BHop vs Kovalev Discussion

[punchoutsb]

Wow. A lot of analysis. All I'll say is I hope to see some of the Kovalev bashers in the thread after he beats the brakes off Bernard.

If you do, they'll just say "you've been wrong about predictions too".

[Bard of Boxrec]

Wow. A lot of analysis. All I'll say is I hope to see some of the Kovalev bashers in the thread after he beats the brakes off Bernard.

If you do, they'll just say "you've been wrong about predictions too".

And I've accepted I've been wrong. These guys...don't have much hope

[danconnollyeire]

Bernard Hopkins is 50, has done everything in the sport, doesn't have to fight anyone yet has taken one of the toughest fights in he world. Respect

[SenorPipino]

Bernard Hopkins is 50, has done everything in the sport, doesn't have to fight anyone yet has taken one of the toughest fights in he world. Respect

Absolutely correct.
So few here want to give Hopkins any respect. He's done it all. Kovalev has accomplished next to nothing, and yet the B-Hop detractors (or are they just Kovalev groupies?) write him off like HE'S the virtual novice in this fight.

And what's with this amusing reoccuring theme that "if Hopkin's doesn't decide to pull out"?
Is there any reason to believe that Hopkins--an effin legend---is so terrified of Kovey that he'll eventually turn tail and call off the bout?
Gee the guy's only fought the best in the business for 2 decades, been a champion for much of that time, but yet he's wetting his pants at the thought of getting into the ring with the Russian. Who the hell was Kovalev before he beat the dreaded Nathan Cleverly? Just another fairly unknown European, with an undefeated record compiled against the usual limited opposition.
Now he's suddenly the overwhelming favorite here to beat an icon?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Kovalev can punch real hard. That's all it takes to beat Hopkins. A big punch. I recall many arguing the same about Cloud. He was this mega-puncher who would put the decrepit Hopkins to sleep. Some relative novice got schooled that night, didn't he?

One thing I've learned in boxing. Big punchers, the kinds that fans drool over and quickly annoint as ATGs, are eventually exposed as one-dimensional no-hopers who appear impotent when finally encountering a boxing master.
Kovalev will meet that master in November and most of you guys will quickly forget him and climb on the bandwagon of the next over-hyped "monster" who catches your fancy.

[Baby Face Finster]

The only way I think Bernard can win this fight is if he stuns or hurts Kovalev right in the first round. If he tags Kovalev hard enough he might just make Kovalev tentative enough for the rest of the fight that the pace won't be one that Bernard can't withstand. Make no mistake, if Bernard catches Kovalev clean he can rock him and put him down. How will Kovalev react if that were to happen? We don't know. I personally see Bernard taking too much punishment and finding a way out of the fight through a DQ or acting like he can't go on from an imaginary foul, but I wouldn't write Bernard off. The man is a legend for good reason and anyone that doesn't respect him can be easily surprised. Kovalev will definitely be tested in this fight.

[ikorolev]

Bernard Hopkins is 50, has done everything in the sport, doesn't have to fight anyone yet has taken one of the toughest fights in he world. Respect

Absolutely correct.
So few here want to give Hopkins any respect. He's done it all. Kovalev has accomplished next to nothing, and yet the B-Hop detractors (or are they just Kovalev groupies?) write him off like HE'S the virtual novice in this fight.

And what's with this amusing reoccuring theme that "if Hopkin's doesn't decide to pull out"?
Is there any reason to believe that Hopkins--an effin legend---is so terrified of Kovey that he'll eventually turn tail and call off the bout?
Gee the guy's only fought the best in the business for 2 decades, been a champion for much of that time, but yet he's wetting his pants at the thought of getting into the ring with the Russian. Who the hell was Kovalev before he beat the dreaded Nathan Cleverly? Just another fairly unknown European, with an undefeated record compiled against the usual limited opposition.
Now he's suddenly the overwhelming favorite here to beat an icon?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Kovalev can punch real hard. That's all it takes to beat Hopkins. A big punch. I recall many arguing the same about Cloud. He was this mega-puncher who would put the decrepit Hopkins to sleep. Some relative novice got schooled that night, didn't he?

One thing I've learned in boxing. Big punchers, the kinds that fans drool over and quickly annoint as ATGs, are eventually exposed as one-dimensional no-hopers who appear impotent when finally encountering a boxing master.
Kovalev will meet that master in November and most of you guys will quickly forget him and climb on the bandwagon of the next over-hyped "monster" who catches your fancy.

Hopkins deserves huge respect for his achievements, but it doesn't mean that he can keep up indefinitely. His last two fights were against mediocre opposition, and Cloud is also far from elite. Since beating Pavlik 6 years ago, he had two good opponents, Pascal and Dawson, to who he either lost or had big troubles with. He has never faced anybody like Kovalev -- a very good boxer with huge punching power.

One of reasons of Hopkins taking the Kovalev fight was to end the Main Events lawsuit, another one -- if he didn't take it, he would be stripped off his IBF belt. So, his decision may not have been fully voluntary which is why possibility of withdrawal is real.

[punchoutsb]

So few here want to give Hopkins any respect.

Who here hasn't given BHop respect? Favoring Kovalev to win the match isn't disrespecting Bernard, though that concept is clearly beyond your mental grasp.

[SenorPipino]

Bernard Hopkins is 50, has done everything in the sport, doesn't have to fight anyone yet has taken one of the toughest fights in he world. Respect

Absolutely correct.
So few here want to give Hopkins any respect. He's done it all. Kovalev has accomplished next to nothing, and yet the B-Hop detractors (or are they just Kovalev groupies?) write him off like HE'S the virtual novice in this fight.

And what's with this amusing reoccuring theme that "if Hopkin's doesn't decide to pull out"?
Is there any reason to believe that Hopkins--an effin legend---is so terrified of Kovey that he'll eventually turn tail and call off the bout?
Gee the guy's only fought the best in the business for 2 decades, been a champion for much of that time, but yet he's wetting his pants at the thought of getting into the ring with the Russian. Who the hell was Kovalev before he beat the dreaded Nathan Cleverly? Just another fairly unknown European, with an undefeated record compiled against the usual limited opposition.
Now he's suddenly the overwhelming favorite here to beat an icon?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Kovalev can punch real hard. That's all it takes to beat Hopkins. A big punch. I recall many arguing the same about Cloud. He was this mega-puncher who would put the decrepit Hopkins to sleep. Some relative novice got schooled that night, didn't he?

One thing I've learned in boxing. Big punchers, the kinds that fans drool over and quickly annoint as ATGs, are eventually exposed as one-dimensional no-hopers who appear impotent when finally encountering a boxing master.
Kovalev will meet that master in November and most of you guys will quickly forget him and climb on the bandwagon of the next over-hyped "monster" who catches your fancy.

Hopkins deserves huge respect for his achievements, but it doesn't mean that he can keep up indefinitely. His last two fights were against mediocre opposition, and Cloud is also far from elite. Since beating Pavlik 6 years ago, he had two good opponents, Pascal and Dawson, to who he either lost or had big troubles with. He has never faced anybody like Kovalev -- a very good boxer with huge punching power.

One of reasons of Hopkins taking the Kovalev fight was to end the Main Events lawsuit, another one -- if he didn't take it, he would be stripped off his IBF belt. So, his decision may not have been fully voluntary which is why possibility of withdrawal is real.

What would be the point?
If Hopkins was so concerned about losing his title, wouldn't suddenly withdrawing from the bout also trigger the IBF into quickly stripping him of his belt?
It makes no sense to be concerned about losing the IBF title but then scheming a pullout down the road. Either way, the championship is taken.

[ikorolev]

He may have decided to buy himself more time. Nobody likes to be pressured to make a decision.

[rampage]

rampage, you shouldn't have wasted time to write a whole page of crap.

Ikorolev, grown ups are talking. If you don't have anything meaningful to add to the debate, take it somewhere else.

Crusader, on the other hand, I want to thank you for being able to have a thoughtful, intelligent, mature debate--there are very few posters here who have that ability, which is why I rarely post anymore.

-You aren't paying attention to the distinctions I've made. Yes, I originally compared him to "other successful pros"--I used that as a logical point of reference, because I need someone to compare him to--I can't compare him to no one. Some people are successful and skilled--guys like Jones, Ali, Leonard, etc. There are also plenty of successful people who aren't skilled. To use a non-boxing example, think about someone like Jonah Hill--completely untalented at both comedy and acting, yet he is still somehow successful. Success does not presuppose talent. So, the reason I compared him to "other successful pros" was to illustrate the point that compared to that focus group, he is untalented. I then changed my wording to "elite" because you seemed to be having as hard time seeing the distinction so I tried a different group--that was obviously a mistake because it slightly changed my meaning and confused you more. Regardless, I don't even understand why this is a point of contention. You're arguing over semantics, when, as far as I can tell, the only things we should be debating are 1) whether or not Kovalev is a skilled boxer, and 2) if he will beat Hopkins.

-It's exactly the same statement I made. Again, you are missing distinctions that I've already explained. I said anywhere from the top 3 to the top 5--meaning that some divisions the top 3 beat him, some divisions the top 5. Not necessarily the top 5 in each. So, if you consolidate from 17 divisions to 8, then you would basically combine two divisions--3+3=6, meaning he would rank at 7, or 5+5=10, meaning he is 11 and doesn't rank. Ranking him anywhere from 7-11 is a fringe contender.

-Of course Chavez has similar shortcomings. Notice that I phrased it as such: "even someone like" Chavez, meaning that I recognize that he isn't particularly skilled either, although I will say he has come a very long way. But yes, I think he would have a good chance of beating Kovalev (especially if we speak in pound for pound terms, which is what I believe we are doing).

-Yes, Andrade has fought limited opposition as well. Again, I never said he hasn't. You seem to have a habit of arguing against points that I never made, again coming back to that whole "missing distinctions" issue. All I said was that Andrade is a more talented boxer than Kovalev is, and, in the pound for pound terms that (I think) we are discussing, I think he beats him.

-If you can't see that finishing ability, keeping opponents more defensive and changing their counter-punching strategies, etc. are extensions of his power, I don't know what else to tell you. They obviously are.

-You really can't be over-reliant on a jab. That's a silly thing to say. But, as far as the other part of that statement, Hopkins throws lots of sneaky shots from funny angles and at funny times. That is a big part of offensive diversity.

-Timing doesn't only involve punching. Timing involves everything you do in boxing--head movement, foot movement, blocking/parrying, etc. If Hopkins' timing is better in every respect and he stays sharp, then how can you argue that doesn't matter? The way Kovalev could beat Hopkins' superior speed and timing would be by effective pressure over time and either wearing him down or by landing enough hard shots--both of which, I will grant, could happen. I just don't think it will.

-Once again, faster movement does not equal better/more effective movement. Those are two completely different things. Yes, Sillakh move faster and he moves more than Hopkins, but he does not move more effectively. Which is why he got put to sleep in two rounds. And as far as "pulling a page out of my book", yes, you would actually be right. Hopkins' better movement and better defense absolutely reduce his vulnerability (I assume that's where you were going? The order, and therefore your statement, are a little muddled and unclear), and therefore improve his ability to take a punch (Not in and of itself, mind you--obviously, you can't "train" a chin, so it doesn't increase his punch resistance per se, but those skills limit the number of flush shots he takes which means it is much harder, even for a devastating power puncher, to hurt him. This is a huge part of why guys like Hopkins and Mayweather are still on top--because they don't take as many flush shots, and therefore don't get hurt or take as much damage as other fighters do). That's boxing 101, and to suggest anything different would be downright asinine.

-I already granted that Kovalev has excellent power. That is precisely what sets him apart from other limited fighters like Cloud, Shumenov, and Murat. But once again, his power won't matter if he can't land on Hopkins or if Hopkins isn't flustered by it the way Kovalev's other opponents have been. My argument is simply that I don't think he has the boxing ability to be able to land his shots with any regularity, and that Hopkins is experienced and talented enough to not be especially bothered by the power the way others have been.

-Do you actually want me to go through Kovalev's fights and bookmark every time he falls off balance? I just watched his fight against Sillakh again and his footwork is ghastly. He falls off balance 5 times in the first minute alone, and that isn't counting the times when he puts too much weight on his back foot. Again, if you can't see that, I don't know what else to tell you.

-Even if I grant that Kovalev squared up because of a low blow, which may be--I'm not able to re-watch it at the moment--there are two things I could respond with. The first is that, again, I see him do the exact same thing frequently, and I've been saying for a long time that he is quite vulnerable when he does that. The second response, and probably the more obvious of the two, is that if, as you suggest, it is more of a problem with his reaction to a foul than with his balance....how much of a problem do you think that poor reaction will be when he fights Hopkins, who is notorious for committing the exact same types of fouls when the ref isn't looking?

-At the end of the day, we clearly aren't going to agree. I see Kovalev one way, you see him another, and we won't know who is right until he and Hopkins meet in the ring. I could be wrong--it's happened before. But I'm not sure that there is any point in further debating since we won't know anything until November and neither one of us will change his mind until then.

[ikorolev]

rampage, you shouldn't have wasted time to write a whole page of crap.

Ikorolev, grown ups are talking. If you don't have anything meaningful to add to the debate, take it somewhere else.

rampage, intelligent grown ups can express their thoughts in a concise form. Forums are not intended for publishing dissertations.

[rampage]

rampage, you shouldn't have wasted time to write a whole page of crap.

Ikorolev, grown ups are talking. If you don't have anything meaningful to add to the debate, take it somewhere else.

rampage, intelligent grown ups can express their thoughts in a concise form. Forums are not intended for publishing dissertations.

No need for a dissertation, but intelligent debate is good. If all you have to add is "what you said is crap" but you don't want to back up your statement, then it is pointless to say it. That's just it--you didn't express any other thought than "you're wrong". There's a difference between a concise statement and a meaningless one.

[diddy]

Bernard Hopkins is 50, has done everything in the sport, doesn't have to fight anyone yet has taken one of the toughest fights in he world. Respect

Absolutely correct.
So few here want to give Hopkins any respect. He's done it all. Kovalev has accomplished next to nothing, and yet the B-Hop detractors (or are they just Kovalev groupies?) write him off like HE'S the virtual novice in this fight.

And what's with this amusing reoccuring theme that "if Hopkin's doesn't decide to pull out"?
Is there any reason to believe that Hopkins--an effin legend---is so terrified of Kovey that he'll eventually turn tail and call off the bout?
Gee the guy's only fought the best in the business for 2 decades, been a champion for much of that time, but yet he's wetting his pants at the thought of getting into the ring with the Russian. Who the hell was Kovalev before he beat the dreaded Nathan Cleverly? Just another fairly unknown European, with an undefeated record compiled against the usual limited opposition.
Now he's suddenly the overwhelming favorite here to beat an icon?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Kovalev can punch real hard. That's all it takes to beat Hopkins. A big punch. I recall many arguing the same about Cloud. He was this mega-puncher who would put the decrepit Hopkins to sleep. Some relative novice got schooled that night, didn't he?

One thing I've learned in boxing. Big punchers, the kinds that fans drool over and quickly annoint as ATGs, are eventually exposed as one-dimensional no-hopers who appear impotent when finally encountering a boxing master.
Kovalev will meet that master in November and most of you guys will quickly forget him and climb on the bandwagon of the next over-hyped "monster" who catches your fancy.

Cloud was never a big puncher at world level. Hopkins was favored to beat him. Comparing Cloud to Kovalev is nonsense. Cloud got schooled by Campillo, who Kovalev destroyed, like everyone else.

[hulkmaniac]

Cloud was about a -180 favorite vs Hopkins. However, anyone with a clue knew Cloud did not belong at the highest level after he barely squeaked a decision vs Glen Johnson and got a gift decision vs Campillo.

[Ezzard]

One thing I've learned in boxing. Big punchers, the kinds that fans drool over and quickly annoint as ATGs, are eventually exposed as one-dimensional no-hopers who appear impotent when finally encountering a boxing master.

I have to agree. I’ve seen this so many times. Guys with a great defence beating power-punchers. Even power punchers with decent skills.

A great defence will turn the puncher’s physical advantages against him.

I really don’t think Hopkins would take this fight if he wasn’t sure of the win.

If Kov stands off, trying to catch the feints…he loses. He has to fight at his own pace and make Hopkins fight 3 mins of every round.

[crusader]

You aren't paying attention to the distinctions I've made. Yes, I originally compared him to "other successful pros"--I used that as a logical point of reference, because I need someone to compare him to--I can't compare him to no one. Some people are successful and skilled--guys like Jones, Ali, Leonard, etc. There are also plenty of successful people who aren't skilled. To use a non-boxing example, think about someone like Jonah Hill--completely untalented at both comedy and acting, yet he is still somehow successful. Success does not presuppose talent. So, the reason I compared him to "other successful pros" was to illustrate the point that compared to that focus group, he is untalented. I then changed my wording to "elite" because you seemed to be having as hard time seeing the distinction so I tried a different group--that was obviously a mistake because it slightly changed my meaning and confused you more. Regardless, I don't even understand why this is a point of contention. You're arguing over semantics, when, as far as I can tell, the only things we should be debating are 1) whether or not Kovalev is a skilled boxer, and 2) if he will beat Hopkins.

I payed attention to each of the distinctions. First he simply sucked, then he sucked compared to the top fighters in certain divisions, then he sucked compared to elite fighters more broadly. I understand that it's just semantics and that you eventually qualified your statement, but I still took issue with you using that language unqualified in the first place as I found it disparaging, and given that you don't seem to think Hopkins is still the type of elite fighter (I could be wrong though) that you say Kovalev sucks relative to, I'm not sure why you'd use it in that sense in your opening post.

I also don't think your analogy is appropriate in this situation. Actors land roles for many reasons other than acting talent, such as timing, connections, and appearance. It would be fine to some degree to compare that to fighters landing certain bouts, but ultimately how they do in the ring comes down mainly to the abilities they have, which is more comparable to the critical response to an actor's performances. Kovalev may have gotten certain opportunities for reasons other than ability, although I think ability was a precondition, but him fairly beating and typically destroying his opponents isn't down to connections or him being a good fit for a particular role; it's down to him being better than his opponents.

I said anywhere from the top 3 to the top 5--meaning that some divisions the top 3 beat him, some divisions the top 5. Not necessarily the top 5 in each. So, if you consolidate from 17 divisions to 8, then you would basically combine two divisions--3+3=6, meaning he would rank at 7, or 5+5=10, meaning he is 11 and doesn't rank. Ranking him anywhere from 7-11 is a fringe contender.

You claimed that in divisions such as SMW and JMW (neither being one of the original 8 divisions) he would be dominated by guys in the top 3-5 and I wasn't sure if you meant he'd lose to the 3rd to 5th ranked fighters, he'd lose to the top 3 in one division and the top 5 in another, or he'd simply lose to some fighters who fall within those ranges. I decided on the second meaning and here you say that is what you intended to convey, but it leaves the question of who are the top 3 or top 5 that he would be "thoroughly dominated by" at 168 and 154. You mentioned Froch and Ward at 168 and I conservatively (at least in Froch's case) conceded that they may be able to do that, but the other name was Chavez and I don't think even someone who is critical of Kovalev would assert that he'd not simply lose to Chavez, but would be dominated against the same fighter who many thought recently lost to Brian Vera. As for 154, you gave four names and I conceded Mayweather and gave you Canelo just for the sake of argument, but when guys like Angulo, Molina, and Vanes are competitive with Lara I don't see why it should be assumed that Kovalev wouldn't also be, and Andrade's resume is generally unimpressive and in my opinion not yet suggestive of a fighter who has shown they should be favored to dominate Kovalev.

I also think he'd be a contender in most divisions if there were only the original eight, though he would obviously be higher in some and lower than others. I disagree with your assertion that being 7th to 11th would make him a fringe contender, as I believe that label is better applied to fighters ranked 20 and lower who are ranked or have a history of being ranked by sanctioning bodies and potentially landing title bouts.

Of course Chavez has similar shortcomings. Notice that I phrased it as such: "even someone like" Chavez, meaning that I recognize that he isn't particularly skilled either, although I will say he has come a very long way. But yes, I think he would have a good chance of beating Kovalev (especially if we speak in pound for pound terms, which is what I believe we are doing).

Yes, Andrade has fought limited opposition as well. Again, I never said he hasn't. You seem to have a habit of arguing against points that I never made, again coming back to that whole "missing distinctions" issue. All I said was that Andrade is a more talented boxer than Kovalev is, and, in the pound for pound terms that (I think) we are discussing, I think he beats him.

My issue with you mentioning Chavez and Andrade is that you listed them in response to my question about which fighters at 168 and 154 would 'thoroughly dominate' Kovalev. I can see why someone would think they're better than him in a pound for pound sense, though I think the case for Chavez is fairly weak, but I don't see much evidence to suggest they'd dominate him.

I never commented on what you thought of Andrade's opposition by the way. I mentioned it because I think you've largely reduced Kovalev's accomplishments and abilities to what you consider mediocre opposition, yet then you list Andrade when Brian Rose is probably his second best opponent. It seemed to me like you weren't applying the same standards to each fighter.

If you can't see that finishing ability, keeping opponents more defensive and changing their counter-punching strategies, etc. are extensions of his power, I don't know what else to tell you. They obviously are.

His power likely plays a role, but those abilities (mobile power, timing, combination punching, punch diversity, finishing ability) aren't based simply on power. That is why fellow LHW power-puncher Adonis Stevenson isn't a good finisher (see his bouts with George, Pryor, Fonfara, Cloud), Deontay Wilder has little offensive diversity, Nonito Donaire doesn't put together the accurate 3-4-5 punch combinations that Kovalev regularly does, and David Lemieux hasn't shown comparable counterpunching ability and generally has to be set to punch.

Obviously if a fighter punches very hard their opponents will probably fight differently than they would otherwise, but that applies to Kovalev-Hopkins too.
You continually use this type of logic to dismiss the abilities that Kovalev showed against fighters like Campillo and Cleverly, but conveniently switch from that line when you talk about Hopkins-Kovalev. Hopkins is obviously experienced, but he probably knows that Kovalev is a much bigger puncher than his recent opponents--one of whom put him down twice and seriously hurt him--and hence I think there is a significantly higher chance that's he's more cautious than usual and gives away more rounds by not doing enough. Additionally, Hopkins will eventually be hit in the head, body, and arms, and I don't see how any amount of experience or any set of boxing skills will prevent him from being adversely impacted in ways that he wasn't against fighters like Cloud or Murat; those were 8-4 fights on many cards and I don't think Hopkins can give up much more ground if he's to win easily as you claim he will.

You really can't be over-reliant on a jab. That's a silly thing to say. But, as far as the other part of that statement, Hopkins throws lots of sneaky shots from funny angles and at funny times. That is a big part of offensive diversity.

You can be overly-reliant on any punch and it's silly to think otherwise in my view. If you continually throw a punch without mixing your offense, it can allow an opponent to more easily predict what is coming and hence adapt their strategy and movements in a way that benefits them. Hopkins does throw sneaky shots, but generally his offense is quite predictable, and it consists of a few jabs here, and one-twos mixed in with lead right hands and often followed by a clinch. It works for him, I think mainly because he's good at spotting openings, but I think a more diverse output like Kovalev's would allow him to exploit more openings and surprise opponents more regularly.

Timing doesn't only involve punching. Timing involves everything you do in boxing--head movement, foot movement, blocking/parrying, etc. If Hopkins' timing is better in every respect and he stays sharp, then how can you argue that doesn't matter? The way Kovalev could beat Hopkins' superior speed and timing would be by effective pressure over time and either wearing him down or by landing enough hard shots--both of which, I will grant, could happen. I just don't think it will.

I don't know why you're asking me how I can argue that Hopkins' superior timing is irrelevant when I never made that argument. I said that even if he has better timing it doesn't mean that Kovalev's timing becomes a non-factor and I think it's nonsensical to think otherwise; why does the extent of an advantage become irrelevant simply because the advantage exists?

Kovalev has consistently shown sound counter-punching ability, and against some fairly fast fighters, and I think that ability can help him minimize the advantages Hopkins could gain from his speed. It will certainly, in my opinion, help Kovalev land more easily than fighters like Cloud and Shumenov did.

Once again, faster movement does not equal better/more effective movement. Those are two completely different things. Yes, Sillakh move faster and he moves more than Hopkins, but he does not move more effectively. Which is why he got put to sleep in two rounds. And as far as "pulling a page out of my book", yes, you would actually be right. Hopkins' better movement and better defense absolutely reduce his vulnerability (I assume that's where you were going? The order, and therefore your statement, are a little muddled and unclear), and therefore improve his ability to take a punch (Not in and of itself, mind you--obviously, you can't "train" a chin, so it doesn't increase his punch resistance per se, but those skills limit the number of flush shots he takes which means it is much harder, even for a devastating power puncher, to hurt him. This is a huge part of why guys like Hopkins and Mayweather are still on top--because they don't take as many flush shots, and therefore don't get hurt or take as much damage as other fighters do). That's boxing 101, and to suggest anything different would be downright asinine.

I'm not sure why you said 'once again' when that's the first time you mentioned faster movement. I meant that Sillakh has better movement and if he possessed the abilities Hopkins did aside from movement, he would have superior ability overall. I understand that how fast someone moves is not the only determinant of how good their moment is generally, but it is one of the most important factors and I think Sillakh shifts direction quite well too. He was in range stepping into a left hook when he got countered with the right hand that dropped him the first time, and I don't think him being hit was a sign that his footwork isn't effective.

You need not tell me that abilities interact to reduce certain weaknesses and amplify certain strengths, as it's fairly obvious like you suggest.

I already granted that Kovalev has excellent power. That is precisely what sets him apart from other limited fighters like Cloud, Shumenov, and Murat. But once again, his power won't matter if he can't land on Hopkins or if Hopkins isn't flustered by it the way Kovalev's other opponents have been. My argument is simply that I don't think he has the boxing ability to be able to land his shots with any regularity, and that Hopkins is experienced and talented enough to not be especially bothered by the power the way others have been.

See paragraphs 8 and 9. I also think Kovalev is significantly more able to deliver his power and has significantly more abilities to fall back on than opponents like Cloud, Shumenov, and Murat do, but obviously you disagree.

Do you actually want me to go through Kovalev's fights and bookmark every time he falls off balance? I just watched his fight against Sillakh again and his footwork is ghastly. He falls off balance 5 times in the first minute alone, and that isn't counting the times when he puts too much weight on his back foot. Again, if you can't see that, I don't know what else to tell you.

Even if I grant that Kovalev squared up because of a low blow, which may be--I'm not able to re-watch it at the moment--there are two things I could respond with. The first is that, again, I see him do the exact same thing frequently, and I've been saying for a long time that he is quite vulnerable when he does that. The second response, and probably the more obvious of the two, is that if, as you suggest, it is more of a problem with his reaction to a foul than with his balance....how much of a problem do you think that poor reaction will be when he fights Hopkins, who is notorious for committing the exact same types of fouls when the ref isn't looking?

The only time in the first round when I think Kovalev fell off-balance was at 1:56, and seems to partially be a product of Sillakh cuffing him. I don't consider, for example, taking a slight step back when getting hit with a punch to be a case of a fighter falling off balance and I don't think most of these cases are particularly exploitable by an opponent, but maybe you do and that accounts for the divergent tallies. I also think that due to Sillakh's height and very fast and frequent movement, he's especially likely to make opponents fall off balance reaching for him.

How many unnoticed low blows could Hopkins land by the way? Even if he gets away with one each round, Kovalev squares up every time (though maybe he's learned a lesson) and Hopkins lands something every time, that's likely just a tiny part of a round and a tinier part of the fight.

At the end of the day, we clearly aren't going to agree. I see Kovalev one way, you see him another, and we won't know who is right until he and Hopkins meet in the ring. I could be wrong--it's happened before. But I'm not sure that there is any point in further debating since we won't know anything until November and neither one of us will change his mind until then.

Right, we obviously disagree and I don't see that changing soon. However, I question whether Kovalev winning would do much to change how you see him, as you've already stated that a victory for him would just be down to his power, which you already consider excellent, and Hopkins' age. My question about what Kovalev could do to make you believe he posses good abilities other than his power also went unanswered.

Based on your posts in this thread I think Kovalev winning would mainly change your view of what the current version of Hopkins is capable of.

[Scar]

I don't see this going well for Bernard.

Kovalev hits like a heavyweight.

Bernard has never lost to a guy who isn't fast but he's also never fought a guy who punches this hard.

At 50 it's not the best time to fight a guy who hits harder than anyone you've ever fought.

Hopkins fought and beat better and proven aggressive power punchers. The only way I see Hopkins losing this is if his age finally catches up to him and he's unable to move freely and counter actively all night. Kovalev isn't a style Hopkins hasn't dealt with before.

[Bard of Boxrec]

Ding ding, round Umpteen!

Also, I always laugh when people pull out the old 'Well, this is just another instance of a slugger getting exposed by a master boxer LOLZ' routine. Somehow it's this great virtue to successfully predict an action guy getting schooled by a defensive boxer type, but all too often the people who say this fail to remember the many times in history when the 'come forward' guy won against the slick boxer. Just assess each fight on its own. Don't let previous totally different matchups that happen to look the same styles-wise sway you.

[crusader]

Somehow it's this great virtue to successfully predict an action guy getting schooled by a defensive boxer type, but all too often the people who say this fail to remember the many times in history when the 'come forward' guy won against the slick boxer......Just assess each fight on its own.

Seriously! I've said this so many times when people bring up Lacy-Calzaghe, Garcia-Matthyse, or perhaps most used for this fight Hopkins-Pavlik.

To quote my post to SeniorPipino:

You sound like you did just before Stevenson-Dawson. There was just no chance a puncher like Stevenson was going to win against a more proven and superior boxer, right?

This fight isn't between Garcia and Matthysse by the way.

[Lord_of_Judgement]

BHop chose this fight for a reason, he sees weaknesses he can exploit. Just like he did Pascal, Cloud, Murat, etc. He avoided Dawson because it was a stylistic nightmare for him.

I agree 100%. Some people think Kovalev's biggest weakness is his chin since he was knocked down by Darnell Boone and now by feather-fisted Blake Caparello, was knocked out by Abbos Atoev in the amateurs and was knocked down (with headgear on) by Gennady Golovkin in sparring. But I'm 100% sure Kovalev's style, not his chin, is the reason why Hopkins wants to fight him. Bernard definitely sees some weaknesses in his style, but I'm not sure he can exploit them at 50. 5-6 years ago I would definitely bet on Hopkins to school Kovalev, but now Kovalev has a good chance to beat him. Still, people who give Hopkins zero chances in this fight, can be surprised on November 8

Kovalev wasn't Knocked Down by Darnell Boon in any of his official matches as specified here, on boxrec. Andre Ward has been, however, certainly was, as said here, on boxrec as well.
So yeah, it sure means that Andre Ward has a suspect chin and could never ever knocked down Chad Dawson.
This is a very faulty analysis.

As far as Golovkin goes.. even if it did happen, amateurs mean little. Also, believe it or not, Golovkin is older than Kovalev. And since then Kovalev had improved a lot.

In other words, your logic is very faulty and doesn't mean anything in the upcoming fight with Hopkins.

[Lord_of_Judgement]

BHop chose this fight for a reason, he sees weaknesses he can exploit. Just like he did Pascal, Cloud, Murat, etc. He avoided Dawson because it was a stylistic nightmare for him.

I agree 100%. Some people think Kovalev's biggest weakness is his chin since he was knocked down by Darnell Boone and now by feather-fisted Blake Caparello, was knocked out by Abbos Atoev in the amateurs and was knocked down (with headgear on) by Gennady Golovkin in sparring. But I'm 100% sure Kovalev's style, not his chin, is the reason why Hopkins wants to fight him. Bernard definitely sees some weaknesses in his style, but I'm not sure he can exploit them at 50. 5-6 years ago I would definitely bet on Hopkins to school Kovalev, but now Kovalev has a good chance to beat him. Still, people who give Hopkins zero chances in this fight, can be surprised on November 8

Kovalev wasn't Knocked Down by Darnell Boon in any of his official matches as specified here, on boxrec. Andre Ward has been, however, certainly was, as said here, on boxrec as well.
So yeah, it sure means that Andre Ward has a suspect chin and could never ever knocked down Chad Dawson.
This is a very faulty analysis.

As far as Golovkin goes.. even if it did happen, amateurs mean little. Also, believe it or not, Golovkin is older than Kovalev. And since then Kovalev had improved a lot.

In other words, your logic is very faulty and doesn't mean anything in the upcoming fight with Hopkins.

[rampage]

-I think the analogy is appropriate. You say "actors land roles for many reasons other than talent, such as timing, connections, and appearance". So do boxers, which is my point. Connections with managers/promoters/organizations, fighting in a weak era (i.e. timing), personality (like appearance), etc. can all be major factors in their success, especially initially. Much of the time, they don't last unless they have real talent, in acting or boxing--they are more of a flash-in-the-pan type of thing, though not always. I would say that, even if I am wrong, Kovalev hasn't been around long enough to determine that for sure. Sure he has been better than his opponents so far--but again, his opponents haven't been very good. So I think it is a fine analogy.

-As for Andrade, once again--I'm not comparing their resumes because that isn't my point. I'm comparing their skill level. I agree that there are things that you really can't know for sure about a fighter until you see them in with a higher level of opponent who will test them, but I think their are many things--most things, in fact--that you can see (and honestly, I think even some of the more intangible things can generally be seen if you're paying attention and know what to look for. For example, and not to toot my own horn, I knew that Ward was going to dominate Kessler when most others were saying that Ward was too unproven at that level to win or for them to be able to pick him because I could see his skill level and was sure he had the ability to win). In this instance, I see Andrade as being a much better all-around fighter than Kovalev. That is what I am comparing--the talent and skill level. The reason I'm reducing Kovalev's success merely to lack of opposition thus far, and I'm not doing the same for Andrade, is because I see much more talent in Andrade than I do Kovalev. I realize that the level of opposition has been similar, maybe even better for Kovalev at this stage, but I also believe Andrade has the skills to continue to succeed at higher levels, and I don't see this in Kovalev. I am using the exact same standards, I just see different things in each fighter so their grade is different.

-I agree with your analysis of most of those power-punchers, although I would differ with you about Donaire. He hasn't shown the ability to put together accurate 3-4-5 punch combinations together RECENTLY, because he has fallen in love with his power and tries to hard to land one big bomb. However, earlier in his career and when he was first being seen as a top pound for pound fighter, he boxed and put combinations together pretty well, which is what set up his power shots. Nonetheless, to your main point--I'm not saying that everyone with power has the same abilities or disabilities. What I'm saying is that Kovalev is not a good boxer, and that these skills you claim he has are based on that. If he didn't have power he wouldn't have mobile power (I've already said he definetely has power and is heavy handed--we agree on this skill). His finishing ability wouldn't be as effective without power either--no, you don't have to have excellent power to be a great finisher, but I simply don't see him as being a skilled enough fighter to consistently hurt or finish someone without his power. I could go on, but again we aren't going to agree on his skill level, so I don't see the point. I don't think his timing or counter punching are especially good, for example.

-I'm not "conveniently" doing anything. I already qualified my statement. I already said that, while Kovalev's power affected the way guys like Cleverly and Campillo fought, I think Hopkins is experienced and savvy enough to deal with it and not let it change the flow of the fight. Of course he is aware of Kovalev's power, and he will develop a plan for it. I highly doubt he will stand in front of Kovalev and trade with him like he did with Murat at times. But I just because he will respect his power doesn't mean he will let it dictate the fight. I can certainly see him giving up some rounds by being cautious--that is not uncommon for Hopkins, even 10 years ago, so I will give you that.

-You can be over reliant on a punch if you aren't continually being effective with it, and you can be overly reliant if you don't know how to switch things up to keep someone from picking up on your timing and patterns, as you said. However, I don't see Hopkins as being "over-reliant" on something that has, by and large, worked for him his entire career and has carried him successfully to multiple world titles at an age past when anyone has ever done it in the history of the sport. Also, the jab is a different case from other punches. It is a much safer punch to throw because you don't have to commit yourself as much to throw it. If you know how to use it properly, it can win an entire fight for you. Also, you can switch up your timing, your speed, and the angle you throw it from to keep using it without your opponent from being able to time it while still throwing it quite frequently. You can double or triple it up. You can step in various directions as you throw it. You can do the same with other punches. There's a lot more to punch diversity than adding an uppercut to your arsenal.

-Good timing is beaten by better timing. I thought that was obvious. Sure, anybody, even with better timing, can be caught with a well-timed counter punch. But again, I don't see Kovalev as a good counter puncher. Not by a long shot. Additionally, it becomes harder to counter-punch when someone's output is low, such as Hopkins' is. The kind of chess match that Hopkins almost always drags his opponents into, regardless of the fight that they want to fight, is when timing advantages are key, and it is why Hopkins' superior timing is such an important issue.

-I probably said "once again" because I'm used to having to repeat the same points twice before you get them. It's become a pattern. Possibly I meant to say "more movement" again. Regardless, the main point is still that you suggest that Sillakh has more effective movement than Hopkins, and I'm saying that is ludicrous. Obviously, if you take two fighters with perfectly equal movement/balance/timing and give one faster movement then his will be better. But Hopkins places himself far better than Sillakh does, which is why his is better. Frequency of movement, speed of movement, whichever. These are not necessarily deciding factors in effective movement.

-I agree, a boxer's movement can make an opponent fall off balance. Since I believe Hopkins' movement is better than Sillakh, and you admit Sillakh's movement caused some the balance issues, there you have it. I'm not talking about when he gets hit, I'm talking about when he either reaches, crosses his feet too much (not badly, but he gets himself too sideways sometimes), squares up, stumbles, etc. Also, I would say any time a boxer falls off balance can be exploited by his opponent as long as he is in range or position to punch. Hopkins frequently will be.

-Hopkins gets away with many fouls, and not just low blows. He is quite adept at varying up his fouls so he never gets warned too many times for one thing, and quite often you will see him land things like low blows when the ref can't see it--often because he is on the other side and doesn't have a view. This has been a frequent complaint from opponents. So. let's use your example. If Hopkins can exploit this once a round, and land a clean punch on an exposed, squared up Kovalev, this will look good and have a big impact on the judges. Let's also understand that Caparello put him on his seat, so Hopkins can do the same in the same situation and win a two point round. In a slow paced, Hopkins style fight, one big punch a round, regardless of whether or not it causes a knockdown, is not tiny.

-You would be right about my view of Kovalev. The only way he will impress me in this fight, win lose or draw, is if he shows me something I haven't yet seen. Merely winning the fight would not be enough, he would have to show improvement in areas I believe he is weak in and show me new facets in his game. Regardless of competition level, there are things a boxer can show in his fights to indicate his skill level, and he hasn't shown me those things yet. Of course, if he wins this fight, and continues to win fights, at some point I will have to admit that there must be something there, but he hasn't been around long enough for that to happen either. I'll leave it up to him to impress me.

[ikorolev]

I don't see this going well for Bernard.

Kovalev hits like a heavyweight.

Bernard has never lost to a guy who isn't fast but he's also never fought a guy who punches this hard.

At 50 it's not the best time to fight a guy who hits harder than anyone you've ever fought.

Hopkins fought and beat better and proven aggressive power punchers. The only way I see Hopkins losing this is if his age finally catches up to him and he's unable to move freely and counter actively all night. Kovalev isn't a style Hopkins hasn't dealt with before.

Like who ?

[VG_Addict]

Tired of saying this, but Kovalev has underrated foot speed.

Cleverly also said he has great timing.

[pugilisticprofessor]

Kovalev may be the most precise fighter I have seen in years, his accuracy blows my mind.