BoxRec

Well, since I figued he's a British fighter, I'd ask you guys. I've only seen Eastman twice, and I was wondering what chances you give him against Bhop. I'm thinking Bhop UD, maybe 9-3 or 8-4 rounds. Anyone see different? If so, why?

seems about right... unless Eastman does something vastly different, he will get outworked by Hops!!!
Hopkins wont hurt him though i dont think, he might hurt hopkins

Well, first of all, I wouldn't begrudge Eastman the victory: Hopkins is loaded and has secured his place in boxing history (for a good while, at least), whereas Eastman hasn't truly tasted the top dollar in boxing, and I remember on Sky years ago they were mentioning how he used to sleep in cars, etc. when he first came to Britain.

Saying that, I think he only wins if Hopkins fights down to his level. Hopkins could feel his age and get outworked himself, but realistically the chances of that are highly slim; it's not like Hopkins has shifted circa 30 pounds in 6 months before this fight, the man knows what he's doing in the gym.

To be honest knockout, I find it hard to picture Howard hurting him - not because I don't think he could if he landed flush, the problem is he would have to likely work hard for such an opening, and I'm not sure Howard is capable of that. I think Hopkins' right hand (he has a deadly right lead uppercut) is more likely to hurt Eastman if one catches him out the blue in the middle rounds and thenafter.

Hopkins by knockout 9-11 rounds. I thought Eastman was hurt a couple of times against Joppy and he cant crack an egg. You may laugh at that comment but something was making Eastman tentative in that fight, not long after he'd caught a few shots from Joppy I seem to recall.

There's a world of difference between this level and where eastman has been for most of his career. He struggled against Joppy so unless BHop gets old overnight I give him zero chance.

My head says Hopkins UD (9 rounds to 3)

Eastman's only chance of winning is to stop Hopkins, which is unlikely. Possible but unlikely. If it goes to the judges scorecards...in America...with an American fighter (the champ)...then... well.. Eastmanhas lost before the scores are even read out.

A flash (and somewhat lucky) knockout is Eastman's only hope. A kind of Wayne Alexander vs Takaloo style knockout is what I'm picturing.

007 wrote:Hopkins by knockout 9-11 rounds. I thought Eastman was hurt a couple of times against Joppy and he cant crack an egg. You may laugh at that comment but something was making Eastman tentative in that fight, not long after he'd caught a few shots from Joppy I seem to recall.

There's a world of difference between this level and where eastman has been for most of his career. He struggled against Joppy so unless BHop gets old overnight I give him zero chance.

Well said. I noticed this too. Eastman was wary of forcing the fight against Joppy for good reason, he was getting clouted with upperrcuts and right hands all the time. I don't know he was that badly hurt, but he knew he would end up getting hurt if he kept walking into shots.

He took something like 12 uppercuts in one of the middle rounds, I remember counting them.

Eastman can crack though, he hurt Jerry Elliot, who is practically a LH.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

007 wrote:Hopkins by knockout 9-11 rounds. I thought Eastman was hurt a couple of times against Joppy and he cant crack an egg. You may laugh at that comment but something was making Eastman tentative in that fight, not long after he'd caught a few shots from Joppy I seem to recall.

There's a world of difference between this level and where eastman has been for most of his career. He struggled against Joppy so unless BHop gets old overnight I give him zero chance.

Well said. I noticed this too. Eastman was wary of forcing the fight against Joppy for good reason, he was getting clouted with upperrcuts and right hands all the time. I don't know he was that badly hurt, but he knew he would end up getting hurt if he kept walking into shots.

He took something like 12 uppercuts in one of the middle rounds, I remember counting them.

Eastman can crack though, he hurt Jerry Elliot, who is practically a LH.

Lets see what happens to Eastman once Hopkins starts crashing in right hands, uppercuts, hooks my bet is Eastman goes into his shell much like he did in the middle rounds against Joppy. Hopkins stops him on his feet in the late rounds.

Eastman can hit a bit but landing flush shots on Elliot and Hopkins are two completely different ballgames!!

If it goes the distance the only rounds I can see Eastman winning are ones Hopkins takes off for a rest.

People are saying Eastman needs to set a pace but that is not his style he likes to sit back and pick his shots and counter. I've never seen Eastman force a fight 3 minutes of every round just not his way and he's not about to start doing that now after all this time.

Yes, this fight could go the way of Watson's challenge against McCallum. Watson was a natural counterpuncher, but knew he could never win using that style against a better counterpuncher. Instead he had to force the fight, exchanging his naturally cautious style for an all out attack, and though he acquitted himself well against the more experienced man, ultimately he was stopped.

Eastman's tactics are hard to predict.

If he goes forward he gets picked off.

If he tries to get inside and wrestle and box, he gets picked off.

If he stays on the outside and tries to outbox Hopkins, he has a slim chance, a slim, slim chance.
But I would rate his chances of 'nicking' a win at zero.

He has to dominate from the outside.

Eastmans best chance I think is to get inside and go toe to toe and hope to land enough to get Hopkins hurt. Not as easy as it sounds though against someone as 'cute' as Bernard. If he tries to counter or box outside I think he'll get his earholes boxed off.

DavidPayne wrote:Eastman's tactics are hard to predict.

If he goes forward he gets picked off.

If he tries to get inside and wrestle and box, he gets picked off.

If he stays on the outside and tries to outbox Hopkins, he has a slim chance, a slim, slim chance.
But I would rate his chances of 'nicking' a win at zero.

He has to dominate from the outside.

That's been my thoughts, but Hopkins is more than capable of coming forward and Tagging him. I think early on he has to do something to put pressure on Hop and take some rounds. On the inside though Hopkins is easily the better fighter.

Hopkins is the better fighter inside, but I think Eastman needs to be there taking 2 to land 1 if he can take Hopkins shots and land big shots of his own perhaps he can hurt him. I dont see winning at range at all.

The only element I can see being in Eastman's favour is if he comes in hungrier than Bhop ( a la Tarver and Johnson in their recent "upsets" )

reading some of the stuff recently I had no idea he had such a tough time growing up and he can bring a lot of that frustration and bitterness to his performance should he care to.

He shouldn't win, but I shall certainly be cheering him on not least because I want to see what the Yanks make of his post fight interview if he does.

That being said,this is a fight where I genuinely respect both fighters, so as long as it is a great fight, I will be happy

Slapsie

Slapsie Maxie wrote:The only element I can see being in Eastman's favour is if he comes in hungrier than Bhop ( a la Tarver and Johnson in their recent "upsets" )

reading some of the stuff recently I had no idea he had such a tough time growing up and he can bring a lot of that frustration and bitterness to his performance should he care to.

He shouldn't win, but I shall certainly be cheering him on not least because I want to see what the Yanks make of his post fight interview if he does.

That being said,this is a fight where I genuinely respect both fighters, so as long as it is a great fight, I will be happy

Slapsie

I just hope that Eastman doesn't coast to a narrow points loss, which is what part of me suspects. The fight could turn out like Hopkins against Keith Holmes, with Bernard doing enough to win a fairly close but realtively comfortable points decision. I'd really like to see Eastman give it his very best effort, shit or bust. I won't lose any respect for him for losing, after all, he's in with the best, but I want to see a maximum effort, which is something I don't know if I've ever seen from Eastman.

Im sure no one will agree with me but I beleive that Hopkins is slightly over-rated. I know how stupid that may sound but, let me try and explain.

His best wins are over two welterweights. Since beating one of them, Trinidad, his competiton has not been stellar. Ofcourse Dela Hoya is a world class boxer, but he was no threat at middleweight. Allen, Joppy, Hakkar and Daniels werent ever going to give Bernard any problems. Yet he looked far from spectacular in any of those.

I dont mean spectactular in the exciting sense, I mean it in that he really only did what he was expected to do. Sure, he mullered Joppy, but he was well past it when they met.

Hopkins is no doubt a great middleweight, but since the demise of Jones, boxing fans, needed someone to take his place a top of the P4P rankings. Suddenly, (and I mean that, there were quite a few people picking Dela hoya to topple him!) he is an invicible force.

Hes riding high off the Hoya victory, spits a great story and is as tough as old boots. But he is 40, and although he may not have showed any signs of slowing down, the opponents hes faced since Trinidad have hardly pushed him to see what hes really got.

Will Eastman push him to limit? Who knows, with a temperement like Howards its hard to tell. But dont count him out, because hopkins had somewhat of an easy ride(inside the ring) since trinidad and is lapping up his win over Oscar.

People are saying Hopkins never underestimates an opponent but his after all only human. There were signs in the the allen fight that he was slipping just a little, he got tagged more than usual, so I wont be surprised
if howard gets off more shots than expected.

For the record I dont think Howard will beat hopkins, but that doesnt mean Hopkins is amazing, it just means howard isnt good enough.

Good luck to eastman, and lets hope if Hopkins wins he will finally go up in weight and prove himself there.

All Eastman's opponents could be heavyweights, I'd still rank victory in boxing matches over the likes of Trinidad and DLH higher. Remember, in the days of old, when the 154lb jr. middleweight didn't exist, we wouldn't even be having this discussion...

Certainly if you look at Hopkins' form post-Trinidad his claim to greatness might be seen as shaky. But look to his career before Trinidad fully - ignore that the fights were on undercards or had small crowds and look at the quality of the match-ups themselves, look at the manner in which Hopkins beat these guys...

Maybe you're right dbf, Hopkins is a little over-rated. Although he's undoubtedly very good, I certainly wouldn't put him in the same league as Monzon, Hagler or even Jones, and there have been several other middles who would have beaten him too. The length of his reign automatically places him among the elite in the history of the division, but I don't know how many of them he'd have beaten.

However, he is better than he's shown recently, and I think there are two reasons for those poor performances:

Firstly, I think he's been playing it safe. He's had his eyes on 20 defences, and big money fights for a while now. As a result he's only been willing to do the very minimum amount to win, and taking no risks at all in the process. The outlook has been very much; if the stoppage comes, it comes. If it doesn't...well, who cares? Which is fair enough I suppose, why get yourself into the lucrative position he has, and then chance your arm trying to impress people.

Secondly, I think he's always had the gift (or fault, depending on how you look at it) of fighting to suit the opposition. His performances have always been better when he faces better fighters, while fighting below his level of ability seems adversely affect his performance. It can't just be co-incidence that his best showings in recent years have come against Trinidad, Joppy, and Holmes, whilst his worst have come against Allen and Hakkar.

Monzon, Hagler or even Jones.

I would say Jones, Hagler or even Monzon would be more accurate - two defeats when past his best has clearly damaged Roy's legacy.

I think he should be ranked above Hagler and Monzon.

I think this is spot on. When Hopkins beat Keith Holmes, he did the minimum possible to win. I always suspected, and still do, that he deliberately avoided looking too good in case King chose to find a way to avoid putting Trinidad in there. Trinidad was a much better fighter than Holmes, and yet Hopkins dismantled and destroyed him.

It's a mark of a fighter's greatness that he is able to fight within himself and win. Nobody has even come close to beating Hopkins since Jones Jr, and given the number of styles he has fought, that impresses me.

I agree, in those days, when he was fighting in small venues grinding out impressive victories he was impressive. His limitations were shown against Jones, but theres no shame in that.

But now, and thats what im really dealing with, the present, people talk about him like hes untouchable, I think a lot of boxing fans want him to be more than he really is.

Hes fading, just not very fast.

In my honest opinion, if Jones had of got knocked off, people wouldnt be talking about hokins so highly. When Roy was on top, most of the boxing community was saying Bernard was solid but needed to step up to Jones, because thats where the real challenge was, not feasting on seond rate middleweights and blown up welters. Sure they were world class welters, but well out of their depth at 160.

Suddenly Roy is knocked off, and Mayweathers not good enough(in my opinion his resume is better than Hopkins and is the better p4p fighter in every department) so Hopkins shoulders the sport. Hes good, oh hes very good, but hes ripe for the picking.

by the way, check out this interview with eastman from the guardian. The guy is class, its a nice little read



Big interview with Howard Eastman

Donald McRae
Monday February 14, 2005
The Guardian

They're calling it Execution Day in the city of dreams. Bernard "The Executioner" Hopkins, regarded by many as the world's best pound-for-pound fighter and one of the greatest middleweights in boxing history, will make an unprecedented 20th successive defence of his undisputed title in Los Angeles on Saturday.

Hopkins has not lost a fight for 12 years. He is revered and feared for his relentless preparation and ferocious appetite for battle. His bleak perspective has barely shifted since the day he was released back into a Philadelphia ghetto after spending five years in jail for an armed robbery he committed at the age of 17.

"Tough times don't always last," Hopkins said last month, "but tough men do. I am the toughest and hardest fighter out there. This poor guy ain't got a prayer. He's in for a long and terrible night."

The "poor guy" is called Howard Eastman. He lives in Deptford and loves budgies and parrots, cockatoos and lovebirds because "their whistles are like opera to me. I'm captivated by their beauty."

Eastman is an eccentric who, when everyone ignored him, decided to remarket himself as a fighter by dying his hair and beard "old man white". He ended up looking like a 93-year-old professor of the ring. The strangeness does not even begin there. Years earlier, while boxing as an amateur, Eastman was a homeless vagabond who used to ride the Northern Line to stay warm at night before being forced back out on to the freezing London streets, where he would shiver in his sleep among rubbish bags. He survived to emerge as the most assured and downright prickly professional fighter in Britain. He now wants to become a preacher.


Eastman would have one hell of a story to sell to Hollywood if, somehow, he could beat Hopkins in LA. He just needs Denzel Washington to show up at ringside and decide that this miraculous saga deserves to be acted out on the glittering screen. There are only two problems, though - Eastman has to overcome Hopkins and then, even more improbably, soften his spiky character when a smoothie like Washington dares encroach on his time.

The first seems the easier task - for fighting comes more naturally to him than schmoozing. A belligerent Eastman astonished the US boxing media by insisting that he, rather than the formidable champion who holds all four belts peddled by the rival WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO organisations, was the world's best fighter. He caused further uproar by promising to knock out Hopkins inside five rounds.

"Have you been on holiday?" Eastman barks when I ask if he really planned to make such an outrageous prediction when he left Deptford for his training camp in Miami.

"No," I say in bemusement. "I just wondered how you plan to dominate Hopkins."

"Do your homework," Eastman instructs.

Eastman - a big, strong former European middleweight champion - is a crisp and accurate puncher who moves smoothly around the ring. He has sparred with great and very good fighters - from Thomas Hearns to Joe Calzaghe - who all praised his heavy-handed hitting. He has recorded 32 knockouts since turning pro in 1994. But in the biggest challenge of his 41-fight career, a WBA title bout against William Joppy in Las Vegas in 2001, Eastman suffered his only loss. It was, at least, controversial. Fans booed the decision only a few minutes after Eastman had knocked down Joppy in the last round. But, until then, Eastman had failed to impose himself.

"I didn't execute what I needed to do. But I learnt a lot that night. You have to get used to fighting a big-name American for the world title in their own backyard. After that experience I'm prepared for Hopkins."

Yet it's difficult to forget that in December 2003, in contrast to Eastman, Hopkins battered Joppy for an easy points victory. Hopkins has also crushed far more famous rivals like Félix Trinidad and Oscar de la Hoya. Five months ago a single body punch from Hopkins left the Golden Boy writhing on the canvas. Only the fact that De la Hoya was moving up in weight can partially dim the magnitude of that 19th title defence.

Hopkins had thirsted after a perfect 20 for years. The swaggering Executioner loves to remind us that the great Carlos Monzón and Marvin Hagler, the two middleweight icons who come closest to his record with their respective 14 and 12 defences, now lag behind him.

"I don't know nothing about that," Eastman counters. "Ask Hopkins."

Yet even Hopkins, who turned 40 last month, cannot go on forever. After the hype surrounding his battle with De la Hoya he might also underestimate his unheralded challenger from London.

"I have no idea what goes on in Hopkins's head," Eastman snaps.

He is not made much happier by the suggestion that, despite his forecast, he is set for the most arduous test of his career.

"Tax?" he snorts. "Are you an accountant?"

"Test," I say testily. "Hopkins looks pretty testing to me."

"I doubt it. If you study boxing and did your homework you would see my hardest test was in my last fight."

"You beat a Nigerian journeyman called Jerry Elliott in Nottingham," I say in an imitation of the class nerd.

"That guy was a heavyweight, man. I'm a middleweight. Figure it out. I was training to fight a middleweight and then at the last minute they put in a replacement. That guy was a heavyweight and he wasn't no bum. That's what you call a test."

Though the 34-year-old Eastman highlights his unbreakable religious faith, I still wonder how he will feel in those terrifying last few moments before climbing alone into the ring against Hopkins.

"Well, I am a man. We all suffer with nerves. Every fighter does. We get them butterflies flitting in the stomach. It's how we deal with them that counts.

"You have to look at boxing and life separately but each can help you in the other. By the grace of God I survived some bad times. There are things I've learnt in boxing that helped me outside the ring and some of my past hardship can help me against Hopkins. I can dig deep inside and know I can withstand a lot."

When he was 17, having arrived with his father and two brothers from Guyana two years earlier, Eastman was forced out of the family home off the Wandsworth Road. His father, Arnold, an aeronautical engineer, had had enough of his son's ill discipline. He kicked Howard out on to the street.

It sounds like an unbearably cruel reaction to some adolescent rebellion in a strange country. Yet, curiously, Eastman is far more serene while reflecting on his harsh past than when fielding more mundane boxing questions.

"I was homeless a long time. It made me grow up fast. I been independent ever since - for 17 years. I don't want to dwell on it but those London streets were cold and hard. The cold got in your bones. And I had nowhere to go but riding that train and sleeping with bins. Time moved slow. You can go right down when you're homeless. You can drink to escape. You can go crazy. I did none of that."

I'm struck most by the fact that Eastman, in the midst of such adversity, kept boxing on amateur bills. Having discovered his talent for fighting as a bullied schoolboy who eventually knocked down those who had once taunted him, Eastman was not about to be diverted from the ring by mere homelessness.

While admiring his sheer will, I allude to a past interview where he is quoted as saying he twice fought an accomplished amateur called Timmy Taylor during that horrendous time.

"Do your homework!" Eastman reminds me. "I fought Timmy Taylor once."

"I guess you won?" I suggest flatteringly, almost calling him "sir" in the process.

"Still on holiday?" Eastman chides. "I was homeless. I lost because of that reason."

Surely Eastman still feels anger towards his father. "No, man. Anger won't do me good. I pray a lot and God showed me how to forgive. My father had his reasons and he supports me in everything. Looking back I see this is one of the reasons I'm so close to God now. There had to be some kind of intervention to bring me to this point - where I'm on the verge of fulfilling my boyhood pugilistic dream."

"Pugilistic" is a nice, if arcane, word - but it has Chris Eubank written all over it. How much did Eastman look up to Eubank and, besides swapping a monocle for a geriatric beard, settle on a similarly haughty image?

"Where have you been?" Eastman asks. "That was just a publicity stunt - I've given up the white beard."

"I had noticed but the image sticks in my head. It always made me think of Eubank . . ."

"As a kid I watched Eubank, [Nigel] Benn and [Michael] Watson on TV. I didn't favour any of them but when it comes to the pugilistic department they were remarkable in different ways. I respected them. But I didn't copy anyone."

Eastman snorts more cogently than Eubank ever did when asked if Hopkins and the US fight cognoscenti respect him. "I got no idea. I'm not seeking respect."

He is interested, however, in the WBC middleweight title at stake on Saturday night. In a typically obtuse example of boxing politics Hopkins's three additional belts will not be contested. The IBF, WBA and WBO organisations have ordered Hopkins to face their different mandatory contenders as a way of earning yet more sanctioning fees.

Hopkins, incredibly, is the only current undisputed champion across boxing's myriad divisions and plethora of meaningless trinkets. Being even more opinionated than Eastman he has done it all on his own - refusing to sell himself to promoters like Don King or Bob Arum. Significantly his "Execution Day" defence against Eastman is being staged by his last victim in the ring - Oscar de la Hoya and his Golden Boy promotional outfit, who have just appointed Hopkins as their east coast president.

"You've got to admire Hopkins . . ."

"I only admire God, but I respect Hopkins. It's a tremendous feat. He's worked hard for a long time."

Eastman laughs mysteriously when asked why, unlike Hopkins, his defiant nature has not worked the same kind of magic in this country. One answer is that he is nowhere near as likeable as the amusing and garrulous Executioner - and he has yet to face the calibre of opponent Hopkins has defeated so consistently. Eastman is also ambivalent towards the whole nebulous concept of success. Whether refusing to play the accepted game with promoters and the media or sometimes simply "switching off" during a fight, as he did against Joppy, Eastman lacks Hopkins's concentrated focus. He seems to care less about his reputation both in and outside the ring.

"I have my own theory," Eastman says. "I was in the wrong place at the wrong time with people who didn't have my best interests at heart. God knows this is how it's supposed to be for me."

He will need some divine inspiration on Saturday - though any Hollywood mogul or mover who fancies turning the Howard Eastman story into a glitzy story of triumph against all odds will need more luck when approaching the man himself. Even Denzel Washington had better have done his homework and not been on holiday recently.

"You got it now," Eastman sighs. "God bless you."

I asked Howard a similar question as one in that interview at press conference. I said something along the lines of.

"Give the length of Hopkins' career, and all the different styles he has faced, what do you think you bring to the ring that he hasn't see before."

He laughed and said he wasn't there to 'answer trick questions.'

The truth is surely, that Eastman knows he hasn't got a style Hopkins won't have seen before, and that's just the problem. Stylistically nobody in the division really has something he hasn't seen before, the only hope anyone has is to impose on Hopkins and keep him working harder than he wants to. To make him fight outside rather than within himself.