Kovalev vs Ward- How good is the matchup quality compared to the last few decades?

[Humean]

It is hard to say how high it is compared to other high quality matchups in other weight classes but in terms of the light-heavyweight division then I think it is the best since Michael Spinks-Dwight Muhammad Qawi in 1983. There are a few light-heavy match-ups since then that maybe you could argue were higher quality than Kovalev-Ward but not for me, this is the best for 33 years.

[yngwie]

Many people don't realize how important this fight is, there haven't been many fights with the p4p best in the world title on the line this decade.

[Humean]

Interesting... I think one match-up, two actually, from not even that long ago - that are very underrated in terms of level of abilities, as well as action - are two Glen Johnson vs Antonio Tarver fights.
Bother were at their absolute peaks, but because they had some loses earlier in their career - Glen obviously, but Tarver as well against Eric Harding - they don't quite get credit for how good they were.
I think both guys, despite very long careers - had relatively short primes when they not only had all the experience, but also still all the physical tools.. and that's when they met.
Was this better fight than Kovalev vs Ward? Possibly, but I think it will be easier to judge after the fight depending on how those two will perform on the night, but I'll say this with certainty - no one on the resume of Sergey or Andre could hang with prime Tarver and Glen imo.

Johnson-Tarver is certainly one of the higher quality match-ups but for me it definitely doesn't match Kovalev-Ward. I certainly don't agree with the claim that nobody on Ward and Kovalev's record could hang with prime Tarver or Johnson, also when are you saying their primes are? I ask because there is a danger of defining a fighters prime as those years they don't lose and therefore if I was to say, well Johnson lost to Gonzalez or Harmon or Woods or Dawson then you might say thay he was pre-prime in the first two and post-prime in the last two.

The ones I was thinking of were Jones-Tarver I (although hindsight lowers it as Jones clearly wasn't the force he once was) and four fights all involving Virgil Hill: Hill-Hearns, Hill-Maske, Hill-Michalczewski and Hill-Jones Jr (although technically over the limit and a non-title fight).

[BKM-]

but I'll say this with certainty - no one on the resume of Sergey or Andre could hang with prime Tarver and Glen imo.

I think you're forgetting that Hopkins(who was beaten worse by Kovalev than anyone else) beat up/outclassed both of them.

[BKM-]

You know very well that neither Tarver or Glen fought 50 years old Hopkins, so I'm not sure what's the point here Pall! It's like making a point out of Berbick outclassing Ali..
I'm not saying it to discredit Kovalev in any way, he's one of my favorites and his resume is excellent among fighters of today.

And you know very well that Hopkins was just as green as Glen was at that time so that's a null excuse, and Hopkins has hardly declined that much since the absolute domination of the Tarver fight. Trying to claim that it's comparable to Ali vs Berbick? Congratz, you just TOPPED your initial exponentially idiotic statement from earlier which seemed humanly impossible. What's next, Butterbean pieces up young Clay? Try to top it again please.

You know very well that Hopkins is no regular late 40s fighter but you're gonna act like he was just so that you don't look as ******ed after making the statement:

no one on the resume of Sergey or Andre could hang with prime Tarver and Glen imo.

Even if you believe that the Hopkins who fought Kov would lose to "prime Tarver and Glen" it's another thing to claim that he couldn't even HANG with them? When those two wins for Bernard are amongst his most dominant and impressive of his entire career.

It's fine if you're trying to back peddle from a ridiculous comment, I just think the way you're doing it is pathetic. PAL.

[Humean]

You're making great point sir that made me revisit my position, particulary on Tarver. That's indeed that kind of trap that's easy to fall into that fighters are in their prime when they are most successful, but hey opponent are there with plans on their own to!
As for Glen Johnson, I think most his losses are unlucky at best and unjust at worst - before his prime, as well as past it , but what I believe his prime years was when you saw him becoming really consistant with his punch output - that changed his game tremendously.
He always had great tight defence and punch variety, but in his 168 period, he was often lazy, falling into spots of inactivity - that's how he let Sven Ottke get away with decision, was outboxed by Syd Vanderpool(although it was short notice) and didn't separate himself from Sheika.
Then at 175 I think Clinton Woods fights are good measure, as Clinton was always solid, dependable fighter and Glen did give few rounds away in first one, but completely dominated the rematch.. Then you had Roy Jones fight that I believe gave him a lot of confidence and against Tarver, I think he fought as good as he ever did..
It's not so much about prime, but about different circumstances(Confidence, being financially secure, having full camps etc.) allowing you to be at your very best on given night. I think Glen had those nights against Tarver. Later on I think he was robbed against Dawson and even Froch, but I didn't feel he was quite as great as he once was.
As for Tarver, I think maybe it was just Glen's style that allowed him to come with good game-plan that made him look that good, while Harding and Jones were more of confusing styles to him. I indeed probably fallen into that trap you talked about, so thanks.

Going into the subject, I do think both those guys from that night were so much better than overrated Kessler and Froch(Who, in my view, was dominated by old Glen). I think for some reason super middleweights from that era received more hype than more skilled light heavies from the same time.
I'm not quite as high on Virgill as you, I believe, as I wouldn't really put the fights you mentioned in the same category.
At the end, I think we both agree on the most important point - that Kovalev vs Ward is beautiful match-up, so all good and thanks again.

Glen Johnson was certainly in a lot of close fights and perhaps at least one or two of his losses should have went his way but the Froch fight was certainly not one of them. From what I remember Froch defeated Johnson clearly. I don't want to take too much credit away from Johnson and Tarver but I do think there is a strong element of being in the right fight at the right time in regards to their wins over Roy Jones Jr. Both Johnson and Tarver were world class light-heavyweights but their respective wins over Jones probably elevated their status beyond what they were, I think their performances and results before and after those fights suggests that. I certainly think Virgil Hill was a superior fighter to both of them, as were perhaps a few others from the 1990s.