BoxRec

crusader wrote:Kovalev was clueless?

120-106 isn't a rout?

Some of the comments here especially Fat Git's and Coco's considering they picked Hopkins to school or drown Kovalev yet have given the latter no credit for winning every round, dropping Hopkins, and hurting him. I think someone has set unreasonably high standards if they don't see that type of performance against a unified champion who schooled a top ten opponent a few months earlier as showing that Kovalev isn't simply a hype job. Which people in the division are definitely better than Hopkins or even Clev?

I did think Hopkins would be too crafty for him and he was in an essence that when Hopkins went on the defensive, Kovalev's 'wrecking machine' abilities came to a screeching halt, Kovalev came forward, he won the fight, he was dominant but also, a lot of posters on here who said Hopkins was going to get hospitalised, marmalised, smashed up, a chance of getting killed - they were wrong too - I'll speak for Coco on this one if he doesn't mind because I know him well enough but he is too old (as am I) to go on a hype train which will go 'choo choo' to its inevitable derailment. Kovalev is certainly not this indestructable wrecking machine that will go through everything before him because a 50 year old middleweight made him look clueless plenty of times.

Kovalev is big, strong, a good fighter but he isn't unbeatable. We saw last night how he will be given trouble by someone defensively adept.

Hopkins is defensively adapt and Kovalev won every round, dropped him, and had him reeling in the final round. He threw Hopkins off with his busy jab, bodywork, power, and deft steps back, the latter of which Hopkins admitted caused him significant problems, and he had an answer for everything Hopkins did and arguably didn't lose a minute of the fight. Kovalev had a reputation as a wrecking ball, and I still think he is, but he also showed that he's not just a puncher who will be befuddled and fall apart against a fighter with solid defense who can take him rounds, which many of the people who thought that Hopkins would school him expected.

Again, which fighters in the division are definitely better than Hopkins or even Clev? You've talked about how Kovalev is over-hyped and how Hopkins would school him, yet he won easily and you were far off the mark concerning who would win, not the people aboard the so-called hype train.

crusader wrote:Hopkins is defensively adapt and Kovalev won every round, dropped him, and had him reeling in the final round. He threw Hopkins off with his busy jab, bodywork, power, and deft steps back, the latter of which Hopkins admitted caused him significant problems, and he had an answer for everything Hopkins did and arguably didn't lose a minute of the fight. Kovalev had a reputation as a wrecking ball, and I still think he is, but he also showed that he's not just a puncher who will be befuddled and fall apart against a fighter with solid defense who can take him rounds, which many of the people who thought that Hopkins would school him expected.

Again, which fighters in the division are definitely better than Hopkins or even Clev? You've talked about how Kovalev is over-hyped and how Hopkins would school him, yet he won easily and you were far off the mark concerning who would win, not the people aboard the so-called hype train.

The people on the so called hype train were saying he was going to get killed, quit on his stool, get hospitalised when that was never going to happen. People watch the Cleverly fight and think he can do that to everyone and that aint so.

And you ask 'who can beat the mighty Kovalev'? And the thing is, as a passenger on enough derailed hype trains myself - that is not how it works I am afraid. Who was going to be the first man to beat Tyson said I as the hype train I was on was heading towards a big tree trunk on the rails in the shape of James 'Buster' Douglas in Tokyo in 1990. No-one would have picked a man who got outboxed and beat up by Tony Tucker and once drew with Steffen Tangstad.

I did pick Hopkins to win based on the fact that he has the nous and the skill to make him think which is what happened. Kovalev couldn't go around punching Hopkins on the arms thinking he would fall. If you think that a routing of a 50 year old middleweight makes him pound for pound no 1 then I can't say anything else except I'll be here when this hype train falls off the tracks.

Folk don't like it when it happens though - so don't get sore when I point it out (like when it happened to David Price with some of the posters on this very forum).

The people on the so called hype train were saying he was going to get killed, quit on his stool, get hospitalised when that was never going to happen. People watch the Cleverly fight and think he can do that to everyone and that aint so.

Perhaps they overrated Kovalev, but they were right about who would win and you were wrong, picking the guy who didn't even win a round.

And you ask 'who can beat the mighty Kovalev'? And the thing is, as a passenger on enough derailed hype trains myself - that is not how it works I am afraid. Who was going to be the first man to beat Tyson said I as the hype train I was on was heading towards a big tree trunk on the rails in the shape of James 'Buster' Douglas in Tokyo in 1990. No-one would have picked a man who got outboxed and beat up by Tony Tucker and once drew with Steffen Tangstad.

I never asked who could beat Kovalev. I asked who in the division is definitely better than Hopkins or Clev, and you haven't answered. How much of a hype job can someone be when loads of people picked them to lose their last fight and they ended up winning every round, and when there is hardly anyone in the division better than someone they just shut out?

I did pick Hopkins to win based on the fact that he has the nous and the skill to make him think which is what happened. Kovalev couldn't go around punching Hopkins on the arms thinking he would fall. If you think that a routing of a 50 year old middleweight makes him pound for pound no 1 then I can't say anything else except I'll be here when this hype train falls off the tracks.

The win over Hopkins doesn't make Kovalev close to being the top P4P fighter in the world, but I think it's fairly impressive. Hopkins had outclassed a top ten fighter and title holder to become unified champion just a few months prior, he was consensus top 3 in the division, and loads of people like you thought he'd handily beat Kovalev knowing full well that he would be 49 when he entered the ring.

I'm sure that Kovalev will lose eventually, but in this case those aboard the so-called hype train were more accurate in their predictions than you were, as the guy they picked at least won a round unlike Hopkins!

Folk don't like it when it happens though - so don't get sore when I point it out (like when it happened to David Price).

I'm sure everyone knows and accepts that heavily-hyped fighters have often lost when they were expected to win. I don't think anyone is getting sore about that, and I'm certainly not, but you have made comments that I think are unwarranted.

For what it's worth, I was one of Price's skeptics prior to the first Thompson fight and made several posts about his history of serious chin problems.

crusader wrote:
Perhaps they overrated Kovalev, but they were right about who would win and you were wrong, picking the guy who didn't even win a round.

I was wrong sonny, I am wrong all the time but then I am right a lot of times too - and where I am right is that this guy is a hype job. And where most people were wrong was that Hopkins was going to get killed or at best hospitalised - lots of people were wrong in the lead up. No big deal, it is a boxing forum.

I never asked who could beat Kovalev. I asked who in the division is definitely better than Hopkins or Clev, and you haven't answered.

So how do we know 'who is better than who' unless they fight? That is the only real way of determining who is better than who? That is why boxers fight so such things can be determined.

The win over Hopkins doesn't make Kovalev close to being the top P4P fighter in the world, but I think it's fairly impressive. Hopkins had outclassed a top ten fighter and elitist just a few months prior, he was consensus top 3 in the division, and loads of people like you thought he'd handily beat Kovalev knowing full well that he would be 49 when he entered the ring.

Hopkins is over the hill and yes, I thought he would beat Kovalev but as someone said on here - if Kovalev doesn't destroy Hopkins like he has done his other opponents then that will have proven something - which it has - for me it has, it hasn't for you and others then fine.

I'm sure that Kovalev will lose eventually, but in this case those aboard the so-called hype train were more accurate in their predictions than you were, as the guy they picked at least won a round unlike Hopkins!

Course he will lose eventually. And don't get so smug. I get things wrong all the time - you do too, and when Kovalev gets derailed - you are going get told - it will be sooner rather than later I think.

I'm sure everyone knows and accepts that heavily-hyped fighters have often lost when they were expected to win. I don't think anyone is getting sore about that, and I'm certainly not, but I you have made comments that I think are unwarranted.

It is a boxing forum and what I said had merit, but because of the nature of boxing, predictions go skyward, it happens to all tipsters, Hopkins didn't get murdered in there and he wasn't closed to getting stopped, if that last round would have been halted, it would have been the second worst stoppage in history (next to Chavez vs Meldrick Taylor) so all this nonsense about the killing machine Kovalev and Hopkins was risking his life was crap too.

For what it's worth, I was one of Price's skeptics prior to the first Thompson fight and made several posts about his history of serious chin problems.

I wasn't talking about you in particular. But folk get sore when it gets pointed out that no-one is unbeatable - no matter how much of a wrecking machine they are.

This post will come back to bite you real soon.

I was wrong sonny, I am wrong all the time but then I am right a lot of times too - and where I am right is that this guy is a hype job. And where most people were wrong was that Hopkins was going to get killed or at best hospitalised - lots of people were wrong in the lead up. No big deal, it is a boxing forum.

You were very wrong, just as many other people were. I mention this because in this case the hype-train that you're attacking actually faired reasonably well in predicting the winner compared to a sizable segment of the boxing community--Kovalev won every round in addition to dropping Hopkins, shaking him in another round, and battering him in the 12th--so I don't feel like it's particularly worthy of attack.

The odds for his bout with Cleverly were also fairly close and it wasn't hard to find people predicting a Cleverly win, yet Kovalev won that fight handily as well. To be going on about him being a hype job and mentioning Douglas-Tyson as you did in an earlier post is outlandish when over roughly the last year loads of people thought Kovalev would lose to Clev and Hopkins, two fighters he ended beating easily.

So how do we know 'who is better than who' unless they fight? That is the only real way of determining who is better than who? That is why boxers fight so such things can be determined.

I think we can make fairly good assessments of fighters' abilities and how they compare to others based on their performances. This is what typically enables virtually everyone to correctly predict the outcomes of bouts like Wlad-Leapai or Hopkins-Murat.

Hopkins is over the hill and yes, I thought he would beat Kovalev but as someone said on here - if Kovalev doesn't destroy Hopkins like he has done his other opponents then that will have proven something - which it has - for me it has, it hasn't for you and others then fine.

Hopkins obviously isn't as good as he once was, but he was still good enough a few months ago to school a top ten fighter to become unified champion, and the year before that that he clearly beat Cloud and Murat. Based heavily on this he was a consensus top three fighter with one of the best recent resumes in the division, so I think Kovalev beating him so handily is impressive. He didn't destroy him, but he won every round and showed qualities that many people doubted he had against someone whose very good counterpunching, excellent defense, and solid chin led numerous people to believe that he'd beat Kovalev.

Course he will lose eventually. And don't get so smug. I get things wrong all the time - you do too, and when Kovalev gets derailed - you are going get told - it will be sooner rather than later I think.

What are you going to tell me? I never predicted that he'd annihilate Hopkins and I'm not predicting that he'll breeze through everyone from 168-175. I'd favor him over Stevenson but I think he's got a realistic chance of losing that bout, and I'd also make him an underdog versus Andre Ward. There are some questions about his chin, so I could also see him being upset by one of the lower rated but heavier punchers at 175 like Beterbiev, but I think the probabilities favor him in those types of bouts.

It is a boxing forum and what I said had merit, but because of the nature of boxing, predictions go skyward, it happens to all tipsters, Hopkins didn't get murdered in there and he wasn't closed to getting stopped, if that last round would have been halted, it would have been the second worst stoppage in history (next to Chavez vs Meldrick Taylor) so all this nonsense about the killing machine Kovalev and Hopkins was risking his life was crap too.

I think there was plenty of merit for stopping the bout in the 12th. Hopkins was reeling unsteadily, was way behind, and was routinely getting his head bounced back without showing signs that he would put an end to that. That type of pounding can be seriously damaging, but fortunately it seems like Hopkins is fine.

Sure, there were people who thought Kovalev would permanently injure Hopkins and what not, but in virtually every high profile bout outlandish opinions are expressed. In this case I think there were far more people predicting a Hopkins win than a Kovalev destruction in which he seriously injured Hopkins, so if there was a hype train for this bout it was for Hopkins, not Kovalev.

I wasn't talking about you in particular. But folk get sore when it gets pointed out that no-one is unbeatable - no matter how much of a wrecking machine they are.

This post will come back to bite you real soon.

How will it come back to bite me? I've never said that Kovalev is unbeatable or that he won't be upset in the future. My commentary herein is mainly directed toward people's reactions to his performance against Hopkins, such as you saying he looked 'clueless' despite winning every round and displaying technical skills that Hopkins admitted caused him major problems.

To re-post something I wrote above:

What are you going to tell me? I never predicted that he'd annihilate Hopkins and I'm not predicting that he'll breeze through everyone from 168-175. I'd favor him over Stevenson but I think he's got a realistic chance of losing that bout, and I'd also make him an underdog versus Andre Ward. There are some questions about his chin, so I could also see him being upset by one of the lower rated but heavier punchers at 175 like Beterbiev, but I think the probabilities favor him.

So now fat git is saying kovs power is over rated
No it ain't mate b-hop can soak up it up miraculously!! He got hit flush enough & knew how dangerous his opponent was & didn't want to take chances

crusader wrote: You were very wrong, just as many other people were. I mention this because in this case the hype-train that you're attacking actually faired reasonably well in predicting the winner compared to a sizable segment of the boxing community--Kovalev won every round in addition to dropping Hopkins, shaking him in another round, and battering him in the 12th--so I don't feel like it's particularly worthy of attack.

The great thing about hype trains is that they don't stop at a particular station - they just keep going until they are derailed. When all is said and done, Hopkins is still a 50 year old middleweight - when Monzon beat up Jose Napoles, at least he was honest about it, he called him an 'old welterweight' who had no chance against him. I thought Hopkins could do it but in the end had no answer which is fine because that happens but he wasn't brutalised in anyway as for the 12th round - he took some shots - that happens in boxing - the only time a fighter gets stopped because he takes a few clean shots is in the amateur game.

The odds for his bout with Cleverly were also fairly close and it wasn't hard to find people predicting a Cleverly win, yet Kovalev won that fight handily as well. To be going on about him being a hype job and mentioning Douglas-Tyson as you did in an earlier post is outlandish when over roughly the last year loads of people thought Kovalev would lose to Clev and Hopkins, two fighters he ended beating easily.

People were talking about Hopkins quitting on his stool, getting killed, getting knocked out - all massive hype and none of it turned out to be correct - as for Tyson vs Douglas - I mention that as an example of hype trains I have been on, yes, me, I have been on hype trains thinking that a fighter had no equal in the current rankings and then someone unheralded comes along and ends up beating them. This is when you asked me who is better than Kovalev who is ranked today. I don't know, we will have to wait and see.

I think we can make fairly good assessments of fighters' abilities and how they compare to others based on their performances. This is what typically enables virtually everyone to correctly predict the outcomes of bouts like Wlad-Leapai or Hopkins-Murat.

I would say they are extreme examples and a bit different from asking 'who is capable of beating Kovalev?' which is a lot more open ended and unpredictable to guess.

Hopkins obviously isn't as good as he once was, but he was still good enough a few months ago to school a top ten fighter to become unified champion, and the year before that that he clearly beat Cloud and Murat. Based heavily on this he was a consensus top three fighter with one of the best recent resumes in the division, so I think Kovalev beating him so handily is impressive. He didn't destroy him, but he won every round and showed qualities that many people doubted he had against someone whose very good counterpunching, excellent defense, and solid chin led numerous people to believe that he'd beat Kovalev.

He won the fight handily, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Hopkins isn't just 'not as good as he once was' he is very much over the hill.
I think I said that enough times before the fight - the fighters he beat were not that good and at 50 and fighting 15 pounds over your prime fighting weight, Hopkins was nowhere near as effective as he once was.

What are you going to tell me? I never predicted that he'd annihilate Hopkins and I'm not predicting that he'll breeze through everyone from 168-175. I'd favor him over Stevenson but I think he's got a realistic chance of losing that bout, and I'd also make him an underdog versus Andre Ward. There are some questions about his chin, so I could also see him being upset by one of the lower rated but heavier punchers at 175 like Beterbiev, but I think the probabilities favor him in those types of bouts.

Now you are changing your tune a bit here because before, you threw out the challenge of naming a fighter who is better than him or who could beat him who is ranked in the light heavyweight division. Now you are saying that he could come unstuck against Stevenson and Ward which is what I call a more balanced view regarding the future of Kovalev. A lot of boxing is about what happens 'on the day' upsets happen all the time, I don't know who will beat him in the future but he isn't unbeatable.

I think there was plenty of merit for stopping the bout in the 12th. Hopkins was reeling unsteadily, was way behind, and was routinely getting his head bounced back without showing signs that he would put an end to that. That type of pounding can be seriously damaging, but fortunately it seems like Hopkins is fine.

No merit at all, he didn't go down, didn't take a count, had no bad facial injuries, wasn't showing signs of distress to the referee or to the corner, that would have been awful refereeing if he had stopped that. You can't stop a fight because he is taking clean punches because this is boxing.

Sure, there were people who thought Kovalev would permanently injure Hopkins and what not, but in virtually every high profile bout outlandish opinions are expressed. In this case I think there were far more people predicting a Hopkins win than a Kovalev destruction in which he seriously injured Hopkins, so if there was a hype train for this bout it was for Hopkins, not Kovalev.

Again, when the hype dies down and in retrospect, then we will be able to see the Hopkins win in its proper light. We don't know what KOvalev is going to do in the future but we do know Hopkins is a 50 year old ex middleweight, history doesn't credit fighters with those kinds of wins no more than Rocky Marciano got with beating Joe Louis (and there wasn't a 15 year difference between those two either).

How will it come back to bite me? I've never said that Kovalev is unbeatable or that he won't be upset in the future. My commentary herein is mainly directed toward people's reactions to his performance against Hopkins, such as you saying he looked 'clueless' despite winning every round and displaying technical skills that Hopkins admitted caused him major problems.

Because you have realigned your position, you said 'who is there in the light heavyweight division to beat him/who is better than him in the light heavyweight division' and the answer is, I don't know. What you were implying is that there is nobody about currently who is capable of beating Kovolev, now you have balanced out your argument a lot better.

He isn't unbeatable, he won't KO everyone he fights and beating Hopkins doesn't make him a P4P of anything just yet - the jury still out.

hurlock wrote:So now fat git is saying kovs power is over rated
No it ain't mate b-hop can soak up it up miraculously!! He got hit flush enough & knew how dangerous his opponent was & didn't want to take chances

You would think a wrecking machine like Kovalev would take it out of the hands of Hopkins and upend him anyway, he couldn't - it proves that Kovalev doesn't have all the answers against someone who is defensively adept.

Not being unable to stop one of the cagiest fighters you have ever witnessed!?
Im not saying kov is the best thing since slice bread!!
Bernard is the better fighter & kov will never success his career or come close. You seem bitter for backing the wrong horse & getting it badly wrong

hurlock wrote:Not being unable to stop one of the cagiest fighters you have ever witnessed!?
Im not saying kov is the best thing since slice bread!!
Bernard is the better fighter & kov will never success his career or come close. You seem bitter for backing the wrong horse & getting it badly wrong

Hurlock, I get it wrong all the time, I also said before the fight that Hopkins was badly over the hill by a great distance.

You, on the other hand, said Hopkins was going to get himself 'killed' obviously forgetting about how cagey B-Hop the alien was...
so in retrospect, I didn't get it as badly as wrong as you did.

The great thing about hype trains is that they don't stop at a particular station - they just keep going until they are derailed. When all is said and done, Hopkins is still a 50 year old middleweight - when Monzon beat up Jose Napoles, at least he was honest about it, he called him an 'old welterweight' who had no chance against him. I thought Hopkins could do it but in the end had no answer which is fine because that happens but he wasn't brutalised in anyway as for the 12th round - he took some shots - that happens in boxing - the only time a fighter gets stopped because he takes a few clean shots is in the amateur game.

It seems to me like the Hopkins hype train, one that you were on, was derailed last night.

People were talking about Hopkins quitting on his stool, getting killed, getting knocked out - all massive hype and none of it turned out to be correct - as for Tyson vs Douglas - I mention that as an example of hype trains I have been on, yes, me

The talk of Hopkins being killed was very much a minority view, just as people predicting Hopkins to win by stoppage was a minority view. There were far more people who thought Kovalev would lose or be pushed close in winning, so I think you're taking a small sub-set and depicting it as if it represented a prevailing opinion. Predictions for a Kovalev stoppage were fairly common, but I think that result came close to happening, it more closely captured what happened than the predictions for Hopkins did, and just because a fairly common prediction didn't come to fruition it doesn't mean that a fighter was generally over hyped.

I have been on hype trains thinking that a fighter had no equal in the current rankings and then someone unheralded comes along and ends up beating them. This is when you asked me who is better than Kovalev who is ranked today. I don't know, we will have to wait and see.

First, I don't know why you keep saying that I asked you who is better than Kovalev. Second, I don't think losing to a lower ranked fighter makes someone a hype job, even if they were highly praised and expected to win the fight. As I mentioned before, loads of people thought Kovalev would lose to Cleverly and Hopkins, and if he were overly-hyped I wouldn't expect that.

I would say they are extreme examples and a bit different from asking 'who is capable of beating Kovalev?' which is a lot more open ended and unpredictable to guess.

I used extreme examples to illustrate the point. I don't believe there is anyone at LHW with a stronger recent resume than Hopkins other than Kovalev and Stevenson, and I don't think anyone aside from Kovalev and arguably Stevenson has displayed abilities that suggest they're clearly better than Hopkins. Given that Kovalev routed Hopkins 12-0 with a knockdown, it's hard for me to accept a line of argumentation in which it's assumed that he's going to soon have problems because he'll run into someone who is significantly better than Hopkins.

He won the fight handily, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Hopkins isn't just 'not as good as he once was' he is very much over the hill. I think I said that enough times before the fight - the fighters he beat were not that good and at 50 and fighting 15 pounds over your prime fighting weight, Hopkins was nowhere near as effective as he once was.

You can put it how you want to, but however his regression is labeled I still think Hopkins was a world class LHW capable of schooling top 10 opponents like Shumenov and Cloud, the former of whom he easily beat a few months ago. They may not be 'that good' but they were among the best 10 or so in the division, and it's hard for me to name many who I can confidently say were better.

Now you are changing your tune a bit here because before, you threw out the challenge of naming a fighter who is better than him or who could beat him who is ranked in the light heavyweight division. Now you are saying that he could come unstuck against Stevenson and Ward which is what I call a more balanced view regarding the future of Kovalev. A lot of boxing is about what happens 'on the day' upsets happen all the time, I don't know who will beat him in the future but he isn't unbeatable.

I asked which LHW fighters are definitely better than Hopkins or Clev, because I'm struggling to name multiple fighters of this description, yet based on some of the comments you make it seems to me like you think these fighters are numerous in the division and that Kovalev will soon become unstuck against one of them. If you can't name more than one, I think it impairs your argument that Kovalev is a hype job given that he just routed Hopkins.

I haven't changed by positions and nothing I've said is inconsistent with thinking he could lose to people like Stevenson or Ward; you're building straw-men.

No merit at all, he didn't go down, didn't take a count, had no bad facial injuries, wasn't showing signs of distress to the referee or to the corner, that would have been awful refereeing if he had stopped that. You can't stop a fight because he is taking clean punches because this is boxing.

He was reeling around because his legs were unsteady, he was being hit repeatedly and having his head snapped back, he was showing few signs of being able to defend himself effectively, and he wasn't fighting back. A fighter need not go down, sustain facial injuries, or look to their corner or the ref for a stoppage to be appropriate.

Again, when the hype dies down and in retrospect, then we will be able to see the Hopkins win in its proper light. We don't know what KOvalev is going to do in the future but we do know Hopkins is a 50 year old ex middleweight, history doesn't credit fighters with those kinds of wins no more than Rocky Marciano got with beating Joe Louis (and there wasn't a 15 year difference between those two either).

Regardless of the divisions he used to fight in Hopkins was a lineal LHW champion, won WBC, IBF, and WBA titles at the weight, and since 2013 he clearly beat Cloud, Murat, and Shumenov, the latter coming just months before he faced Kovalev. Age does equal ability, and when people look back at his record they should see that Hopkins was regularly beating top ten fighters until just months before he faced Kovalev.

Because you have realigned your position, you said 'who is there in the light heavyweight division to beat him/who is better than him in the light heavyweight division' and the answer is, I don't know. What you were implying is that there is nobody about currently who is capable of beating Kovolev, now you have balanced out your argument a lot better.

He isn't unbeatable, he won't KO everyone he fights and beating Hopkins doesn't make him a P4P of anything just yet - the jury still out.

I never realigned my position and I've never even asked who is better than Kovalev or capable of beating him, neither of which equate to me suggesting that he can't be beat; the question I posed that you've distorted multiple times is roughly 'who is definitely better than Hopkins'? Given that Kovalev beat him 12-0, I would think someone crying hype job could give at least a few names of people who they think are clearly better than the fighter who Kovalev just routed.

Fat Git wrote:

hurlock wrote:Not being unable to stop one of the cagiest fighters you have ever witnessed!?
Im not saying kov is the best thing since slice bread!!
Bernard is the better fighter & kov will never success his career or come close. You seem bitter for backing the wrong horse & getting it badly wrong

Hurlock, I get it wrong all the time, I also said before the fight that Hopkins was badly over the hill by a great distance.

You, on the other hand, said Hopkins was going to get himself 'killed' obviously forgetting about how cagey B-Hop the alien was...
so in retrospect, I didn't get it as badly as wrong as you did.

I also said I couldn't see him getting wiped out but bludgeoned & he did withstand far too many clean shots!he got damaged badly in that fight. He was no lesser in there then he was v Murat & the power was a big factor.

crusader wrote:
It seems to me like the Hopkins hype train, one that you were on, was derailed last night.

No, because I wasn't hyping Hopkins up, go and check out the thread 'best white fighter' I was on there for quite a while telling anyone who would listen that Hopkins was well over the hill and past it, he is a 50 year old middleweight whose best fighting years are well past, this was all before he got in the ring with Kovalev. Go and check it out.

I don't rate Kovalev, that's true, still don't because history and hindsight will say he beat a 50 year old middleweight.

The talk of Hopkins being killed was very much a minority view, just as people predicting Hopkins to win by stoppage was a minority view. There were far more people who thought Kovalev would lose or be pushed close in winning, so I think you're taking a small sub-set and depicting it as if it represented a prevailing opinion. Predictions for a Kovalev stoppage were fairly common, but I think that result came close to happening, it more closely captured what happened than the predictions for Hopkins did, and just because a fairly common prediction didn't come to fruition it doesn't mean that a fighter was generally over hyped.

Again, true reflection on what a fighter is about will come nearer to the end of his career than during it. He was dominant against a 50 year old middleweight. My view was about what Kovalev didn't possess than what Hopkins did - he won handily but his 'wrecking machine' qualities went out of the window, there were times Kovalev looked perplexed about how to deal with Hopkins but because Hopkins was on the backfoot and not throwing back. Kovalev was winning the rounds.

I used extreme examples to illustrate the point. I don't believe there is anyone at LHW with a stronger recent resume than Hopkins other than Kovalev and Stevenson, and I don't think anyone aside from Kovalev and arguably Stevenson has displayed abilities that suggest they're clearly better than Hopkins. Given that Kovalev routed Hopkins 12-0 with a knockdown, it's hard for me to accept a line of argumentation in which it's assumed that he's going to soon have problems because he'll run into someone who is significantly better than Hopkins.

But resumes aren't static, at this moment in time - Stevenson and Kovalev have the best two resumes but that might all be different in 6 months time. And it not about someone being better than Hopkins as in his past achievements - it is about someone have youth, strength, size and defensive nous who can give Kovalev problems - he may be around, he may not.

You can put it how you want to, but however his regression is labeled I still think Hopkins was a world class LHW capable of schooling top 10 opponents like Shumenov and Cloud, the former oh whom he easily beat a few months ago. They may not be 'that good' but they were among the best 10 or so in the division, and it's hard for me to name many who I can confidently say were better.

He is an old middleweight! It is like saying Archie Moore was a world class heavyweight because he beat Nino Valdes, his resume rightly targets his best days and his prime (which wasn't when he was champion) as a light heavyweight. And you keep bringing Shemunov - he was no good, he was a recipient of a robbery against Campillo. He has had something like 15 fights - do you really think Shumenov is one of the ten best light heavyweights in the division?

I asked which LHW fighters are definitely better than Hopkins or Clev, because I'm struggling to name multiple fighters of this description, yet based on some of the comments you make it seems to me like you think these fighters are numerous in the division and that Kovalev will soon become unstuck against one of them. If you can't name more than one, I think it impairs your argument that Kovalev is a hype job given that he just routed Hopkins.

I can't predict the future, all I know is from watching boxing for over 30 years is that fighters come up all the time and disrupt the consensus - no it won't be Shumenov, Cloud nor Bramher but who knows who is coming up these next 12-18 months who is capable of doing it, I don't think a) Kovalev is unbeatable or b) we can laud him as a p4p of anything at this stage of his career. And it doesn't matter what I say or don't say, history will peg his win over Hopkins (older, smaller, massively over the hill) correctly.

I haven't changed by positions and nothing I've said is inconsistent with thinking he could lose to people like Stevenson or Ward; you're building straw-men.

Yeah you have, you asked me the loaded question of who is capable of beating Kovalev now and I honestly cannot tell you, you were insinuating that there is no-one or else you wouldn't have asked.

He was reeling around because his legs were unsteady, he was being hit repeatedly and having his head snapped back, he was showing few signs of being able to defend himself effectively, and he wasn't fighting back. A fighter need not go down, sustain facial injuries, or look to their corner or their ref for a stoppage to be appropriate.

He was taking shots but this is a boxing and a world title fight, you don't stop fights because a fighter is hurt or reeling around - that is why a three knockdown rule is in force because if a fighter goes down three times then it is automatically stopped. If it was an amateur contest then there could have been an argument but in a world title fight - no, there was no argument for a stoppage, in the days of 'standing counts' you might have given him a standing count at most.

Regardless of the divisions he used to fight in Hopkins was a lineal LHW champion, won WBC, IBF, and WBA titles at the weight, and since 2013 he clearly beat Cloud, Murat, and Shumenov, the latter coming just months before he faced Kovalev. Age does equal ability, and when people look back at his record they should see that Hopkins was regularly beating top ten fighters until just months before he faced Kovalev.

History is not going to tell it like that though - Paul Pender does not get the same kudos for beating Sugar Ray Robinson than Jake La Motta does. Trevor Berbick does not get the same kudos for beating Muhammad Ali as Joe Frazier does - they are the rules of how a fighter is judged through history, I don't make the rules about this so don't blame me but hindsight is going to play a big part on how this fight is going to be judged. And none of us know yet, not me, not you.

I never realigned my position and I've never even asked who is better than Kovalev or capable of beating him, neither of which equate to me suggesting that he can't be beat; the question I posed that you've distorted multiple times is roughly 'who is definitely better than Hopkins'? Given that Kovalev beat him 12-0, I would think someone crying hype job could give at least a few names of people who they think are clearly better than the fighter that Kovalev just routed.

[/quote]

You did, you asked me a loaded question with the meaning being intent that there is nobody out there to beat him. And your question of 'who is better than Hopkins' is massively distorted because what Hopkins legacy was is left back in the middleweight division. I don't think his win of Shumenov or Murat is any big deal and the division and who can beat him ever evolving and organic - someone will come along and beat him, who? I don't know.

History regarding Kovalev is yet to be written. Let's all sit back and see what happens and I wish all you boys on the hype train a nice ride whilst it lasts.

No, because I wasn't hyping Hopkins up, go and check out the thread 'best white fighter' I was on there for quite a while telling anyone who would listen that Hopkins was well over the hill and past it, he is a 50 year old middleweight whose best fighting years are well past, this was all before he got in the ring with Kovalev. Go and check it out.

It seems to me like you're throwing 'hype train' at others because Kovalev didn't beat Hopkins to the degree that some thought he would, so I think it's fitting to say that you were on a Hopkins hype train given that he was dropped and didn't win a round when you thought he'd school Kovalev.

Again, true reflection on what a fighter is about will come nearer to the end of his career than during it. He was dominant against a 50 year old middleweight. My view was about what Kovalev didn't possess than what Hopkins did - he won handily but his 'wrecking machine' qualities went out of the window, there were times Kovalev looked perplexed about how to deal with Hopkins but because Hopkins was on the backfoot and not throwing back. Kovalev was winning the rounds.

Age is just a number. He was dominant against a reigning unified champion who since 2013 easily handled an unbeaten champion and another titilist, both of whom were generally ranked in the top ten of the division. He showed sufficient ability in clearly winning these bouts for many people to pick him over Kovalev when they knew that he was 49.

Kovalev looked like he knew exactly what to do with Hopkins, keeping his jab busy, regularly going to the body to nullify Hopkins' head movement, and not loading up on his punches and quickly stepping back to limit Hopkins' abilities to counter, the latter of which Hopkins admitted caused him significant problems. He also paced himself well and seemed to be aware that Hopkins would likely go more rounds than his opponents typically due as a result of his impressive defense and chin.

But resumes aren't static, at this moment in time - Stevenson and Kovalev have the best two resumes but that might all be different in 6 months time. And it not about someone being better than Hopkins as in his past achievements - it is about someone have youth, strength, size and defensive nous who can give Kovalev problems - he may be around, he may not.

Resumes aren't static, though I think they can help show what level a fighter is at least on, which is why I mentioned ability too. I follow the division closely and I don't see many people who are serious threats to Kovalev, though I may be wrong and sometimes lesser fighters can beat superior fighters. It was also commonly believed that Hopkins had the defensive nous to give Kovalev fits, but as the bout showed Kovalev didn't have a problem overcoming Hopkins' good defense.

He is an old middleweight! It is like saying Archie Moore was a world class heavyweight because he beat Nino Valdes, his resume rightly targets his best days and
his prime (which wasn't when he was champion) as a light heavyweight. And you keep bringing Shemunov - he was no good, he was a recipient of a robbery against Campillo. He has had something like 15 fights - do you really think Shumenov is one of the ten best light heavyweights in the division?

I think Shumenov was lower top ten.

As I said before, Hopkins was a lineal LHW champion, and he won WBC, WBA, and IBF titles at the weight, so he has ample credibility at 175. Since 2013 he clearly beat an undefeated champion and another titilist, both of whom had good cases for being top ten in my view despite their limitations. While they may not be that good, I don't think there were many fighters in the division who were clearly better, and I think it's fair to say that Hopkins was one of the premier fighters in the division when he entered the Kovalev fight. This is reflected not only in Hopkins being ranked in the division's top three in virtually every major set of rankings and being a unified champion just a few days ago, but also in many people predicting that he would beat Kovalev.

I can't predict the future, all I know is from watching boxing for over 30 years is that fighters come up all the time and disrupt the consensus - no it won't be Shumenov, Cloud nor Bramher but who knows who is coming up these next 12-18 months who is capable of doing it, I don't think a) Kovalev is unbeatable or b) we can laud him as a p4p of anything at this stage of his career. And it doesn't matter what I say or don't say, history will peg his win over Hopkins (older, smaller, massively over the hill) correctly.

I don't think Kovalev is unbeatable either, and I doubt the most people do either. I don't have a problem with him being ranked in the lower top 10 P4P though, as I don't believe there are 10 fighters who clearly deserve to be ahead of him.

You can only make assumptions about how the win will be interpreted over time. It may fit your interpretation, but then again people may see that Hopkins was also favored in a major media poll, favored by major boxing publications, and favored by countless posters on forums like these. They may also see that he was the unified champion entering the bout and had scored three consecutive wins that were generally lauded. As a result, Kovalev winning every round may be seen as impressive despite Hopkins' age.

Yeah you have, you asked me the loaded question of who is capable of beating Kovalev now and I honestly cannot tell you, you were insinuating that there is no-one or else you wouldn't have asked.

Are you resorting to making up what I've said? If not, please quote where I asked who is capable of beating Kovalev.

I never asked you that question, so I was not by extension suggesting that Kovalev couldn't be beat, an opinion that I've never held. Aside from that, it's fallacious to assume that asking such a question = insinuating that Kovalev is unbeatable.

He was taking shots but this is a boxing and a world title fight, you don't stop fights because a fighter is hurt or reeling around - that is why a three knockdown rule is in force because if a fighter goes down three times then it is automatically stopped. If it was an amateur contest then there could have been an argument but in a world title fight - no, there was no argument for a stoppage, in the days of 'standing counts' you might have given him a standing count at most.

Each case should be assessed with reference to what happened. Not every instance of a fighter being hurt or reeling around justifies a stoppage, but some do and I think this was one of them for reasons I've already given.

History is not going to tell it like that though - Paul Pender does not get the same kudos for beating Sugar Ray Robinson than Jake La Motta does. Trevor Berbick does not get the same kudos for beating Muhammad Ali as Joe Frazier does - they are the rules of how a fighter is judged through history, I don't make the rules about this so don't blame me but hindsight is going to play a big part on how this fight is going to be judged. And none of us know yet, not me, not you.

I don't think anyone expects Kovalev to get anywhere near the type of credit he would've for beating prime Hopkins. It's interesting that you say 'none of us know yet', because in another part of your post you make a definitive statement about how the win will be interpreted:

And it doesn't matter what I say or don't say, history will peg his win over Hopkins (older, smaller, massively over the hill) correctly.

You did, you asked me a loaded question with the meaning being intent that there is nobody out there to beat him. And your question of 'who is better than Hopkins' is massively distorted because what Hopkins legacy was is left back in the middleweight division. I don't think his win of Shumenov or Murat is any big deal and the division and who can beat him ever evolving and organic - someone will come along and beat him, who? I don't know.

Again, please quote where I asked you who could beat Kovalev. If you can't do that I'll assume that you're arguing dishonestly.

When I ask about Hopkins I mean the recent version, the one who clearly beat Cloud, Murat, and Shumenov. As I mentioned earlier, I would think someone crying hype job could give at least a few names of people who they think are clearly better than the fighter who Kovalev just routed.

History regarding Kovalev is yet to be written. Let's all sit back and see what happens and I wish all you boys on the hype train a nice ride whilst it lasts.

And if he loses, all you have to do is read my posts here to see that I never said he was unbeatable, and that he could be upset by lower regarded fighters

crusader wrote:
It seems to me like you're throwing 'hype train' at others because Kovalev didn't beat Hopkins to the degree that some thought he would, so I think it's fitting to say that you were on a Hopkins hype train given that he was dropped and didn't win a round when you thought he'd school Kovalev.

If I have been quoted that Hopkins is over the hill, past it and an old man who is a good ten years past his prime - how am I on a Hopkins 'hype train' I have made one or two posts with my hopes on how it would go and a lot more posts explaining why Hopkins is past it, he shouldn't be fighting anymore. There is very little to make out I am on a Hopkins hype train. Hopkins is the best fighter Kovalev had faced but then he didn't face anybody that good previously.

Age is just a number. He was dominant against a reigning unified champion who since 2013 easily handled an unbeaten champion and another titilist, both of whom were generally ranked in the top ten of the division. He showed sufficient ability in clearly winning these bouts for many people to pick him over Kovalev when they knew that he was 49.

'This age is just a number' is just bollocks - so the Sugar Ray Robinson Terry Downes beat is the same Sugar Ray Robinson Jake La Motta beat? Even Terry Downes said he beat a 'shadow' of the man. The reason I picked Kovalev isn't because of Hopkins decline but because I don't rate Kovalev that highly. Hopkins is in massive decline and because he beat some relative novice in Shumenov - who was gifted a desicion against Campillo in the second fight. Doesn't mean he isn't an ancient middleweight.

Kovalev looked like he knew exactly what to do with Hopkins, keeping his jab busy, regularly going to the body to nullify Hopkins' head movement, and not loading up on his punches and quickly stepping back to limit Hopkins' abilities to counter, the latter of which Hopkins admitted caused him significant problems. He also paced himself well and seemed to be aware that Hopkins would likely go more rounds than his opponents typically due as a result of his impressive defense and chin.

He looked to a fair few times to looked puzzled, his punches were picked off or sailed into thin air. He won the fight well but Kovalev would have learned a lot from a fight albeit its one sided nature.

Resumes aren't static, though I think they can help show what level a fighter is at least on, which is why I mentioned ability too. I follow the division closely and I don't see many people who are serious threats to Kovalev, though I may be wrong and sometimes lesser fighters can beat superior fighters. It was also commonly believed that Hopkins had the defensive nous to give Kovalev fits, but as the bout showed Kovalev didn't have a problem overcoming Hopkins' good defense.

A good defence is also a good offence and though Hopkins stopped throwing punches early on. The onus was on Kovalev to get him out of there if he was a true wrecking machine, that he picked shots and took his time is all great but it also shows he is not going to KO everyone he meets, sometimes a defensively adept fighter is going to cause problems.

I think Shumenov was lower top ten.

I would put money on either Bellew or Clev on beating Shumenov when they were at light heavy - Shumenov isn't terrible but he is nothing to hang a claim at excellence on.

As I said before, Hopkins was a lineal LHW champion, and he won WBC, WBA, and IBF titles at the weight, so he has ample credibility at 175. Since 2013 he clearly beat an undefeated champion and another titilist, both of whom had good cases for being top ten in my view despite their limitations. While they may not be that good, I don't think there were many fighters in the division who were clearly better, and I think it's fair to say that Hopkins was one of the premier fighters in the division when he entered the Kovalev fight. This is reflected not only in Hopkins being ranked in the division's top three in virtually every major set of rankings and being a unified champion just a few days ago, but also in many people predicting that he would beat Kovalev.

He was, you are right, but it shows how bad the LH division is rather than what a great light heavyweight Hopkins is, he is an old man, if the LH division wasn't dead, he wouldn't be one of their top fighters. But yeah, Kovalev can only beat what is in front of him, that is fair enough what is fair enough is the present physical state of Hopkins - over the hill and past it fighting out of his natural weight division.

I don't think Kovalev is unbeatable either, and I doubt the most people do either. I don't have a problem with him being ranked in the lower top 10 P4P though, as I don't believe there are 10 fighters who clearly deserve to be ahead of him.

Fair enough.

You can only make assumptions about how the win will be interpreted over time. It may fit your interpretation, but then again people may see that Hopkins was also favored in a major media poll, favored by major boxing publications, and favored by countless posters on forums like these. They may also see that he was the unified champion entering the bout and had scored three consecutive wins that were generally lauded. As a result, Kovalev winning every round may be seen as impressive despite Hopkins' age.

Agreed Crusader - then there were a lot of tipsters who favoured Louis over Marciano. They get forgotten over time as the facts come sharply to light. Kovalev may go onto bigger and better things and make me eat my words, this is the great thing about all this, all this remains to be seen.

Yeah you have, you asked me the loaded question of who is capable of beating Kovalev now and I honestly cannot tell you, you were insinuating that there is no-one or else you wouldn't have asked.

Are you resorting to making up what I've said? If not, please quote where I asked who is capable of beating Kovalev.

I never asked you that question, so I was not by extension suggesting that Kovalev couldn't be beat, an opinion that I've never held. Aside from that, it's fallacious to assume that asking such a question = insinuating that Kovalev is unbeatable.

The insinuation was that there is no-one in the division at this moment in time that was capable of beating him and that is why you asked or that is how I read the question. Why ask right? I don't know, can Stevenson? I don't know, nobody knows until they get it on.

Each case should be assessed with reference to what happened. Not every instance of a fighter being hurt or reeling around justifies a stoppage, but some do and I think this was one of them for reasons I've already given.

I disagree, it is a professional boxing match and a world title. To take away Hopkins record of never being stopped in a professional contest, he would need to have been badly knocked down and hurt - in my opinion of course.

I don't think anyone expects Kovalev to get anywhere near the type of credit he would've for beating prime Hopkins. It's interesting that you say 'none of us know yet', because in another part of your post you make a definitive statement about how the win will be interpreted:

None of us know how this win will be linked to the rest of his career - who knows now right, but:

And it doesn't matter what I say or don't say, history will peg his win over Hopkins (older, smaller, massively over the hill) correctly.

Will be factors that are part of the equation. He didn't fight a prime Hopkins and if Hopkins would have been in his prime, they would never have met as Hopkins would still been a middleweight.

Again, please quote where I asked you who could beat Kovalev. If you can't do that I'll assume that you're arguing dishonestly.

When I ask about Hopkins I mean the recent version, the one who clearly beat Cloud, Murat, and Shumenov. As I mentioned earlier, I would think someone crying hype job could give at least a few names of people who they think are clearly better than the fighter who Kovalev just routed.

That's not because Hopkins is a great light heavyweight but the light heavyweight division is in shit state.

And if he loses, all you have to do is read my posts here to see that I never said he was unbeatable, and that he could be upset by lower regarded fighters

That's fair enough.

FRAT

Good fight - enjoyed it.

Hopkins age finally caught up with him. Kovalev was too big, young, strong, rangy and disciplined for the old master

This has all got a bit silly.

If Kovalev is a hype job - then Hopkins is hyping him too

http://www.BS.com/kovalev-real ... ays--84074

For what its worth I'd pick Kov to beat Stevenson and unify the division. Not sure about Berbertiev though, he looks like very interesting...

crusader wrote:Kovalev was clueless?

120-106 isn't a rout?

Some of the comments here especially Fat Git's and Coco's considering they picked Hopkins to school or drown Kovalev yet have given the latter no credit for winning every round, dropping Hopkins, and hurting him. I think someone has set unreasonably high standards if they don't see that type of performance against a unified champion who schooled a top ten opponent a few months earlier as showing that Kovalev isn't simply a hype job. Which people in the division are definitely better than Hopkins or even Clev?

I know. It's absolutely crazy.

I guess some people just get it in their head that a puncher is a puncher is a puncher. That bizarre line of thought that 'Oh he hits hard so he must exist in total polarity to a guy with aesthetically beautiful boxing skills like Mayweather', like they expect every guy who hits hard to look like Jeff fvkin Lacy, and the man, the legend, Kelly Pavlik.

And then the fight happens and, no, they're too stubborn to understand that yes, Kovalev is highly skilled and boxes beautifully too.

By the way crusader, a debating clinic as usual Seriously, noone try to debate with this guy because he'll always kick your ass. I tried it a couple of times and got food for thought. Still don't agree on Wlad stuff though. 8)

Riddick Blowe wrote:

crusader wrote:Kovalev was clueless?

120-106 isn't a rout?

Some of the comments here especially Fat Git's and Coco's considering they picked Hopkins to school or drown Kovalev yet have given the latter no credit for winning every round, dropping Hopkins, and hurting him. I think someone has set unreasonably high standards if they don't see that type of performance against a unified champion who schooled a top ten opponent a few months earlier as showing that Kovalev isn't simply a hype job. Which people in the division are definitely better than Hopkins or even Clev?

I know. It's absolutely crazy.

I guess some people just get it in their head that a puncher is a puncher is a puncher. That bizarre line of thought that 'Oh he hits hard so he must exist in total polarity to a guy with aesthetically beautiful boxing skills like Mayweather', like they expect every guy who hits hard to look like Jeff fvkin Lacy, and the man, the legend, Kelly Pavlik.

And then the fight happens and, no, they're too stubborn to understand that yes, Kovalev is highly skilled and boxes beautifully too.

By the way crusader, a debating clinic as usual Seriously, noone try to debate with this guy because he'll always kick your ass. I tried it a couple of times and got food for thought. Still don't agree on Wlad stuff though. 8)

You are the person who said 'Kovalev would have beaten Hopkins at any stage of his career'? Which is a rather silly thing to say.

So anything you say can be disregarded I think.

What you know about boxing can be written on the back of a stamp, pity you weren't around to weigh in on the career of Horace Notice - we could have done with your insights.

Kovalev is the real deal but with the style he's got someone will knock him out in the not too distant future.

As for this performance I thought he was superb, the only reason he didn't score a KO was because Hopkins was in survival mode the entire fight.

You know how you see cats playing with mice, flicking them around and then letting them rest for a bit to think they are safe? That's what Kov was doing.
How many times did he let BHop off the ropes?

Then, as if to prove all the criers of, "he's never been the championship rounds", he absolutely devastates Hopkins in the 12th, just batters him around like a doll.

Total props to the big lad, awesome performance, there's nobody gonna take those belts from him.

The sweet science?

Bernie has practised the sour science for years.

Negative, wading in with that dome head leading the charge. Holding, fouling, complaining and diving on the floor. He beats most people without punching them. Controlling the pace and messing them up before landing a couple of telling shots of his own to take a round.

There are journeymen who can take marquee fighters the distance, so when someone as wily and adept as Hopkins decides to do it, then even the best can't really penetrate them.

But, Kovalev pierced him a few times - and in the 12th anyone else would have been halted.

Any time Hopkins caught Kovalev, was more a case of surprise for the Russian - because lengthy spells went past when Hopkins showed no verve at all. He picked up that cheque and had no desire to go out and be victorious once he felt that power land on his arms and torso. He swallowed , despite going in with belts and as the late favourite.

Fat Git wrote:
You are the person who said 'Kovalev would have beaten Hopkins at any stage of his career'? Which is a rather silly thing to say.

In your opinion, which is the opinion of a man who refuses to give Kovalev praise for his utterly comprehensive victory when 99 per cent of people who know about boxing did.

Something tells me if Kovalev beats Ward, which he will, you still won't be giving him any credit.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Fat Git wrote:
You are the person who said 'Kovalev would have beaten Hopkins at any stage of his career'? Which is a rather silly thing to say.

In your opinion, which is the opinion of a man who refuses to give Kovalev praise for his utterly comprehensive victory when 99 per cent of people who know about boxing did.

Something tells me if Kovalev beats Ward, which he will, you still won't be giving him any credit.

Have it right though, Hopkins was 50 years old and fighting 15 pounds over his prime fighting weight. That is why your comment of Kovalev beating Hopkins in his prime is silly for the simple reason that Hopkins was fighting at a much lower weight at his prime - so Kovalev is capable of beating a smaller foe - so what?

Jersey Joe Walcott, Archie Moore nor Sugar Ray Robinson fought on as long has Hopkins - Hopkins gave away away something like 18 years as well as size. No use harping on about it like it is the dawn of the next big thing because the factors I mentioned matter.

Kovalev proved me wrong regards how it went with Hopkins because I thought Kovalev is crap, the jury is still out though - he might turn into something special. I can't see it myself but let's see.