Comments Thread For: Kovalev-Caparello Early Fight Results

[Brassangel]

Hopkins at nearly 50 is better than most fighters will ever be in their prime. A lot of folks simply don't understand that the man trains and lives like nobody else in the sport.

Have you personally observed much of his living and training? Can you prove he is, without question, better at 50 than most fighters will ever be in their prime? How would you define "better," and what gives you the right to make that judgment about Hopkins or the competition?

I'd say you are contradicting your own "faith vs. logic" statement.

That said...

I think what this boils down to is faith versus logic. You have faith that Kovalev will beat Bernard Hopkins no matter what. Your faith makes it easy to ignore the fact that Kovalev has never been 12 rounds. Or that he's never been tested. Or that he has 0 experience going rounds against top-level opposition. Or that he's never been forced to make adjustments.

This is boxing. Anything can happen in the ring. But faith is still faith.

Faith is based on a logical conclusion of one missing piece in the face of present evidence.

To summarize the great creation vs. evolution debate, there is science and archaeology for both. The last piece of creation is the Creator itself; the one thing that can't physically be measured or observed. In evolution, the process itself can't be observed (as it takes too long, allegedly); the transitional species don't exist anywhere in the fossil record; and life can't come from non-living material. It's by faith that people have to accept those things have occurred.

It's not science vs. religion. Both have science, and religion is simply the way one practices their life according to their own worldview.

It's also not logic vs. faith, as faith is about putting trust in an incomplete corner of the puzzle based on logical conclusions.

These things aren't mutually exclusive to one another, but the uneducated majority in Europe and America are indoctrinated to believe as such.

[Someone88]

Very good win for Kovalev!

[nycsmooth]

Hopkins will need all his tricks, fouls & dirty fighting 2 keep Kovalev away...I'm thinking, K may need 2 b a little more delilberate, early on, we shall c...

[theghost#1]

Sometimes I truly truly wonder what some of you are watching????

^^^^^^^^ This^^^^;^^^^^

[Nomadic]

Let's go Bhop.

[Supreme75]

Hopkins beats every come forward fighter he fights, but Kov can punch so we'll see. I can't for the life of me figure out why Hopkins lost to Dawson and Jermaine Taylor up to this day. Lol those guys are B- fighters.

They both had very good, active jabs. That disrupts what Hop wants to do. If you can be consistent and active with a nice jab, you can beat him.

If you DON'T use or have a good jab, you are not beating B-Hop. That's why I think Kov has no chance.

[bojangles1987]

Well that explains it. Just seeing the foot stomp for the first time.

[bigjavi973]

In a league of weak opponents, Kelly Pavlik's record was more impressive prior to facing Hopkins. Look what Hopkins did to Pavlik, the same will happen to Kovalev. He has yet to face a slick boxer.

And sergio martinez beat pavlik even worse. Also pavlik was a drug addict and a drun. Why u think he retired?

[bigjavi973]

Pavlik had faced a higher level of opponent based solely on bouts with one fighter, Jermain Taylor. Going into those bouts he was significantly less proven than Taylor and had never beaten anyone like Hopkins, as Taylor had. This is just one example of a less proven fighter beating a more proven fighter (also see Taylor-Hopkins), so I don't place much value on the isolated claim that someone has beaten better opposition than their opponent has, at least when people conflate that with superior ability. What is more important is accounting for level of opposition within an analysis of other factors, such as the styles, attributes, and recent efforts of each fighter. It is particularly important to consider recent opposition, because the form a fighter shows against them is more relevant to an upcoming bout than the form they showed years ago.

In this case, Hopkins and Kovalev have recently beaten opponents of similar quality. The single best win was Hopkins' decision over Pascal, but I also think that Cleverly and Campillo are superior to Murat and Shumenov, as is evidence by their fights with them. I was not using triangle theories in the Hopkins-Murat-Cleverly comparison, but I was trying to highlight that while Kovalev gets criticized for his opposition (1) Hopkins is facing similar opponents at this point (2) it's nonsensical to criticize Kovalev's recent opposition but not Hopkin's when the latter's wins have come against fighters who were gotten the better of by Kovalev foes, and (3) Hopkins is probably not as good as he was.

There are still questions about Kovalev, such as his chin (unlikely to be tested against someone without a stoppage in a decade) and stamina, but I think he's established a number of things, including his power, offensive diversity, and solid combination punching and timing. These qualities have consistently been evident and I don't think he'd lose them just because he's facing Hopkins rather than someone like Cleverly, Campillo, Agnew, or Sillakh (who is faster than Hopkins perhaps more difficult to time as a result). Kovalev's also beaten his opposition more thoroughly than Hopkins has similar opponents.

I disagree that Kovalev must knockout Hopkins to beat him, and I'm not sure why you'd think this unless you're assuming you know the answers to the questions you suggest that Kovalev still has to answer. Hopkins is a slow-paced, low output fighter and I think there is a realistic chance that Kovalev outworks him over the distance, not landing many great shots but making him weary and putting him into a shell that he rarely comes out of.

Kovalev may not need backup plans to win, but he may have plenty of them. It shouldn't be assumed that he wouldn't simply because his plan A has always worked.

Your explanation makes more sense

[twosweethooks]

Rusian looked like a shit against that bum.

Legendary brother gon expose and retire another white fake.

I bet you and S*itking *HATE ROCKY MARCIANO* hahahahahaha, as he KO'd 43 of 49, Never LOST to a black man, or a white man, green man, blue mang, brown mang, invisible mang, Nah , he just whupped em .

Watch this fight bro and see if it don't remind you a little bit like RM vs Archie Moore hahahahahaha