Comments Thread For: Inside The CompuBox Numbers: Dawson vs Hopkins II

[Russian Crushin]

It's not hard to lower a guys out put when you grab his lead arm and piggyback him the whole fight. Prevents him from throwing the jab and tires him out. Some inspiring MMA techniques from Bhop. Even had a beauty of a takedown on Dawson. He's definitely in the wrong sport. He should get together with his boy Rashad Evans.

Exactly

First of all Hopkins is a spoiler, and if you know anything about boxing, you would know what exactly spoliers do. Next he tried fighting from the outside and ran around alot. THen he held, wrestled and jumped on Chad's back when ever he got close.

So obviously his output would be lower.

[charlieg]

Hopkins did not defensively school anyone. You dont "defensively school" someone and still lose by a wide margin. Its like saying Kevin Johnson defensively schooled Vitali Klitschko. Ummm no

And i forgot that that you and all the other Hopkins fans were born with slow mo in your eye balls. Obviously live in real speed it looked like he landed.

I'm not complaining about the result. Dawson outworked him and never wilted despite some nasty cuts, some tough tactics by Hopkins, and never really finding his accuracy. Dawson also didn't stick to a losing plan and came up with new ways to find the mark, but he hardly dominated proceedings like HBO would have you believe. He rarely caught Hopkins clean.

BHops problem was he couldn't find a way to regularly get inside. He couldn't work up close as Dawson had the physical advantages, so it became a spoil fest at times, and Hopkins looked clumsy rushing in. He was landing the lead right, but nowhere near enough to clearly claim rounds. You can't rely on 2-3 shots winning a round unless you really make your opponent miss badly (think Haye vs Valuev). Hopkins was making Dawson miss, but it was thin margins and given the judges only have a single angle to see, it can be tough to discern. I can definitely see how one angle was a 117-111 and another a 114-114.

I can't remember my scorecard, but I had Dawson winning it by a fine margin plus I thought Hopkins should have had a point deducted for use of the head.

People attack Hopkins for bending the rules, but lets be honest; in other sports do they let fouls go? In other sports, do they only warn after a large number of infractions then start to meter out punishment when it just gets too much? It's a problem in boxing. Punishments should be near-instant - or at least warnings should be.

Back on point, you could count the number of clean shots that Dawson landed with probably 2 hands. It was not many. That is a defensive schooling. Defense doesn't win you fights on its own. Hopkins lost because his offense was too frugal, a product of his age combined with Dawson's size and athleticism. 10 years ago BHop may have been able to move inside, get off, then move out again, because he had the bounce and balance. Now, he seems to stumble an awful lot.

Still, I hope I'm as nimble as he is at 47. It's just not quite enough to compete with a fighter as physically big and fast as Chad Dawson.

[Russian Crushin]

I'm not complaining about the result. Dawson outworked him and never wilted despite some nasty cuts, some tough tactics by Hopkins, and never really finding his accuracy. Dawson also didn't stick to a losing plan and came up with new ways to find the mark, but he hardly dominated proceedings like HBO would have you believe. He rarely caught Hopkins clean.

BHops problem was he couldn't find a way to regularly get inside. He couldn't work up close as Dawson had the physical advantages, so it became a spoil fest at times, and Hopkins looked clumsy rushing in. He was landing the lead right, but nowhere near enough to clearly claim rounds. You can't rely on 2-3 shots winning a round unless you really make your opponent miss badly (think Haye vs Valuev). Hopkins was making Dawson miss, but it was thin margins and given the judges only have a single angle to see, it can be tough to discern. I can definitely see how one angle was a 117-111 and another a 114-114.

I can't remember my scorecard, but I had Dawson winning it by a fine margin plus I thought Hopkins should have had a point deducted for use of the head.

People attack Hopkins for bending the rules, but lets be honest; in other sports do they let fouls go? In other sports, do they only warn after a large number of infractions then start to meter out punishment when it just gets too much? It's a problem in boxing. Punishments should be near-instant - or at least warnings should be.

Back on point, you could count the number of clean shots that Dawson landed with probably 2 hands. It was not many. That is a defensive schooling. Defense doesn't win you fights on its own. Hopkins lost because his offense was too frugal, a product of his age combined with Dawson's size and athleticism. 10 years ago BHop may have been able to move inside, get off, then move out again, because he had the bounce and balance. Now, he seems to stumble an awful lot.

Still, I hope I'm as nimble as he is at 47. It's just not quite enough to compete with a fighter as physically big and fast as Chad Dawson.

Good post but i just cant agree with the defensive schooling part. I just cant see how you can defensively school someone and then loss a nice points margin.

It honestly doesnt matter who many times Chad missed, if Hopkins cant land anything at all in offense. His strategy was to make him miss alot but he forgot to actually punch as well. Winning is a balance of offense and defense.

Dawson also not only landed more punches but also at a higher percentage, 36% compared to Hopkins 27%. So he made Hopkins miss more and he was the guy coming forward

[Oh you out son]

Hopkins did not defensively school anyone. You dont "defensively school" someone and still lose by a wide margin. Its like saying Kevin Johnson defensively schooled Vitali Klitschko. Ummm no

And i forgot that that you and all the other Hopkins fans were born with slow mo in your eye balls. Obviously live in real speed it looked like he landed.

no just scrubs like you see punches being thrown and hear some kind of a sound and jump out of your chair like a good shot was landed. you were prolly saying "****, ****, ****, ****" along with Lampley in the Pac-Clottey.

when you watch someone like mayweather or hopkins you have to watch closely to notice their mastery and how they block most shots that in real time and in only one angle you think landed.

hopkins didnt do much offensively in this fight but he basically eliminated all of dawson's too. thats saying a lot for a 47 year old fighter with declining reflexes.

[Russian Crushin]

no just scrubs like you see punches being thrown and hear some kind of a sound and jump out of your chair like a good shot was landed. you were prolly saying "****, ****, ****, ****" along with Lampley in the Pac-Clottey.

when you watch someone like mayweather or hopkins you have to watch closely to notice their mastery and how they block most shots that in real time and in only one angle you think landed.

hopkins didnt do much offensively in this fight but he basically eliminated all of dawson's too. thats saying a lot for a 47 year old fighter with declining reflexes.

Nobody gives a fcuk about their "mastery" if they dont throw shiiit and lose a fight by a big margin

Wooow he "eliminated" Dawson's offense, yet he landed more and by a 9% bigger margin

But whooopy, Hopkins spoiled, hugged, butted and cheated at 47 years old to lowering his output...MAD PROPS YOOOOO

Thanks for playing, scrub

[Bushbaby]

hopkinsfought like an old and desperate man that cheery picks...lucky he's not a generation bk ..Monzon would have crushed him @ '60....

You have got to be just being sarcastic, otherwise you're about as ****** as they come. When was the last time in the history of boxing does a fighter cherrypick the top 2 fighters in his weight class being over 45??

[-Spinal-]

If Dawson was defensively schooled and Hopkins landed even less than Dawson, then I guess Hopkins was taken to university.

[charlieg]

Good post but i just cant agree with the defensive schooling part. I just cant see how you can defensively school someone and then loss a nice points margin.

It honestly doesnt matter who many times Chad missed, if Hopkins cant land anything at all in offense. His strategy was to make him miss alot but he forgot to actually punch as well. Winning is a balance of offense and defense.

Dawson also not only landed more punches but also at a higher percentage, 36% compared to Hopkins 27%. So he made Hopkins miss more and he was the guy coming forward

The bit in bold is us agreeing, singing from the same hymn sheet.

It is also the reason Hopkins lost.

The stats, well, that's my argument. Those stats are just not correct. Yes, that's what compubox says, but honestly compubox was poor in this fight. Dawson barely got through. Neither did Hopkins. What I saw was Chad at best getting through with 20%, but because he threw more and was the aggressor, he took the numerous close rounds.

[charlieg]

If Dawson was defensively schooled and Hopkins landed even less than Dawson, then I guess Hopkins was taken to university.

Ugh, read the actual posts... including my above post. Those numbers are just not right for this fight. Hopkins caught an awful lot of the scored shots using the palms of his gloves or his arms and shoulders. His defense was remarkable. His offense was his problem - relying on head first charging, holding and hitting.

This was one of those fights where compubox is just totally unreliable. (In the majority it is pretty accurate.)