BoxRec

Suddenly it seems like Hopkins - Eastman might happen.

Hopkins:"There's a couple of names being thrown around. It might Sturm, it might be the winner of Mosley-Wright. It will be someone credible. No guaranteed date, but my date is Jan. 20" http://www.boxingtalk.net/pages/members901.htm


My list of possible opponents for Hopkins twentieth defence are:

1. Felix Sturm
Felix Sturm was the most likely opponent for Hopkins, BUT, now there are reports saying: "German middle Felix Sturm, the ex-WBO champ, will next fight December 4 in Berlin on the undercard to Universum´s and Sauerland Event´s joint venture" http://boxingtalk.net/pages/free952.htm ... 4948ccbc4c if this is true, then a fight with Hopkins in January is NOT LIKELY

2. Winky
Winky don't push for a fight with Hopkins at all: "I would rather fight Tito. I respect Bernard a whole lot but I would rather fight Tito. He just came back, he looked sharp and for me there's no bigger fight than Tito. Once I win, hopefully me and Tito can do a deal, but I won't do it until after I'm done with Mosley."
I think it's safe to say that Hopkins - Winky is NOT LIKELY

3. Tito
Much the same as Winky, Tito don't look for a fight with Hopkins at all.
Hopkins - Tito is NOT LIKELY

4. Sam Soliman
Soliman is IBF's number one, but Hopkins just did his IBF mandatory defend, and Soliman brings nothing else to the table so
Hopkins - Soliman is NOT LIKELY

5. De la Hoya
I can see Hopkins fighting De la Hoya again, but still, it was a boring fight, and no one wants a rematch.
Hopkins - De la Hoya is NOT LIKELY

6. Jermain Taylor
Taylor is not calling Hopkins out, and he fights Joppy in December.
Hopkins - Taylor is NOT LIKELY

7. Howard Eastman
Eastman, much like Soliman, brings nothing to the table. But Hopkins has faced his mandatory challengers (Daniels IBF, Hakkar WBC, Joppy WBA, Allen IBF). Now it is WBC's turn again, and that challenger is supposed to be Eastman. So in lack of other opponents.
Hopkins - Eastman is LIKELY!!!


A little reservation:
"Hennesey has been unable to reach an agreement with Eastman, who has sent letters to promoters and to the WBC, indicating he’s in a dispute with Hennesey and views his contract with him as terminated." http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper= ... ryid=95730
I don't know if this is good or bad for a possible fight between Hopkins-Eastman.......

Hellephant wrote:A little reservation:
"Hennesey has been unable to reach an agreement with Eastman, who has sent letters to promoters and to the WBC, indicating he’s in a dispute with Hennesey and views his contract with him as terminated." http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper= ... ryid=95730
I don't know if this is good or bad for a possible fight between Hopkins-Eastman.......

Good research Hellephant, indeed the quote is legit.

Some of the more "in the know" posters here have been suggesting this for sometime but its the first time I have seen it written in the press. My one problem with the source is that it is not researched enough to spell Eastman's current promoters name properly.

I think this poses a bad problem for Eastman's chances at securing a big belt. Hennessey seems certain that Howard will fight in a WBC title eliminator whoever is in the opposite corner. However, if Eastman doesn't want to work for the promoter and nobody (i.e. Taylor) wants the fight (for whatever reason) - then can anybody seriously think this eliminator fight is going to happen.

Whilst I can see Eastman's frustrations at being kept waiting and the title opportunity not happening I think he is fucked no matter what decision he makes. He will need a promoter (cause he will not be able to compete forpurse bids on his own), who is going to promote a 34 year old, unexiting fighter with a reputation of being hard to manage? Its not as if the title shot is a certainty anymore.

As for Eastman vs Hopkins? It won't happen untill unless it is forced, not because Hopkins will lose (which he won't) or because the Executioner is scared at all - it is because there are more attractive matches for him to finish is career.

Felix Sturm is a bigger name in America now than Eastman, The Winky vs Moseley winner AND loser offer a better financial situation for Bernard. If Bernard has a voluntary to make, I believe it will be one of those three.

allegedly said this morning in his newspaper column "I have more chance of fighting Hopkins than Eastman does"...i assume that fight would be for the WBU title Frank?

Even if Sturm fights in December, it wouldn't rule him out of a January shot. He could easily fight a stiff as a tuneup and as long as he's not cut, he'll still be up for it.

Sturm is who HBO wants for the 20th defense. They feel he was robbed against DLH and should get his rightful shot at the crown.

I would assume Eastman's best chance to face Hopkins would be for Bernard to stay at 160 (quite likely) and keep making defenses. He'll be in the game another 2 years at least, so it's still possible Eastman will line up after Sturm.

steve689 wrote:allegedly said this morning in his newspaper column "I have more chance of fighting Hopkins than Eastman does"...i assume that fight would be for the WBU title Frank?

I wish there was some way allegedly could be made to fight Hopkins.

Sturm deserves the opportunity. Hopkins-Eastman is a total waste of time. Eastman couldn't even beat William Joppy, for crying out loud, and his opponents since then look worse than a typical WBU champ's.

Hopkins should fight Sturm, then rematch Trinidad, and then hang it up.

Sturm outworked a fat over the hill welterweight....so what? DeLaHoya was in godawful shape, was disinterested, and doesn't belong at middleweight. Aside from losing to Oscar, what else has sturm done?

I think Eastman would have knocked Oscar into a cocked hat had he fought Sturm....

However, the American fight fans would probably rather see Hopkins v Sturm than Hopkins v Eastman, Eastman has slipped off their radar now.

Iv heard mutterings form I cant remember where that Eastman may sign for fight academy.

They have a pretty good record (better than most Brit promos anyway) of getting decent World titles in (Woods v Johnson) but I aint sure they could get Hopkins v Eastman.

Also I think Trinidad is now WBC no1 so Hopkins will prob fight him next IMO.

Eastman is mandatory challenger if he beats Taylor, or if Taylor pulls out. Trinidad would have to pay a step-aside, or similar but he says he doesn't want Hop next in any case, why rush towards getting beat again?

I think it may be Sturm firstly because there is a feeling in the American
fight game that he was robbed against De La Hoya and I'm sure it
will appeal to Bernards ego to knock out a guy Oscar struggled with to make a statement, also he is WBO No1 contender. I know he is fighting
in early December but it is only an eight rounder and I doubt he will be facing anyone too taxing. I think Hopkins will stop him I don't think Sturm is that special to be honset.

So Hopkins could defend his newly acquired WBO belt. Doesn't being WBO #1 preclude you fighting for the big three's belts?

I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Anyone know when Bernard has to have fought his Mandatory by? There's probably no rush, has he fought a WBC mandatory in the last 18 months?

Used to be the case but there none of the other three have asked Hopkins to give up his belt so I guess he can defend it as long as he keeps up with mandatories. I think it was mainly the WBC for example they asked Hamed to choose and Ricardo Lopez but they list WBO champions in their latest rankings so I think they have kissed and made up.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Sturm outworked a fat over the hill welterweight....so what? DeLaHoya was in godawful shape, was disinterested, and doesn't belong at middleweight. Aside from losing to Oscar, what else has sturm done?

I think Eastman would have knocked Oscar into a cocked hat had he fought Sturm....

However, the American fight fans would probably rather see Hopkins v Sturm than Hopkins v Eastman, Eastman has slipped off their radar now.

To be fair, what have the other mandatory contendors done lately? Eastman beat a washed-up Jerry Elliot and Soliman beat a washed-up Ray Joval. They've done no more or less than Sturm both lately and throughout their careers against other top 160 fighters to be awarded a shot. I believe all 3 are legitimate contendors and should get their opportunities, but I don't see how any definitively edging out the others.

Yes, but all of the men you mentioned have the benefit of a proven track record at middleweight. DeLaHoya was never a middleweight, I reckon there are at least 10 middleweights, if not more who would beat him hands down.

People get bamboozled by Oscar, but remember that his he hasn't looked really effective against top flight competition since welterweight, and he's probably a natural light welterweight in his prime, or maybe even lightweight.

He struggled with Mosley (though he should have won) at light middle, and Winky Wright pissed all over Mosley, so using Mosley as a measuring stick for him at light middle isn't very accurate. The win over Vargas was impressive, but Vargas may already have been finished going into that fight.

I doubt we will ever see Oscar at middleweight again, maybe at light middle, but I think he's not the best at light middleweight either. I would pick Winky Wright to beat him if they ever fought.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
He struggled with Mosley (though he should have won) at light middle.

Harsh, DLH won clearly apart from one round it was not really a struggle - I thought he boxed brilliantly.

Call me naive but why can't we have Eastman-Sturm with the winner to face Hopkins? In days gone by Taylor, Eastman, DLH, Hopkins, Sturm etc probably would have fought each other three times a piece by now

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
He struggled with Mosley (though he should have won) at light middle.

Harsh, DLH won clearly apart from one round it was not really a struggle - I thought he boxed brilliantly.

What I mean is this. Winky was able to stand right in front of Mosley in the pocket, and pick him off at will. DeLaHoya was very wary of his power, and boxed on retreat flicking the jab out.

Mosley's power was a problem for DLH, whereas Winky was able to treat it with disdain and dish out quite a beating to Shane.

It's the difference between a solid light middle light Winky, and a blown up light welterweight like DLH.

In days gone by Taylor, Eastman, DLH, Hopkins, Sturm etc probably would have fought each other three times a piece by now

I think that is the biggest factor in boxing's lack of interest over the last few years. When my mates tell me that boxing is on the way out I can point to great fights in the last year (most of which they are barely aware of) but no great rivalries...

There's a few.

Bowe v Holyfield
Morales v Barrera
Ward v Gatti

All in recent times.

Thompson v Eubank (ok only 2)

Generally I think there are less, but there's bound to be, fighters do not fight anywhere near as often, and a loss on the record is regarded as a much more serious matter now. Everyone's protecting that 0.

Fair enough, I guess I was being a bit over the top saying there are none but I guess I mean there are none that the average sports fan will have heard of. (He says trying to justify his poorly thought out post)

As ever it needs the heavyweights to lead the way and Bowe v Holyfield was 10 years ago. Even if Barrera and Morales deserve to be well known I'm not sure they have much fame over here.

Most of the best champions out there now (Hopkins, Tszyu, Morales) have losses on their records...it doesn't detract from their greatness but I'm sure you're right about the protecting of the 0. When you read threads here you get people writing boxers off after one loss so I guess it's not just the casual fans who have a tendency to look at the record on paper and ignore the merits of the fights involved in that record.

If promoters could just learn the lessons of Gatti v Ward and see that a result can be secondary to the performance then boxing would be in a much healthier state...

I just read that back...never going to happen. What was I thinking???

RC wrote:Fair enough, I guess I was being a bit over the top saying there are none but I guess I mean there are none that the average sports fan will have heard of. (He says trying to justify his poorly thought out post)

As ever it needs the heavyweights to lead the way and Bowe v Holyfield was 10 years ago. Even if Barrera and Morales deserve to be well known I'm not sure they have much fame over here.

Most of the best champions out there now (Hopkins, Tszyu, Morales) have losses on their records...it doesn't detract from their greatness but I'm sure you're right about the protecting of the 0. When you read threads here you get people writing boxers off after one loss so I guess it's not just the casual fans who have a tendency to look at the record on paper and ignore the merits of the fights involved in that record.

If promoters could just learn the lessons of Gatti v Ward and see that a result can be secondary to the performance then boxing would be in a much healthier state...

It's an interesting case, because Gatti and Ward had already been 'written off' both were seen as past it, Ward more so, Gatti was seen as being damaged goods after a beating from DLH, and both were just seen as limited fighters with lots of guts.

Now Gatti is edging closer to hall of fame status, and some regard him as an elite fighter, others not. It's not until we see him in against someone like Mayweather, Tszyu, Mitchell, Hatton, etc that we'll know if he's as good as he appeared against Dorin.

Had either Gatti or Ward been considered elite level fighters, with unbeaten records, their bouts would almost certainly never have happened. Boxing would be worse off, and so would they.

In a sense, the losses were the best thing that happened to them, it allowed them to meet one another in the ring, make lots of money, go down in history, and now Gatti is one of the top 5 draws in the sport. Fantastic, wish there was more of it.

Danny Williams is another example. Loses to Samil Sam, is considered washed up, Tyson's camp pick the wrong guy as a patsy, and then Danny explodes onto the scene, now he's getting a shot at Vitali. Who would have thought that a year and a half ago?

Maybe this is a cunning new tactic for heavyweights - compile an average record so that you can look like a credible top 20-ish fighter, get knocked out by an average fighter who also has a semi-credible record then you will be matched with one of the many "big" name fighters who are trying to score some easy wins for their next tilt at a version of the heavyweight title. Managers will see you as a decent tune-up without any real danger to their fighter, someone to make their boy look good.

Once you have the shot at the "big" name, fight at your real level, beat them thereby securing a shot yourself...simple. 8)

Sounds far easier to me than the traditional route of trying to beat all the other contenders to prove yourself worthy....

Hellephant wrote:Suddenly it seems like Hopkins - Eastman might happen.

Hopkins:"There's a couple of names being thrown around. It might Sturm, it might be the winner of Mosley-Wright. It will be someone credible. No guaranteed date, but my date is Jan. 20" http://www.boxingtalk.net/pages/members901.htm


My list of possible opponents for Hopkins twentieth defence are:

1. Felix Sturm
Felix Sturm was the most likely opponent for Hopkins, BUT, now there are reports saying: "German middle Felix Sturm, the ex-WBO champ, will next fight December 4 in Berlin on the undercard to Universum´s and Sauerland Event´s joint venture" http://boxingtalk.net/pages/free952.htm ... 4948ccbc4c if this is true, then a fight with Hopkins in January is NOT LIKELY

2. Winky
Winky don't push for a fight with Hopkins at all: "I would rather fight Tito. I respect Bernard a whole lot but I would rather fight Tito. He just came back, he looked sharp and for me there's no bigger fight than Tito. Once I win, hopefully me and Tito can do a deal, but I won't do it until after I'm done with Mosley."
I think it's safe to say that Hopkins - Winky is NOT LIKELY

3. Tito
Much the same as Winky, Tito don't look for a fight with Hopkins at all.
Hopkins - Tito is NOT LIKELY

4. Sam Soliman
Soliman is IBF's number one, but Hopkins just did his IBF mandatory defend, and Soliman brings nothing else to the table so
Hopkins - Soliman is NOT LIKELY

5. De la Hoya
I can see Hopkins fighting De la Hoya again, but still, it was a boring fight, and no one wants a rematch.
Hopkins - De la Hoya is NOT LIKELY

6. Jermain Taylor
Taylor is not calling Hopkins out, and he fights Joppy in December.
Hopkins - Taylor is NOT LIKELY

7. Howard Eastman
Eastman, much like Soliman, brings nothing to the table. But Hopkins has faced his mandatory challengers (Daniels IBF, Hakkar WBC, Joppy WBA, Allen IBF). Now it is WBC's turn again, and that challenger is supposed to be Eastman. So in lack of other opponents.
Hopkins - Eastman is LIKELY!!!


A little reservation:
"Hennesey has been unable to reach an agreement with Eastman, who has sent letters to promoters and to the WBC, indicating he’s in a dispute with Hennesey and views his contract with him as terminated." http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper= ... ryid=95730
I don't know if this is good or bad for a possible fight between Hopkins-Eastman.......

What did I say, what did I say???

GL: Will it be Felix Sturm or Howard Eastman?

Bernard Hopkins: "I don't know. I got a mandatory with Howard Eastman due. Felix Sturm is fighting in December and he may not be available. But I'm going to go ahead and fulfill the obligations of the mandatory. It looks like Howard Eastman because you know I'm not going to give up any of my belts and Eastman is a credible opponent for my twentieth defense.

"I saw his fight with Joppy so I know he's a worthy opponent. He's definitely a lot more credible than Morrade Hakkar."

GL: Is it disappointing to have follow the biggest win of your career with a Howard Eastman, who lost to William Joppy right after the Trinidad fight?

BH: "Naw, because everyone else is unavailable. Name someone big; Shane Mosley is fighting Winky Wright and that's a big fight. Jermain Taylor is not ready to step up to the plate. And there's really nobody else out there that means anything to the public. Other than a rematch there's rarely back to back big fights.

"There's always something in between. And in my case, it's my twentieth defense. Eastman is a credible guy but everything changes when it comes to who Bernard fights now. I think people are starting to believe I'm the second coming of George Foreman.

I not just predicted this one, I also pushed for it!!!!

Hellephant: Howard Eastman is by far your toughest opponent in the division, why don't you fight him?

BERNARD_HOPKINS: One is, he never fought in the States. He needs to make a real push to want to fight. All we need to do is see if HBO wants. He needs to get in line like I got in line and then he has to deliver. If he stays around long enough, he'll get a shot, but I duck no one.