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.
Right, success and talent are not the same and I think that's obvious. I think talent is precondition for success in boxing when it isn't in acting though, as it requires one to show that they are superior to a large majority of other competitors through their performances. In this case Kovalev has won a title, made several successful defenses, destroyed almost every opponent he's faced, and is universally ranked among the top 3 in the world in his weight class. You suggest in your analogy that Jonah Hill is completely untalented at acting and comedy yet still succeeds, but there is no way a completely untalented boxer could reach comparable heights in boxing.
Acting and show-business generally are littered with people who get great opportunities without having to show their talent in the same way that boxers do, and in some cases never having previous experience in the discipline (e.g. acting) the opportunity is in.
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 know you're not comparing their resumes (you keep saying you have to repeat yourself because I'm not understanding your points, but generally your repetition is needless) and I think that's somewhat of a problem when you're reducing much of what Kovalev has shown in the ring to his opposition but not even mentioning Andrade's opposition. You previously said that many of the abilities I think Kovalev has shown are extensions of his opposition, so what grounds are there to say the superior abilities you think Andrade has shown are not also extensions of his opposition, which has been even worse than Kovalev's and which he's beaten no more convincingly? The one time he faced someone generally considered to be a top ten junior middleweight he was put down, not because his foot was stepped on, and he hardly performed impressively; he's really only shined against fighters like Brian Rose and Freddy Hernandez, who aren't even on the same level as Campillo (you call him old but he was coming off what was generally an impressive performance against Cloud and just stopped an unbeaten prosepct) or Cleverly. I understand that opposition level is only part of what fighters should be evaluated on, but despite you're suggestions that you're applying the same standard I don't see it.
Additionally, what about the 3-5 fighters at 168 and 154 who Kovalev would be 'thoroughly dominated by'? Have you looked at who the top 3-5 at those weights arguably are?
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.
Many of the abilities he's shown involve his power--though I think he would have impressive combination punching and punch diversity regardless--but for him to possess them he must also have other abilities, which is why he is a great finisher for example but similarly hard punching Stevenson isn't. You talked early about how abilities interact to make someone a better or worse fighter, and I think this is a case of abilities interacting to make more dangerous and more-dimensional than the large majority of power punchers.
You keep saying he wouldn't be good at this or that if he didn't have his power, but he does have that power, and it won't be taken away regardless of what you say or what Hopkins does in the ring. BHOP will still be getting hit, on his arms, body, and head, and he will likely come into the bout knowing that this is the hardest puncher he's faced. You seem to think that being experienced and skilled will allow Hopkins to shrug off everything that Kovalev does and win easily, but I think he'll be more cautious than usual, be more negatively impacted by the punches he's hit with, and find himself having a lot more problems than he did against fighters like Murat and Cloud, who still arguably got the better of 4 rounds.
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.
We'll have to disagree as I think it's very unlikely that Hopkins makes Kovalev's power a non-factor to the extent that he wins easily. As I've said, there's a good chance he'll be more cautious than usual and he's known for giving away several rounds by not doing enough. Moreover, Kovalev is by far the hardest puncher he's faced at 175 and probably the hardest puncher in absolute terms that he's ever faced, he already showed that Pascal's power consistently bothered him, and even if he's initially avoiding shots to the head and body well he's still probably going to be getting hammered in the arms and shoulders, which can be enervating and over time damaging. I also obviously think that Kovalev has many tools that will make it difficult for Hopkins to negate his power.
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.
I think Hopkins's attack was much more diverse for most of his career outside his recent campaign at 175, so I don't see it as something that worked for him throughout his entire career. He has obviously done well with it lately, and I never disputed that, but I think he'd perform even better offensively if there were more diversity to his attack. There may be more diversity to a jab than other punches, though those can be varied too, but I think there is more diversity to an attack that regularly features other shots added in with a varied jab and single right crosses.
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.
Good timing beats better timing and I never suggested otherwise. What I suggested is that Kovalev's timing is fairly good, and it will enable him to reduce certain disadvantages to an extent he wouldn't be able to otherwise, and especially in comparison to fighters like Murat and Cloud who I don't believe have shown the same ability to time opponents. Do you understand that not all advantages and disadvantages are equal?
It's important for Kovalev to avoid fighting Hopkins' fight, but it's not like everyone falls into his fight. Calzaghe didn't, Dawson didn't, Pascal fought like he typically does, and Murat fought aggressively, slowing down when he tired rather than appearing to give in mentally.
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.
I still disagree about Hopkins having superior movement as I think that perception stems largely from him being superior in most other ways. Nothing has been added to your argument on that end so I won't add anything to mine and we can agree to disagree.
I never admitted that Silakh's movement caused Kovalev balance issues, so no 'there you go'. I said that he's the type of fighter who is particularly likely to cause these issues, yet I only noticed one case of Kovalev falling off balance and that was largely due to being cuffed and not because Sillakh's footwork induced it. I also don't think Kovalev makes those errors them as often as you seem to think he does, nor do I think they make him as vulnerable as you think they do. For example, he can still attack effectively when squared and still defend effectively when he stumbles or crosses his feet.
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.
I was talking about lowblows; perhaps Kovalev is less reactive to things such as forearms or rabbit punches.
If we make all those assumptions (some of which I generously granted and some of which you added) about Hopkins landing a low blow every round, Kovalev squaring up and dropping his hands each time, Hopkins invariably seeing this and attacking, landing each time, landing 'big' each time, and Kovalev falling into a slow-paced Hopkins' style fight, all you have is one punch for Hopkins. While that could swing a round I think it's far more likely that scoring is dictated by what generally occurs in the other 2:57 of the round. There are also far too many pro-Hopkins assumptions here for me to think much of it; for example, Kovalev may have learned not to drop his hands based on the Caparello fight, in which his foot was stepped on of course (are we also assuming that Hopkins will do that in these hypothetical knockdowns?), and even if Kovalev initially squares up and drops his hands he may quickly realize that he's being hit when he does it and therefore adapt.
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.
You've continually said that the abilities I think Kovalev has shown are down to his power, so out of curiosity how would you come to think otherwise given that he'll still have his power? If, for example, he shows excellent combination punching and attacks from different angles against a very defensive Hopkins, will this be a new sign of ability to you or will that simply be a case of Hopkins being bothered by the power and hence giving Kovalev more opportunities to attack? If he rocks Hopkins early and then easily cuts off the ring and traps him during the remainder of the bout, will that suggest a good ability to cut off the ring or will it just be attributable to Hopkins not having his legs under him as he usually does?
D