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.