought a terrible fight against Kovalev, floating around the ring and basically running with his chin up in the air. There is a difference between frequent movement and intelligent movement--Sillakh displays the former, Hopkins displays the latter.
I think Sillakh moves significantly faster than Hopkins does, and if he had his other abilities would be the better fighter. To pull a page out of your book, what you see as Hopkins' better movement is simply an extension of his other qualities, such as his better chin, better defense, and hence reduced vulnerability.
Kovalev won't bring anything to the fight that Hopkins hasn't already seen except for his power (and even that is debatable--I'm not sure his power his better than Jones or Pavlik, for example, although it is more of a thudding, heavy handed power than their sharper power)--the question is whether or nor he still has what it takes to neutralize it. I think he does, but we shall see. Also, styles make fights, so you can't say that "well, Kovalev destroyed Campillo who boxed circles around Shumenov, who only lost a decision to Hopkins, therefore...." It doesn't quite work that way. That whole Ali/Foreman/Frazier/Norton situation is an easy comparable example of that.
I agree that Hopkins possesses many abilities to degrees that Kovalev hasn't seen, but then against Taylor was in the same situation against Hopkins and Pavlik was in the same situation against Taylor. I also believe that the current version of Hopkins, with his existing set of abilities, hasn't dealt with someone who holds Kovalev's power and other abilities, although of course you dismiss the later.
I agree about styles making fights, but it seems to me that you're just lumping Kovalev in with Shumenov, Cloud, and Murat in considering them nothing more but crude sluggers. If that's true, and given that each of them has a fairly high workrate, what is it about Kovalev that enabled him to beat common opponents far more easily than each of them?
I exaggerated when I said he falls off balance 5-10 times per round. But he does it quite frequently, enough that it was one of the first things I noticed when I first started watching him. I won't say every time, but quite frequently when someone steps to him he will bring his left foot back much further than his right foot, leaving him squared up, off balance, and vulnerable. That is why he went down against Caparello--yes, I know he also had his foot stepped on, but had he not been square that wouldn't have mattered. Do you not think that Hopkins is a smart enough fighter to spot this and find a way to capitalize? Do you not think he is talented or accurate enough to land on a squared up, vulnerable fighter?
Again, I don't see it happen that often and you haven't given me any reasons to believe otherwise. Without examples I could easily say "no, he falls off-balance only once every three or four rounds". Hopkins is good enough to exploit a lot of flaws, but I doubt he's able to exploit every mistake a fighter makes and even if he is there's only so much success he can have if the fighter is making the mistake a few times over several rounds.
Also, if you watch Kovalev-Caparello you'll see that Kovalev squares up and drops his hands for a moment because he's hit with a lowblow that the referee doesn't notice, so I think that is better evidence of his reaction to a foul than of a fundamental flaw.
I don't feel like it's my job to look through his fights and find examples for you--I've pointed it out. If you want, feel free to watch his fights on your own and tell me I'm wrong. I feel like he was doing it a lot against both Cleverly and Agnew, but I'm not going to watch the fights again right now to look.
You're wrong. He fell off-balance only one time that I noticed against Cleverly, and I think a lot of that had to due with him not having respect for the latter's ability. I rarely saw him off balance against Agnew, and if he was it would hardly be enough to make a significant difference in a bout even if his opponent exploited it every time.
Maybe it wasn't right to say that others have lulled him to sleep, but I do believe Hopkins can and will. That is his specialty, and I don't see anything in Kovalev that leads me to believe he is any different in that area from others Hopkins has fought.
Hopkins is good at lulling opponents to sleep, but I don't think he did so against Dawson, Pascal, or even Murat, who was about as aggressive as his stamina allowed him to be.
I wouldn't say he struggled with Pascal. He beat him clearly twice (despite the poor judging in the first fight). Yes he got caught a few times, and yes Kovalev could do the same, but struggled is a stretch. If I remember correctly, at least one of those knockdowns was a flash knockdown and he wasn't really hurt, maybe both of them, and he just got a little stunned but not badly hurt in the second fight. Dawson was just a bad style match up at that stage in his career, but I don't think Kovalev presents the same problems--he isn't as quick, as busy, or as rangey as Dawson, and those were the problems for Hopkins more than anything.
I thought the draw was fair in the first Pascal bout and so did many the others. He won the second fight clearly but I think 4-5 rounds could've been scored for Pascal and obviously he was seriously hurt in the final round.
-For the Pascal knockdowns--do you remember what rounds they occurred in? I will take a look. My initial response would be that, even if he swung wildly to put Hopkins down, his better boxing skill and athleticism set it up in the first place, but I will try to provide a better breakdown if you would like.
Rounds 1 and 3.
I think no matter what Pascal did you'd explain it as being due to something Kovalev doesn't possess. What exactly does superior boxing skill have to do with swinging wildly and catching someone? How did setting up those punches rely on skills that Kovalev doesn't have?
, on top he is realy good at not only punching hard, but punching to the right spots.