Comments Thread For: Kovalev-Caparello Early Fight Results

[King_]

Learn to take a joke you uptight weirdo

Shouldn't you be pm'ing me about how you will "pray for my soul" right about now....You obsessive weirdo....I've never seen someone care so much about a random dude that he doesn't even know on a boxing forum....

The honkey line was clearly a joke...Stop being so uptight...

Lol you know you're serious. What can I say, I'm a good person. When I see someone in need I try to help




Hopefully you get banned.

[BoxingFan82]

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

Bernard is a living legend who has beat some of the best fighters in the sport for more than two decades. He has literally seen it all. You want to dismiss that and imply he's on the same level as Kovalev because the last two guys Hopkins fought weren't the best fighters in the world? That's silly.

Hopkins is probably not as good as he was.

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.

offensive diversity, and solid combination punching and timing.

As I said, I like Kovalev and think he has a promising future but I think you're seeing what you want to see. Kovalev hasn't gone enough rounds against game opposition to draw meaningful conclusions about his boxing skills.

That's a big part of Kovalev's problem and his lack of experience is one of the biggest reasons he's at a disadvantage going into the Hopkins fight.

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.

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.

[animalfan10]

Lol you know you're serious. What can I say, I'm a good person. When I see someone in need I try to help

Now your making me feel bad....Alright then thanks for the message of support...Haha

[larimoor]

This creature you have on your picture, is that orangutang or chimpanzee?

[larimoor]

This creature you have on your picture, is that orangutang or chimpanzee???

[Levity]

Bernard is a living legend who has beat some of the best fighters in the sport for more than two decades. He has literally seen it all. You want to dismiss that and imply he's on the same level as Kovalev because the last two guys Hopkins fought weren't the best fighters in the world? That's silly.

I'm not dismissing all but Hopkins' recent wins, but I think they're far better indicators of form and therefore it's silly to criticize Kovalev for his opposition when Hopkins hasn't done much better over the past few years. His struggles with Dawson, Pascal, and even the issues he had with Murat suggest to me that he's recently slowed, and I don't think performances from several years ago are good indicators of his current ability.

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.

I agree with the first sentence, but how would you know the second sentence is true? Do you train and live with every boxer in the world?

As I said, I like Kovalev and think he has a promising future but I think you're seeing what you want to see. Kovalev hasn't gone enough rounds against game opposition to draw meaningful conclusions about his boxing skills. That's a big part of Kovalev's problem and his lack of experience is one of the biggest reasons he's at a disadvantage going into the Hopkins fight.

I'm seeing what Kovalev does in the ring. In terms of punch diversity, he dropped Caparello with a straight right to the body, stopped Agnew with a jab to the body after dropping him with left hooks to the head, hurt Cleverly with a jab and ripped him with hooks to the body before dropping him with right crosses, dropped and stopped Sillakh with straight rights, and so on. In terms of combination punching, he threw an accurate five punch combo immediately before dropping Campillo the first time, he mixed in an uppercut very nicely with several other shots to finish Cleverly, and throughout most of his bouts he mixes jabs and right hands very fluidly. In terms of timing, he initially hurt Cleverly, Campillo, and Sillakh with counterpunches.

All of this is on tape, and if you dispute any of these points I can direct you to the specific moments in the videos. I think it's nonsensical to dismiss this evidence of these abilities simply because Kovalev didn't show them against someone as good as Hopkins. By the same measure you could discount all his abilities, leaving him as a nobody.

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.

I don't ignore that Kovalev hasn't gone 12, been tested, or had to make adjustments, and I'm not sure why you're assuming that I do. I mentioned some of this in a previous post, but I guess you didn't read closely enough.

There are questions Kovalev hasn't answered, and I'm still unsure if he'll answer them successfully or unsuccessfully, which is part of the reason why I'm not sure if he'll win. He's shown me enough ability against a high-enough level of opposition (multiple top 5 opponents and several solid but lower ranked fighters) that I'm more confident of him beating Hopkins than I am of the reverse. That doesn't mean I have faith (i.e. complete trust or confidence) that Kovalev will beat Hopkins, but I think it's more likely than not.

[jbpanama]

Kovalev is 100% wrecking machine but I think the Alien will find a way

B-Hop has the Skill Set needed to Beat this Ruskie....

If he can Hang for 6 or 7 Rounds I like His Chances, Down the Stretch.....

[BoxingFan82]

I'm not dismissing all but Hopkins' recent wins, but I think they're far better indicators of form and therefore it's silly to criticize Kovalev for his opposition when Hopkins hasn't done much better over the past few years. His struggles with Dawson, Pascal, and even the issues he had with Murat suggest to me that he's recently slowed, and I don't think performances from several years ago are good indicators of his current ability.

Styles make fights. You could mention Calzaghe as well. Any fighter who is willing to fight the best opposition when said opposition is in its prime will likely take losses, but I think it's fair to say that Bernard has never been beaten.

As for Bernard's "issues" with Murat, I don't know what fight you were watching. Two judges had that fight 119-108, and the other had it 117-110.

I agree with the first sentence, but how would you know the second sentence is true? Do you train and live with every boxer in the world?

Bernard's lifestyle has been well-chronicled. If you believe Bernard is lying about the way he lives, that's fair enough. But then you'd have to come up with an alternate explanation as to how he's fighting at the highest levels of the sport at an age when most fighters are well over a decade into retirement.

All of this is on tape, and if you dispute any of these points I can direct you to the specific moments in the videos. I think it's nonsensical to dismiss this evidence of these abilities simply because Kovalev didn't show them against someone as good as Hopkins. By the same measure you could discount all his abilities, leaving him as a nobody.

I never stated that Kovalev was unskilled. I simply stated that I don't believe he's gone enough rounds against game opposition to draw meaningful conclusions about his skills and ability to apply them in different situations. If you have different threshold for drawing conclusions, that's fine.

I don't ignore that Kovalev hasn't gone 12, been tested, or had to make adjustments, and I'm not sure why you're assuming that I do. I mentioned some of this in a previous post, but I guess you didn't read closely enough.

There are questions Kovalev hasn't answered, and I'm still unsure if he'll answer them successfully or unsuccessfully, which is part of the reason why I'm not sure if he'll win. He's shown me enough ability against a high-enough level of opposition (multiple top 5 opponents and several solid but lower ranked fighters) that I'm more confident of him beating Hopkins than I am of the reverse. That doesn't mean I have faith (i.e. complete trust or confidence) that Kovalev will beat Hopkins, but I think it's more likely than not.

I read your posts closely. You mentioned all of the legitimate questions that exist around Kovalev, and then go on to casually dismiss them.

When confronted with the fact that Kovalev has no experience executing a Plan B, such as having to outbox an opponent, you make the assumption that he'll magically be able to pull it off the first time (against one of the best boxers in the sport no less) despite his lack of experience. That's pure faith.

If Kovalev is unable to hurt Hopkins early, Kovalev's chances of outboxing and winning a points decision over Hopkins are slim. This is based on logic, not faith. Hopkins has never been knocked out, is always in fantastic shape, and thanks to his 25-plus years of experience arguably has the highest ring IQ of any active fighter. Kovalev has never fought beyond eight rounds, has never been tested and has never been forced to fight his opponent's fight.

Of course, the reason everybody is excited about this fight is that they want to see if Kovalev can hurt Hopkins. November will be here soon enough. See you then!

[TaurusJ27]

Bernard better not do any showboating when he's in there with Kovalev or he's going to find himself lying on the canvas.

[Levity]

Styles make fights. You could mention Calzaghe as well. Any fighter who is willing to fight the best opposition when said opposition is in its prime will likely take losses, but I think it's fair to say that Bernard has never been beaten.

As for Bernard's "issues" with Murat, I don't know what fight you were watching. Two judges had that fight 119-108, and the other had it 117-110.

In the last few years Bernard has been hit increasingly more by numerous opponents. Dawson was admittedly a bad style matchup for him and that loss on its own wouldn't raise too many flags, but he also had major issues with Pascal, who is good but not a type of fighter prime Hopkins consistently took heavy power shots from, let alone get dropped twice and seriously hurt by. Hopkins clearly beat Murat but I had the latter winning 4 rounds as did many others, and again Bernard got hit regularly even though throughout his career he generally had no issues with fighters at that level.

Most fighters lose, especially those who regularly fight good opposition, but that's not the issue. The issue is Hopkins, who is still clearly a very good fighter, showing signs of slowing (e.g. being hit more) and therefore I'm emphasizing his recent efforts heavily when evaluating how he'd fair against Kovalev.

Bernard has also been beaten six times and not one of them is generally accepted as a robbery, so your last sentence is incorrect.

Bernard's lifestyle has been well-chronicled. If you believe Bernard is lying about the way he lives, that's fair enough. But then you'd have to come up with an alternate explanation as to how he's fighting at the highest levels of the sport at an age when most fighters are well over a decade into retirement.

Bernard's lifestyle may be well chronicled, but you made a claim about every other boxer's lifestyle, and I'm curios how you could know the details of how they live.

I'm not debating that his lifestyle in one factor in his longevity, but it could also be that excellent genetics are the main factor.

I never stated that Kovalev was unskilled. I simply stated that I don't believe he's gone enough rounds against game opposition to draw meaningful conclusions about his skills and ability to apply them in different situations. If you have different threshold for drawing conclusions, that's fine.

I never said you claimed that Kovalev was unskilled, but if you think the punch diversity, timing, and other abilities he's shown against top 5 opponents can't be considered strengths that he'd carry into a bout with Hopkins, how can you ascribe any abilities to him at that level since he's never fought there? Wouldn't he be a total unknown in nearly every respect, even in terms of power?

When confronted with the fact that Kovalev has no experience executing a Plan B, such as having to outbox an opponent, you make the assumption that he'll magically be able to pull it off the first time (against one of the best boxers in the sport no less) despite his lack of experience. That's pure faith.

You're either lying or honestly mistaken, because I never said that Kovalev would successfully execute a plan b. If you read closely, which you said you did, you should've seen that I claimed that him not showing a plan b so far doesn't mean he can't effectively implement one; he may be able to, he may not be able to. Why don't you quote the part where you think I assumed that he would 'magically be able to pull it off the first time.'

I read your posts closely. You mentioned all of the legitimate questions that exist around Kovalev, and then go on to casually dismiss them.

That there are questions Kovalev has yet to answer is partially why I'm not sure that he'll win. If I were dismissing those questions I would be much more confident of his victory.

If Kovalev is unable to hurt Hopkins early, Kovalev's chances of outboxing and winning a points decision over Hopkins are slim. This is based on logic, not faith. Hopkins has never been knocked out, is always in fantastic shape, and thanks to his 25-plus years of experience arguably has the highest ring IQ of any active fighter. Kovalev has never fought beyond eight rounds, has never been tested and has never been forced to fight his opponent's fight.

I can see Kovalev winning a decision over Hopkins. He has shown impressive power and I think there is a realistic possibility that it could lead to Hopkins being especially cautious. This in turn could allow Kovalev to outwork him and pocket enough rounds to win a decision. Hopkins also fights at a slow pace, which could mitigate any stamina difficulties Kovalev may experience over 12 rounds.

You mention that Hopkins hasn't been knocked out, but I'm not sure how that's evidence that Kovalev couldn't win a decision over him. Moreover, you talk about faith and assumptions, but you adduce Kovalev's lack of experience as evidence that he couldn't win a decision, implying that him not going past 8 suggests that he couldn't box effectively after that point. You also mention that he's never had to fight his opponent's fight, but who says he'll have to do that against Hopkins? Both of these are assumptions, the type that you accused me of making before suggesting that I'm going on faith and you're going on logic.

Of course, the reason everybody is excited about this fight is that they want to see if Kovalev can hurt Hopkins. November will be here soon enough. See you then!

Yes, I'm sure many questions will be answered should they fight.