BoxRec

fanman wrote:i only saw round 12 and hop took a severe beating, showed great heart to stay in there. froch isnt a bad idea, but nor would be retirement.

Froch would beat Hopkins worse than kovolev.frochs power and strength is almost is right up there.it's a shame Carl is 37 and had so much success and no longer needs a kovolev.a younger hungrier Carl would have fought and beat him.

Hopkins is totally finished I could see it 20 seconds in.slow and pawing

Horse wrote:

Perseus wrote:He won't deserve title shots because he's coming off lop-sided loss period.

The boxer coming off that kind of loss be he 29 or 49 NEVER deserves a title shot in his very next fight.

If he gets a title fight next it will be a gift from somebody hoping to cherry-pick a big name opponent.

Carl Froch & Mikkel Kessler were both dominated by Andre Ward and they both won world titles in their next fights.

In my case I think Froch and Kessler were beaten by the better man.in Hopkins case I think he just became an old man overnight as I simply think kovolev is vastly overrated.the tarver of mid 2000s, the Glen Johnson of the mid 2000s would have given him hell

mugabi wrote:In my case I think Froch and Kessler were beaten by the better man.in Hopkins case I think he just became an old man overnight as I simply think kovolev is vastly overrated.the tarver of mid 2000s, the Glen Johnson of the mid 2000s would have given him hell

Hopkins fight against Shumenov was less than 7 months ago, which he dominated.

Kovalev is levels above Shumenov and Cloud, who were both top 10 ranked, that was the difference. Hopkins fought a top P4P level contender with a top P4P level punch.

Hopkins didn't become old overnight; he just fought a very, very good fighter.

fergusg wrote:[quote="Perseus"

I doubt that Froch would be willing to consider facing Hopkins (as there are better options out there for him), but if he did, he would dominate the cagey veteran with ease… a stance I’ve maintained for several years.

If you watch the tactics Froch employed against Arthur Abraham, coupled with his work-rate during the Kessler rematch, then I really have no idea whatsoever how Hopkins would be able to cope with dodging an average of 87 heavy-handed punches per round, using tactics that are fairly similar to how Kovalev fought last Saturday.

Hopkins has always wanted to fight Carl Froch, probably because it would allow him to earn a career-high payday, but I’m confident that the man from Nottingham could earn much more money competing against the likes of Kessler or DeGale (assuming the Chavez Jr. bout falls through due to contractual issues). So I doubt that we’ll get to see a Froch-Hopkins fight.[/quote]

lol.
For the DLH fight Hopkins was guaranteed 10 million before ppv payouts and probably raked in another few million after ppv money came in. DLH/Hopkins topped a million buys.
No way he makes anything close to that for a fight with Froch.[/quote]
[Source: Thomas Hauser] Hopkins and his attorney have testified under oath that Bernard's purse for the De La Hoya fight was $8 million plus commission from the PPV buys for his fight against Oscar De La Hoya (who also earned $8m).

[Source: Nick Harris - Daily Mail] The Froch-Groves rematch generated $34m in revenue, which allowed Carl Froch to receive a $13m payday, with George Groves earning more than $3m, which was from UK revenue alone.

It’s an irrefutable fact that Bernard Hopkins is a much bigger name than George Groves.

There’s a very good chance that a Froch-Hopkins could be a PPV on both sides of the Atlantic.

So do you really believe that it’s still a highly-amusing notion to think that Hopkins could earn anything approaching $8m (plus commission for PPV buys) to face Carl Froch? Does Hopkins even deserve to earn anywhere near $8m to fight Carl Froch? I'd argue "no" on both accounts.[/quote]

Your source is total bullshit. You should have known that when you read that DLH made the same amount as Hopkins.
You searched a long time to find one that said something less than 10M for Hops.
All I did was google and the articles are consistently 10M for Hops, 30M for Oscar, good job on finding one that is obviously false though.
In the unlikely event that your source has an ounce of credibility that's just purse strictly for the fight. How much were Hops and DLH paid for using their likenesses to promote the fight? How much were they paid for their time promoting the fight? They get pretty creative reporting income to reduce sanctioning fees and taxes.
The media doesn't break it down they just report the totals.

and NO there is no way Hopkins makes 10 million or 8 million for Froch because that fight wouldn't be a ppv fight to begin with. Plus Hopkins isn't going overseas to fight anybody so the 80,000 seat stadium is out of the mix too.

^^^ the main thing I notice is that you did not deny skipping over the multitude of reports that say 10M and 30M for one that is garbage.
What it says about DLH is relevant because it is clearly a lie which renders the credibility of your source to ZERO.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004 ... sser-title
http://articles.philly.com/2004-09-19/s ... elix-sturm
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2004/se ... e-la-hoya/
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... ey-kovalev
http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Ho ... 693072.php
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing ... id=1817996

There's a bunch for you all more credible than your article reporting equal purses for DLH and Hopkins.

So did you actually read the article from Hauser that you want to tout as a credible source?????

It clearly implies that the filings were false and even points out the contradictions about the purses, Hauser made it quite obvious.
He also says they were being sued by the IBF for fraud and intent to underpay.

A myriad of other sources report 10M for Hopkins, your source(Hauser) reports either 4M or 8M and states a case for those numbers being FALSE.

That article isn't a confirmation of Hopkins purse it's a thinly veiled accusation of falsifying legal documents. He even listed the possible penalties for such actions

oh the dots are connected.

First dot: You say Hops gets career best payday against Froch.
Second: I dispute that and give a number to what his reported career high was.
Third: you post a quote....not a link..a cherry-picked quote from a random article saying he made less.
Fourth: I call BS based on a blatantly obvious falsehood in your quote.
Fifth: You post a link to your source for me to read. Upon reading said source it turns out to be an article accusing Hopkins and Co. lying about what he made on the fight.
Now you do not want me looking at your source article.

I thank you for posting that article despite the fact that it totally undermines your stance.
It is an interesting read and a good find.

lol, you're actually going to wait 12 hours for a response on an internet forum?
um......ok.
I'm amused that we're actually debating this to begin with but whatever.

Anyway, my original claim was Hops made 10M and probably more with ppv payouts. Nothing more, nothing less.
You wanted links, I supplied them and they all confirm my claim.
I think I've stated my interpretation of the article in your link.

Please post your reply I will read it sometime tomorrow or Monday but don't look for a reply. I don't carry on a debate on any topic endlessly but it's obvious that you are willing to do so.

These page-long posts are f4cking annoying.

ikorolev wrote:These page-long posts are f4cking annoying.

I rarely read anything that is over a paragraph long on a Boxing Message Board.

^
All the main arguments were made years ago and they stand.

^ I get what your saying. Although I did find the argument's what Hopkin's and Oscar made years ago in their PPV amusing. Need not say anymore I'm going to bed. I'm tired. Good Night.

JCS wrote:

Horse wrote:Stevenson, Ward, Froch, Abraham etc.

Just because he lost to Kovalev it doesn't mean he can't still take on the best.

He arguably lost every single round. I'd agree if it was close, but it wasn't.

Except Kovalev is significantly better than that lot of guys and a better puncher than that group as well.

Hopkins, in spite of the 12-0 beat down from Kovalev, would make Adonis Stevenson look foolish in beating him with a late round TKO this spring before defending the 175 title one last time in the fall before retirement.

Mostel wrote: Hopkins, in spite of the 12-0 beat down from Kovalev, would make Adonis Stevenson look foolish in beating him with a late round TKO this spring before defending the 175 title one last time in the fall before retirement.

Doubtful.

Hopkins is in a tough spot. He's not evasive or strong enough to beat the top 175ers... and he's likely not quick or active enough to compete at 168.

I'd support him taking a fight against Froch or Chavez at 168-170.. but that's about it.

Kovalev isn't a god. If Hopkins was capable of beating Stevenson with a "late round TKO", he's capable of taking rounds from Kovalev.

Mostel wrote:Except Kovalev is significantly better than that lot of guys and a better puncher than that group as well.

Hopkins, in spite of the 12-0 beat down from Kovalev, would make Adonis Stevenson look foolish in beating him with a late round TKO this spring before defending the 175 title one last time in the fall before retirement.

I like Hopkins' chances but I know he won't be able to KO anyone at this point in his career and though he may be able to outbox AS in spots I'm unsure that he has the ability to outwork or outspeed him.

I'd rather see Kovalev vs Stevenson, this fight I'm not so sure about but before I was leaning to Stevenson until Sergey showed me that he is capable of not only boxing but sticking to an effective gameplan even if a master was trying to get into his head and make him overcommit so he (Hops) could try and take advantages of mistakes he hoped Kov would make.

Adonis isn't craftier than Nard and will need to rely on some other attribute to get Kovalev off his game.

JCS wrote:Hopkins is in a tough spot. He's not evasive or strong enough to beat the top 175ers...

Who are they?

I think Hopkins could probably still beats the other top guys at 175. He's still crafty enough to make it ugly and land some counters at the right times. Kovalev is just a beast. And he's smart, which makes him even more dangerous.

I was definitely wrong about him. I think he's significantly above the rest now.

I was puzzled when Hop kept comparing Pavlik to Kovalev. It sounded like diss to all fighters not black or latin. Seriously. I love Bhop & defend him about comments vs. Calzaghe. But Joe won IMHO and don't know why Bhop had to be so classless. He praised the black trainer of Kova. Isn't that odd? Considering ridicule he publicly dished out @ JDJax. Hopefully he won't call out GGG thinking "inferior flat footed brawler white dude". Its like Holyfields losses. Not indicative of how great the real deal Vander was esp.at his size. Bhop takes on the best and it tells you that nearly no fighters can take on best and NEVER lose. Odds are highly stacked. Floyd is probably more skilled.than Nard but not nearly as good a chin. Nard is cut from another cloth. If he had ever used PEDs then he'd possibly stopped Kovalev. He has subtle moves, strength and endurance to still compete w/some good fighters. But Kova looks better than "good". And no one else would've lasted 12 like Hops did.