BoxRec

ikorolev wrote:Pascal is an elite fighter though, so beating him would be a big credit for anybody.

ok.
You're right on Pascal that's one.

People say Cleverly would have won if he had boxed against Kovalev.

TBH, I don't think it would have made much of a difference, since Kovalev is so good at cutting off the ring.

What people don't realize is that Cleverly WAS boxing him in the early parts of Round 1, working behind the jab. It's just that Kovalev, for the most part, was winning then too. The punch stats in Round 1 showed that Kovalev was outlanding Cleverly.

I don't think Kovalev is the crude slugger some on here think he is.

crusader wrote:Credit should be given based on how good an opponent is, not how old they are. Hopkins is ancient in boxing terms but he's still a good fighter.

To be fair though mate, you did say before how the likes of Shumenov and Cloud and co were able to land on Hopkins to a decent degree so in a way would the win over the current Hopkins be that great?

VG_Addict wrote:People say Cleverly would have won if he had boxed against Kovalev.

TBH, I don't think it would have made much of a difference, since Kovalev is so good at cutting off the ring.

What people don't realize is that Cleverly WAS boxing him in the early parts of Round 1, working behind the jab. It's just that Kovalev, for the most part, was winning then too. The punch stats in Round 1 showed that Kovalev was outlanding Cleverly.

I don't think Kovalev is the crude slugger some on here think he is.

Cleverly cant box for shit anyway. He fought how he always does which his hands held high flicking out the jab a lot and coming forward throwing volume. No real intelligence to it.

Freedom2013 wrote:B-Hop by technical decision robbery in an ugly fight with Kovalev being badly cut over both eyes by Hopkins head butts.

When have you ever seen Hopkins given a victory in a robbery??

I've seen Hopkins not being given the benefit of the doubt in all of his close bouts, even Calzaghe (a Foreigner) got a decision over him in the USA.

KBB wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:B-Hop by technical decision robbery in an ugly fight with Kovalev being badly cut over both eyes by Hopkins head butts.

When have you ever seen Hopkins given a victory in a robbery??

I've seen Hopkins not being given the benefit of the doubt in all of his close bouts, even Calzaghe (a Foreigner) got a decision over him in the USA.

He clearly dominated Shumenov is his last fight yet one judge scored it against Hopkins.

Hopkins has never won a fight via gift decision or even a reasonably debatable decision.
One the flip side he has had reasonably debatable decisions go against him(Taylor 1 and 2, Calzaghe) but I can't sit here say he's ever been blatantly robbed either.

Benefit of the doubt?
On two occasions he has ventured to his opponents backyard, got dropped twice during the fight and came away with a draw.
Both decisions could reasonably have went to the hometown fighter but he came away with a draw and a rematch order both times. Yes, those decisions could reasonably have went to Hopkins too but we know that's not how boxing usually works.
He didn't win but he avoided the loss that judges usually hang on the foreign fighter who just had a tough fight with the hometown fighter.
That seems like receiving the benefit of the doubt to me.

I have a spare $100 ticket to Hopkins-Kovalev because my friend can't make it from Baltimore, free to any BoxRec posters. I'm over in New York from the UK and travelling down to the fight on Saturday. Can meet you there or send the ticket to you by Ticketmaster ticket transfer. PM me if you are interested.

Perseus wrote:

KBB wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:B-Hop by technical decision robbery in an ugly fight with Kovalev being badly cut over both eyes by Hopkins head butts.

When have you ever seen Hopkins given a victory in a robbery??

I've seen Hopkins not being given the benefit of the doubt in all of his close bouts, even Calzaghe (a Foreigner) got a decision over him in the USA.

He clearly dominated Shumenov is his last fight yet one judge scored it against Hopkins.

Hopkins has never won a fight via gift decision or even a reasonably debatable decision.
One the flip side he has had reasonably debatable decisions go against him(Taylor 1 and 2, Calzaghe) but I can't sit here say he's ever been blatantly robbed either.

Benefit of the doubt?
On two occasions he has ventured to his opponents backyard, got dropped twice during the fight and came away with a draw.
Both decisions could reasonably have went to the hometown fighter but he came away with a draw and a rematch order both times. Yes, those decisions could reasonably have went to Hopkins too but we know that's not how boxing usually works.
He didn't win but he avoided the loss that judges usually hang on the foreign fighter who just had a tough fight with the hometown fighter.
That seems like receiving the benefit of the doubt to me.

Well if I'm correct in my thinking regarding those two fights where you say he received the benefit of the doubt, as I recall he was winning those fights by the slimmest of margins when got dropped by the time the end of the bout came (Mercado and Pascal, I believe you are referring to them). The Pascal fight wasn't as close as people made it out to be (at least the 1st bout), the second fight BHop put a lot of distance and made it more obvious than the first, the same can be easily stated about the 2nd Mercado fight as he won it by TKO.

The point is that this guy (Freedom) is obviously a Class A Bigot based on his racially insulting raves on the other thread and his overly favorable views regarding how he think Kovalev will get slighted vs BHop based on his "perceived" favoritism that the so called "black" Hopkins is or will receive from the judges or favor from the Referee but he (Freedom btw, a stupid name to call oneself when he'd prefer a world where Blacks are enslaved) is under yet another delusion that there will be some cheating towards the fighter with white skin.

I love how Bigots/Racist/Hatemongers try to play themselves off as the victims.

The age thing works both ways if we have to hear about it every single time he wins then it must mean something when he loses too.
Can't talk about what a big deal it is when the old man wins then act like anyone that beats him didn't just beat an old man.
This man's prime was in late 90's two divisions south of where he is now.............................Kovalev is supposed to win this fight period.

I think people make a big deal of the age because it's so rare for someone to be giving world class performances at nearly 50. To me that means that if Hopkins loses the logical response should be that Kovalev beat a good fighter, one who has been lauded for his recent efforts because he's showing impressive ability at an age when no other boxer has to my knowledge.

To be fair though mate, you did say before how the likes of Shumenov and Cloud and co were able to land on Hopkins to a decent degree so in a way would the win over the current Hopkins be that great?

I mention those instances (Murat, not Shumenov by the way) because I feel that people gloss over them and instead get caught in the narrative of BHOP schooling much younger opponents as if they were totally outclassed from start to finish when they weren't. He still clearly beat top 10-15 fighters in Cloud, Shumenov, and Murat though, as well as Pascal a bit further back, and that makes his recent record is among the best at the weight. He is a legitimate top three fighter in the division based on either ability or resume in my view, and I think that a win over him would reflect well on Kovalev even if Hopkins isn't the fighter he once was.

Bhop 115 - 113 or 116 - 112.

crusader wrote:

The age thing works both ways if we have to hear about it every single time he wins then it must mean something when he loses too.
Can't talk about what a big deal it is when the old man wins then act like anyone that beats him didn't just beat an old man.
This man's prime was in late 90's two divisions south of where he is now.............................Kovalev is supposed to win this fight period.

I think people make a big deal of the age because it's so rare for someone to be giving world class performances at nearly 50. To me that means that if Hopkins loses the logical response should be that Kovalev beat a good fighter, one who has been lauded for his recent efforts because he's showing impressive ability at an age when no other boxer has to my knowledge.

To be fair though mate, you did say before how the likes of Shumenov and Cloud and co were able to land on Hopkins to a decent degree so in a way would the win over the current Hopkins be that great?

I mention those instances (Murat, not Shumenov by the way) because I feel that people gloss over them and instead get caught in the narrative of BHOP schooling much younger opponents as if they were totally outclassed from start to finish when they weren't. He still clearly beat top 10-15 fighters in Cloud, Shumenov, and Murat though, as well as Pascal a bit further back, and that makes his recent record is among the best at the weight. He is a legitimate top three fighter in the division based on either ability or resume in my view, and I think that a win over him would reflect well on Kovalev even if Hopkins isn't the fighter he once was.

What's amazing is that these very same people who are saying how what Hopkins is doing at his advanced age is no big deal are very self-same Hypocrites that will be lauding heaps of praise upon Kovalev should he win and saying how he beat a Legend who was beating guys half his age.

Mark my words should the upset happen.

I think it might go something like this

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oWuhdLVSQtY

crusader wrote:

The age thing works both ways if we have to hear about it every single time he wins then it must mean something when he loses too.
Can't talk about what a big deal it is when the old man wins then act like anyone that beats him didn't just beat an old man.
This man's prime was in late 90's two divisions south of where he is now.............................Kovalev is supposed to win this fight period.

I think people make a big deal of the age because it's so rare for someone to be giving world class performances at nearly 50. To me that means that if Hopkins loses the logical response should be that Kovalev beat a good fighter, one who has been lauded for his recent efforts because he's showing impressive ability at an age when no other boxer has to my knowledge.

To be fair though mate, you did say before how the likes of Shumenov and Cloud and co were able to land on Hopkins to a decent degree so in a way would the win over the current Hopkins be that great?

I mention those instances (Murat, not Shumenov by the way) because I feel that people gloss over them and instead get caught in the narrative of BHOP schooling much younger opponents as if they were totally outclassed from start to finish when they weren't. He still clearly beat top 10-15 fighters in Cloud, Shumenov, and Murat though, as well as Pascal a bit further back, and that makes his recent record is among the best at the weight. He is a legitimate top three fighter in the division based on either ability or resume in my view, and I think that a win over him would reflect well on Kovalev even if Hopkins isn't the fighter he once was.

Valid points as usual :)

Shumenov's and Murat's boxrec ratings were 136-138, which is certainly below top 15. Shumenov is a pure fraud with a title gifted to him and no decent opponents beside Campilo who beat him twice.

Having said that, a win over Hopkins would still be a great achievement.

... Hopkins does look like an old man:



and I doubt that he was able to get under Kovalev's skin, as Sergey doesn't understand most of what Bernard is saying. Both look relaxed:

I just find it hard to believe that Hopkins someone who has never been knocked out or even seriously hurt will get KO'd on Saturday. Even the likes of Jones, Tarver, De La Hoya, and Trinidad couldn't even hurt him. Now Kovalev is a stronger and harder puncher than those guys but he's not necessarily a "better" puncher. Oscar and Trinidad knew how to finish off top opposition even though they weren't as strong as Kovalev. That's different than KOing a gatekeeper. We don't even know if Kovalev can KO fighters on the level of Pascal yet.

Got a weird feeling that Hopkins might knock Kovalev out which is a mad one i know considering he hasnt knocked anyone out for about 200 years.

Bernard Hopkins (173.5) vs. Sergey Kovalev (174.5)

lefty wrote:Got a weird feeling that Hopkins might knock Kovalev out which is a mad one i know considering he hasnt knocked anyone out for about 200 years.

Not a weird feeling. Just a ridiculously stupid feeling.

IKSRTFO wrote:I just find it hard to believe that Hopkins someone who has never been knocked out or even seriously hurt will get KO'd on Saturday. Even the likes of Jones, Tarver, De La Hoya, and Trinidad couldn't even hurt him. Now Kovalev is a stronger and harder puncher than those guys but he's not necessarily a "better" puncher. Oscar and Trinidad knew how to finish off top opposition even though they weren't as strong as Kovalev. That's different than KOing a gatekeeper. We don't even know if Kovalev can KO fighters on the level of Pascal yet.

Pascal dropped and/or hurt him a bunch of times. Kovalev is a better puncher than Pascal in my view, has a more diverse attack, and is a much better finisher. The most recent fight you mentioned happened 8 years ago, assuming you mean the first Jones bout and not the rematch against the shot to shit version, and I don't think any of those fighters punched as hard as Kovalev.

And while it's true that Kov hasn't KO'd anyone like Hopkins, that doesn't mean he can't. Jermain Taylor hadn't beaten anyone close to Hopkins' level before their first bout, yet he went on to beat him twice. In turn Pavlik hadn't beaten anyone like Taylor, then he went on to beat him twice.

lefty wrote:Got a weird feeling that Hopkins might knock Kovalev out which is a mad one i know considering he hasnt knocked anyone out for about 200 years.

Been watching too much of that clip of Kov getting dropped?

Kov: 174.5
Hop: 173.5

crusader wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:I just find it hard to believe that Hopkins someone who has never been knocked out or even seriously hurt will get KO'd on Saturday. Even the likes of Jones, Tarver, De La Hoya, and Trinidad couldn't even hurt him. Now Kovalev is a stronger and harder puncher than those guys but he's not necessarily a "better" puncher. Oscar and Trinidad knew how to finish off top opposition even though they weren't as strong as Kovalev. That's different than KOing a gatekeeper. We don't even know if Kovalev can KO fighters on the level of Pascal yet.

Pascal dropped and/or hurt him a bunch of times. Kovalev is a better puncher than Pascal in my view, has a more diverse attack, and is a much better finisher. The most recent fight you mentioned happened 8 years ago, assuming you mean the first Jones bout and not the rematch against the shot to poo version, and I don't think any of those fighters punched as hard as Kovalev.

And while it's true that Kov hasn't KO'd anyone like Hopkins, that doesn't mean he can't. Jermain Taylor hadn't beaten anyone close to Hopkins' level before their first bout, yet he went on to beat him twice. In turn Pavlik hadn't beaten anyone like Taylor, then he went on to beat him twice.

lefty wrote:Got a weird feeling that Hopkins might knock Kovalev out which is a mad one i know considering he hasnt knocked anyone out for about 200 years.

Been watching too much of that clip of Kov getting dropped?

Yeah but Pascal is awkward and fast, both of which Kovalev aren't. Kovalev hasn't never faced a fighter like Hopkins but BHop has seen his fair share of Kovalevs.

KBB wrote: Yeah but Pascal is awkward and fast, both of which Kovalev aren't. Kovalev hasn't never faced a fighter like Hopkins but BHop has seen his fair share of Kovalevs.

For example ? Just don't bring that Pavlik shit.

He'd never seen anything like Pascal, Dawson, or Taylor before either? There's really nothing fancy about these guys, so I find it hard to believe that throughout his lengthy career BHOP had never faced anyone with similar attributes. It's true that Pascal is faster than Kovalev, but his workrate is also terrible and that meshes well with Hopkins' style. Kov is more active and has a more diverse range of attack, and to me those qualities should help him land.

Also, Hopkins is favored in a poll on Boxing News's website by nearly 100 votes. He's also favored in this poll and a major media poll.

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/who-win ... ts-decide/