BoxRec

He should go in for beating Yarde.

that jab would've ko'd anyone!

Mexi-Box wrote: ↑18 Jun 2022, 23:37

Lenny Cravats wrote: ↑18 Jun 2022, 12:04 He was a very good fighter, but definitely lacks the resume to get in.
Beating Pascal, twice, was pretty good - particularly the way he did it. He mullered an ancient Hopkins.
I did think he beat Ward, and if he got that decision, then I think he'd get in. Without that decision, it's doubtful.
Ancient Hopkins + the capable Pascal + a fair few other decent, but far from outstanding competition.... Not enough.

Why is Hopkins always an old man when it's convenient. This is the same crap people pull when they criticize Joe Calzaghe. Hopkins was a top LHW when he fought Kovalev. Kovalev beat every LHW he should've beaten at the time, even Ward. He's a HoF level fighter, but his legacy got ruined when he became a drunk.

Hopkins being an old man was a fact proven by his birth date not a convenience.

Credit for old fighters works both ways.

Fighters age 40+ are always lauded for still winning "at their age".
If the fighter is getting credit for winning "at his age" then younger fighters beating said old man get downgraded for beating an old man.
It's actually pretty simple..........if age is acknowledged when they win it needs to be acknowledged when they lose as well.

Joe Calzaghe gave Hopkins his 3rd loss in 5 fights.
The age 40 and above Hopkins won slightly over half his fights(10-6-1 with a no contest). Beating him was hardly a rare feat.
Kovalev faced a much older version of Hopkins.
If beating an over 40 fighter that is barely winning half his fights is your case for the hall of fame you don't have much of a case.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑18 Jun 2022, 23:48 that jab would've ko'd anyone!

Jab of the Century.

Perseus wrote: ↑19 Jun 2022, 09:58

Mexi-Box wrote: ↑18 Jun 2022, 23:37

Lenny Cravats wrote: ↑18 Jun 2022, 12:04 He was a very good fighter, but definitely lacks the resume to get in.
Beating Pascal, twice, was pretty good - particularly the way he did it. He mullered an ancient Hopkins.
I did think he beat Ward, and if he got that decision, then I think he'd get in. Without that decision, it's doubtful.
Ancient Hopkins + the capable Pascal + a fair few other decent, but far from outstanding competition.... Not enough.

Why is Hopkins always an old man when it's convenient. This is the same crap people pull when they criticize Joe Calzaghe. Hopkins was a top LHW when he fought Kovalev. Kovalev beat every LHW he should've beaten at the time, even Ward. He's a HoF level fighter, but his legacy got ruined when he became a drunk.

Hopkins being an old man was a fact proven by his birth date not a convenience.

Credit for old fighters works both ways.

Fighters age 40+ are always lauded for still winning "at their age".
If the fighter is getting credit for winning "at his age" then younger fighter beating said old man get downgraded for beating an old man.
It actually pretty simple..........if age is acknowledged when they win it needs to be acknowledged when they lose as well.

Joe Calzaghe gave Hopkins his 3rd loss in 5 fights.
The age 40 and above Hopkins won slightly over half his fights(10-6-1 with a no contest). Beating him was hardly a rare feat.
Kovalev faced a much older version of Hopkins.
If beating an over 40 fighter that is barely winning half his fights is your case for the hall of fame you don't have much of a case.

Context matters a lot. Look at the fighters he lost to and the competition he was facing. Again, it's always convenient to call Hopkins an old man when criticizing someone's win over him. Hopkins was a top LHW at the time, but maybe we shouldn't rank guys over 40 anymore. This one takes the cake, honestly.

40 year old Hopkins had two chances to beat Jermain Taylor and could not do it.

Old Hopkins wasn't going to get beat by bums but the two losses to Taylor show you didn't need to be great to beat him either.


......and it is not just convenient to call him an old man at that point.
It's a fact.
Half of those ten wins after 40 came with an "oldest fighter to" trophy.

Perseus wrote: ↑19 Jun 2022, 10:59 40 year old Hopkins had two chances to beat Jermain Taylor and could not do it.

Old Hopkins wasn't going to get beat by bums but the two losses to Taylor show you didn't need to be great to beat him either.


......and it is not just convenient to call him an old man at that point.
It's a fact.
Half of those ten wins after 40 came with an "oldest fighter to" trophy.

Yeah Barrera had two chances to beat Junior Jones, so Pacquiao's win over him was insignificant because Barrera lost to a "non-great" beforehand.

Honestly, it's like we shouldn't rank any win over Hopkins because you can just say he's old so he shouldn't be ranked.

Let's just forget that he was a top 5 LHW (I think he was pushing around top 3) at the time when Kovalev dominated him. Let's just not rank anyone that's pushing 40.

lol old hoppy vs kov was a funny one. thought it was pretty clear kov would win it handily, hops just not physically up to it anymore. but funny enough an espn poll of insiders had it 13-12 or 12-11 for hopkins.......... a lot of ppl still thought krusher had no skills at that point and would get schooled, clowned, outboxed etc.

many forum fans thought the same. funny looking back on it now. one of those fights that years later you might never think was split so close. i just checked and one of the polls here with 100+ votes had hopkins ahead right before the fight. ones on boxing scene had him ahead too

the type of comments below were very common

Ezzard wrote: ↑05 Nov 2014, 07:24 Hopkins on pts

rampage wrote: ↑04 Aug 2014, 03:39 This looks like another easy win for Hopkins, IMO. Kovalev sucks.

amwsnw wrote: ↑06 Nov 2014, 19:10 Bhop 115 - 113 or 116 - 112.

hurricanemitch14 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2014, 18:53 Hopkins is gonna beat the unbeatable Kovalev this weekend. Punches in bunches beats BHop, Kovalev will fight at BHop's pace.

Taansend wrote: ↑05 Nov 2014, 10:45 The more boring & ugly the fight is, the more chance Hopkins has of winning. I think he'll win on points but a late stoppage or disqualification wouldn't surprise me. Kovalev needs to jump on him while the first bell is still ringing to have a chance.

magwitch wrote: ↑07 Nov 2014, 20:08 B-Hop's gonna gobble this young pup up, I'm afraid. There'll be quite a bit of grabbing in this fight, Kovalev will plough on regardless and try to fight honest but I think Bernard's going to be too savvy for him.
Who is screening this in the UK? Is it S-ky?

Final round wrote: ↑03 Sep 2014, 12:14

Ezzard wrote:I'm picking Hopkins. Power punchers he can deal with. It's industry he hates.

I've got to agree with you.
It'll be rough and ragged but Hopkins has the knowledge and no-how to negate Kovalev's power for 12 rounds.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: ↑03 Aug 2014, 17:00
Me ... I'm going to go with Hopkins, Decision, Wide.

Othro wrote: ↑03 Aug 2014, 23:38Bhop 116-112

SenorPipino wrote: ↑04 Nov 2014, 17:11 To commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Rumble in the Jungle, the icon Bernard Hopkins will befuddle, out-think and outpunch the overhyped, unproven Russian on the way to a 8th round KO.
History repeats in 3 days.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 02:45 lol old hoppy vs kov was a funny one. thought it was pretty clear kov would win it handily, hops just not physically up to it anymore. but funny enough an espn poll of insiders had it 13-12 or 12-11 for hopkins.......... a lot of ppl still thought krusher had no skills at that point and would get schooled, clowned, outboxed etc.

many forum fans thought the same. funny looking back on it now. one of those fights that years later you might never think was split so close. i just checked and one of the polls here with 100+ votes had hopkins ahead right before the fight. ones on boxing scene had him ahead too

the type of comments below were very common

Ezzard wrote: ↑05 Nov 2014, 07:24 Hopkins on pts

rampage wrote: ↑04 Aug 2014, 03:39 This looks like another easy win for Hopkins, IMO. Kovalev sucks.

amwsnw wrote: ↑06 Nov 2014, 19:10 Bhop 115 - 113 or 116 - 112.

hurricanemitch14 wrote: ↑05 Nov 2014, 18:53 Hopkins is gonna beat the unbeatable Kovalev this weekend. Punches in bunches beats BHop, Kovalev will fight at BHop's pace.

Taansend wrote: ↑05 Nov 2014, 10:45 The more boring & ugly the fight is, the more chance Hopkins has of winning. I think he'll win on points but a late stoppage or disqualification wouldn't surprise me. Kovalev needs to jump on him while the first bell is still ringing to have a chance.

magwitch wrote: ↑07 Nov 2014, 20:08 B-Hop's gonna gobble this young pup up, I'm afraid. There'll be quite a bit of grabbing in this fight, Kovalev will plough on regardless and try to fight honest but I think Bernard's going to be too savvy for him.
Who is screening this in the UK? Is it S-ky?

Final round wrote: ↑03 Sep 2014, 12:14

Ezzard wrote:I'm picking Hopkins. Power punchers he can deal with. It's industry he hates.

I've got to agree with you.
It'll be rough and ragged but Hopkins has the knowledge and no-how to negate Kovalev's power for 12 rounds.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: ↑03 Aug 2014, 17:00
Me ... I'm going to go with Hopkins, Decision, Wide.

Othro wrote: ↑03 Aug 2014, 23:38Bhop 116-112

SenorPipino wrote: ↑04 Nov 2014, 17:11 To commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Rumble in the Jungle, the icon Bernard Hopkins will befuddle, out-think and outpunch the overhyped, unproven Russian on the way to a 8th round KO.
History repeats in 3 days.

Yep and the fact that the Kovalev career at that point had so many people thinking a nearly 50-year-old, blown up middleweight could beat him should help anyone see why his career this point isn't a hall of fame career.