Bernard Hopkins vs Chad Dawson II

[Quixall]

It is easy to look good against many 47 year olds, but Hopkins is not one of them; he is a world class boxer who fights in a very negative and often dirty manner. No one has impressed against him, so it's unfair to criticize Dawson--who won clearly---as you have.

I have heard this so many times. No-one looks impressive against Hopkins, blah blah blah, the guy is 47 years and fighters like Dawson should be putting out those kind of dispalys against him. I don't think Dawson is special because he beat a fast fading Hopkins. He beat him by around 7 to 8 rounds which is what i would expect from that sort of age disparity. Teddy Atlas said this a while back, that you have to question how good these fighters are, who can't deal with a guy in his late forties. Hopkins is very good for his age and his PR before fights makes it seem that he hasn't altered since he fought in his middle 30's but he has aged a lot and isn't fighting like he did back then. So once you see past the bullshit, it is a 47 year old guy your fighting against and yes, you should be dominating a fight like that if your worth your salt and seen as being one of the best if not the best in your espective division. Hence my comments, that it's easy to look good against an old guy and beat him by seven or eight rounds and make it a relatively easy night, which it was for Dawson.

You've heard it many times because it's true. It's difficult to impress against Hopkins, so Dawson merits praise if you think that he looked good last night.

Age is simply a number; if a 47 year old succesfully competes at the highest level then his age doesn't make him easy to beat. You can't apply a general statement to every fighter.

I am not taking anthing away from Hopkins or the performance of Dawson. All i was saying originally was that i dont see Dawson as anything special because he beat Hopkins and i say that because of Hopkins age, which is now becoming more of a factor than it was say three years ago. Hopkins performs way better than most fighters in their late or middle 30's, but you can't escape the fact that he is 47 years of age and so whilst it's a good win for Chad Dawson, i would have thought it was expected becaase of the age disparity. In other words, my main point was that Dawson's victory does not make him a great fighter IMO

[crusader]

I have heard this so many times. No-one looks impressive against Hopkins, blah blah blah, the guy is 47 years and fighters like Dawson should be putting out those kind of dispalys against him. I don't think Dawson is special because he beat a fast fading Hopkins. He beat him by around 7 to 8 rounds which is what i would expect from that sort of age disparity. Teddy Atlas said this a while back, that you have to question how good these fighters are, who can't deal with a guy in his late forties. Hopkins is very good for his age and his PR before fights makes it seem that he hasn't altered since he fought in his middle 30's but he has aged a lot and isn't fighting like he did back then. So once you see past the bullshit, it is a 47 year old guy your fighting against and yes, you should be dominating a fight like that if your worth your salt and seen as being one of the best if not the best in your espective division. Hence my comments, that it's easy to look good against an old guy and beat him by seven or eight rounds and make it a relatively easy night, which it was for Dawson.

You've heard it many times because it's true. It's difficult to impress against Hopkins, so Dawson merits praise if you think that he looked good last night.

Age is simply a number; if a 47 year old succesfully competes at the highest level then his age doesn't make him easy to beat. You can't apply a general statement to every fighter.

I am not taking anthing away from Hopkins or the performance of Dawson. All i was saying originally was that i dont see Dawson as anything special because he beat Hopkins and i say that because of Hopkins age, which is now becoming more of a factor than it was say three years ago. Hopkins performs way better than most fighters in their late or middle 30's, but you can't escape the fact that he is 47 years of age and so whilst it's a good win for Chad Dawson, i would have thought it was expected becaase of the age disparity. In other words, my main point was that Dawson's victory does not make him a great fighter IMO

I agree that Dawson's victory doesn't make him a great fighter; labelling him as such would be unwarranted but I don't believe that many people are doing so. If I considered him a great fighter then his performance probably would've fell short of my expectations, and I may have criticized him.

I think that Hopkins had enough left to be considered a world class fighter, and I didn't expect Dawson to win easily. I, therefore, consider Dawson's effort to be somewhat impressive, if not entertaining.

[Quixall]

You've heard it many times because it's true. It's difficult to impress against Hopkins, so Dawson merits praise if you think that he looked good last night.

Age is simply a number; if a 47 year old succesfully competes at the highest level then his age doesn't make him easy to beat. You can't apply a general statement to every fighter.

I am not taking anthing away from Hopkins or the performance of Dawson. All i was saying originally was that i dont see Dawson as anything special because he beat Hopkins and i say that because of Hopkins age, which is now becoming more of a factor than it was say three years ago. Hopkins performs way better than most fighters in their late or middle 30's, but you can't escape the fact that he is 47 years of age and so whilst it's a good win for Chad Dawson, i would have thought it was expected becaase of the age disparity. In other words, my main point was that Dawson's victory does not make him a great fighter IMO

I agree that Dawson's victory doesn't make him a great fighter; labelling him as such would be unwarranted but I don't believe that many people are doing so. If I considered him a great fighter then his performance probably would've fell short of my expectations, and I may have criticized him.

I think that Hopkins had enough left to be considered a world class fighter, and I didn't expect Dawson to win easily. I, therefore, consider Dawson's effort to be somewhat impressive, if not entertaining.

I expected Dawson to win, but not my the margin that he did. Maybe it was Dawson's style, but this seemed to be the fight in which Hopkins looked jaded, the type of fight where your age does catch up with you. I wouldn't be suprised to see Hopkins go for a cruiserweight title if he can, i wouldn't be suprised at all. If not, then i can see him retiring.

[Horse]

Hopkins x2 - 46 & 47 years old (2011/12)
Johnson x2 - 39 & 40 years old (2008/9)
Tarver x2 - 39 & 40 years old (2008/9)
Diacanu - 32 years old (2011)
Adamek - 30 years old (2007)

Dawson's best wins are against pretty old guys. It seems a bit unusual.

[PizzaKid]

Hopkins should retire whilst he is still fit and healthy with plenty of cash.

[Bricks]

Hopkins has been stinking the joint out since the Pavlik fight, which he was incredible in, but then he was up against a walking punchbag.

Nobody EVER looks good against old popkins, so lets give Dawson a break.

I'd like to see Dawson and Pascal rematch, then we need to see the division unified.

Time for Hopkins to go, he hasn't got the stamina any more to fight a clean fight at top level, so may as well call it a day.

Pretty spot on. I said Hopkins was finished after the 2 round debacle with Dawson the first time, and got a hell of a lot of heat from Hopkins nuthuggers in the current scene forum as a result, who asked me what do u base that on?
Well my gut instinct was right. Hopkins looked slow and his reflexes dull in that fight.

[jameswilson]

Hopkins x2 - 46 & 47 years old (2011/12)
Johnson x2 - 39 & 40 years old (2008/9)
Tarver x2 - 39 & 40 years old (2008/9)
Diacanu - 32 years old (2011)
Adamek - 30 years old (2007)

Dawson's best wins are against pretty old guys. It seems a bit unusual.

And he lost to Jean Pascal.

[crusader]

Adamek and Diaconu weren't old when Dawson beat them, and Johnson, Hopkins, and Tarver were all top three in one or both of their fights with Dawson. I take the point though; Dawson's loss came against a young and very quick fighter, qualities not imputable to his other opponents. I don't think anyone else in the division has Pascal's speed though, and I think Dawson could improve on his effort in that fight.

I'd like to see Dawson fight Andre Ward, the Cloud-Pascal winner, one of the other two LHW champions, or Gabriel Campillo (although at 33, some would consider him 'pretty old').