Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 01:57
Yeah agree with everyone's sentiments. Kovalev boxed a really measured performance tonight.
BoxRec
BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Page 11 of 13
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 01:57
I liked the way he feinted to draw Hopkins in, then stepped back and timed the right hand for the KD in round one.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 01:58
Of course not. Kovalev has good skills, good patience, good stamina and incredible workrate besides power. But it have to be said that Bernard Hopkins is far, far away from the fighter he was 6 years ago, so Pavlik comparison doesn't work not only because Kovalev is different from Pavlik, but also because Hopkins of 2008 is different fighter from Hopkins of 2014.crusader wrote:I'm not usually one to be wise after the fact, but people really thought Krusher had no skills? That he was just a bigger lumberer like Pavlik?
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 01:59
I wasn't talking about how Hopkins matched up with Kovalev and Pavlik. I was addressing the fairly common sentiment that Kovalev was just a bigger Pavlik who had power but little else.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:00
Kovalev is better than Pavlik ever was.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:01
Pavlik didnt have the intelligence that Kovalev possesses when he wants to show it. Pavlik just followed Hopkins around the ring like a clueless buffoon.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:03
Pavlik and Kovalev actually fight remarkably similar....crusader wrote:I'm not usually one to be wise after the fact, but people really thought Krusher had no skills? That he was just a bigger lumberer like Pavlik?
Kovalev is obviously just much bigger/broader.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:03
Ward is definitely not stepping up after watching today's fight even though Kovalev vs Ward could be a PPV now.fergusg wrote:Krusher showed patience, stamina and discipline, because he executed his gameplan to perfection, but Hopkins wasn't throwing punches... so there are still some unanswered questions, as he hasn't been pushed yet.
Kovalev is a very good fighter and appears to be the number one at 175lbs, but who can he fight next, without having to "cross the street" to Showtime?
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:04
I've seen it plenty on various forums, especially BS.fergusg wrote:Who said Kovalev had no skills?crusader wrote:I'm not usually one to be wise after the fact, but people really thought Krusher had no skills? That he was just a bigger lumberer like Pavlik?
Here are some quote exemplifying the general idea:
Kovalev, while he has thunderous power that is usually enough to get his (mostly weak) opponents out early, is a terrible boxer
Kovalev sucks. He has power, but his footwork and balance are atrocious, he's slow, he holds his hands way too loose and his head movement is mediocre making him an easy target, and it is easy to lull him to sleep. People talk about his work rate, but he is only busy when he hurts you, and I don't think he is a good enough boxer to be able to set Hopkins up for too many power shots. I see Hopkins keeping the pace slow and frustrating him with pot shots and movement, just as he always does, and then catching him with hard shots when Kovalev squares up and gets off balance, which he seems to do about 5-10 times each round.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:04
Props to Bernard Hopkins for being a good sport after the fight.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:04
The only fight I can see after this for BHop would be a third with Pascal.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:05
Freedom2013 wrote:Props to Bernard Hopkins for being a good sport after the fight.
not the normal i was cheatedRe: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:05
fergusg wrote:Why mention an alcoholic middleweight like Pavlik? Why mention Pavlik's name when Kovalev is being discussed?Ian1973 wrote:Kovalev is better than Pavlik ever was.
You're right. Me = shhhhhh!!
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:05
I wouldnt say they're the same. They're both come forward fighters but Kovalev doesnt over commit himself like Pavlik and leave himself open to counters to the same degree. They're both pressure fighters but Kovalev is more intelligent with it and can counter punch aswell. Pavlik couldnt really counter punch.observer1 wrote:Pavlik and Kovalev actually fight remarkably similar....crusader wrote:I'm not usually one to be wise after the fact, but people really thought Krusher had no skills? That he was just a bigger lumberer like Pavlik?
Kovalev is obviously just much bigger/broader.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:06
Kovalev vs Beterbiev will be a HUGE fight two years from now, considering their styles and bad blood between them from the amateurs days.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:06
I think Kov is more accurate, fights more intelligently, has faster hands for the weight, better timing, and has displayed significantly more ability to punch while being attacked or pushed back. There are some similarities, such as good power for their weights and their right hands probably being their best shots.observer1 wrote:Pavlik and Kovalev actually fight remarkably similar....crusader wrote:I'm not usually one to be wise after the fact, but people really thought Krusher had no skills? That he was just a bigger lumberer like Pavlik?
Kovalev is obviously just much bigger/broader.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:08
Was there bad blood between them in the amateurs then? Ps i can see that fight happening a lot sooner than 2 years time if it happens.Boxing Writer wrote:Kovalev vs Beterbiev will be a HUGE fight two years from now, considering their styles and bad blood between them from the amateurs days.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:08
Freedom2013 wrote:Props to Bernard Hopkins for being a good sport after the fight.
Yep, he was true gent. He's had his moments Hopkins and come out with some crap like the never lose to a white boy thing but my god he's been a boxing legend and it's pretty much impossible not to admire him, isn't it?
If i were him I'd retire now and put my feet up but knowing Hopkins i wouldn't bet on that. I'd give him a reasonable chance against Stephenson.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:09
I was interested in what he had to say, and he was humble. But I guess he would've kinda looked a jackass if he hadn't given Kovalev credit for the shutout.Freedom2013 wrote:Props to Bernard Hopkins for being a good sport after the fight.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:10
Kovalev definately has the faster hands when compared to Pavlik in his day. Everything else though is very similar. It's uncanny how much alike they are in terms of ring style imo.crusader wrote:I think Kov is more accurate, fights more intelligently, has faster hands for the weight, better timing, and has displayed significantly more ability to punch while being attacked or pushed back. There are some similarities, such as good power for their weights and their right hands probably being their best shots.observer1 wrote:Pavlik and Kovalev actually fight remarkably similar....crusader wrote:I'm not usually one to be wise after the fact, but people really thought Krusher had no skills? That he was just a bigger lumberer like Pavlik?
Kovalev is obviously just much bigger/broader.
Either way, Kovalevs size and willingness to stick to a game plan was the key factor today. He could take Adonis imo.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:10
Yes, Beterbiev beat Kovalev by slim margin, and Kovalev thought he was robbed. Beterbiev said in one of his interviews he was far from his best shape in that fight but still beat him clearly.lefty wrote:Was there bad blood between them in the amateurs then? Ps i can see that fight happening a lot sooner than 2 years time if it happens.Boxing Writer wrote:Kovalev vs Beterbiev will be a HUGE fight two years from now, considering their styles and bad blood between them from the amateurs days.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:11
Any comments he's made have always been to promote a fight and rile up his opponent. It's sad that the average boxing fan still falls for that kind of stuff.Ian1973 wrote:Freedom2013 wrote:Props to Bernard Hopkins for being a good sport after the fight.
Yep, he was true gent. He's had his moments Hopkins and come out with some crap like the never lose to a white boy thing but my god he's been a boxing legend and it's pretty much impossible not to admire him, isn't it?
If i were him I'd retire now and put my feet up but knowing Hopkins i wouldn't bet on that. I'd give him a reasonable chance against Stephenson.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:12
Maybe, but how do you know? It seems to me like a fighter could say virtually anything and it could be interpreted this way.Any comments he's made have always been to promote a fight and rile up his opponent.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:13
They fought once in a Russian semi-final before Olympics, and Kovalev thinks that he was robbed. Beterbiev accepts that he didn't have a good fight, because he was already thinking about the final deciding who goes to Olympics.lefty wrote:Was there bad blood between them in the amateurs then? Ps i can see that fight happening a lot sooner than 2 years time if it happens.Boxing Writer wrote:Kovalev vs Beterbiev will be a HUGE fight two years from now, considering their styles and bad blood between them from the amateurs days.
Kovalev and Beterbiev were sparring partners in many camps of the Russian team.
Re: BHop vs Kovalev Discussion
Posted: 09 Nov 2014, 02:14
observer1 wrote:Any comments he's made have always been to promote a fight and rile up his opponent. It's sad that the average boxing fan still falls for that kind of stuff.Ian1973 wrote:Freedom2013 wrote:Props to Bernard Hopkins for being a good sport after the fight.
Yep, he was true gent. He's had his moments Hopkins and come out with some crap like the never lose to a white boy thing but my god he's been a boxing legend and it's pretty much impossible not to admire him, isn't it?
If i were him I'd retire now and put my feet up but knowing Hopkins i wouldn't bet on that. I'd give him a reasonable chance against Stephenson.
I ain't having a go mate but sometimes when you start mentioning race lines are crossed, people get very upset about that type of thing.