Comments Thread For: Kovalev: To Become a Legend, I Have To Beat a Legend!

[richardt]

I knew you didn't understand. Nothing to be embarrassed about chap. That wasn't the point I was making. Boxers can show diminished qualities quite rapidly, but the REASON for that decline is a steady, gradual fatigue ... usually referred to as ageing.

Don't get confused. We all age. It's always gradual. It always eventually leads to a loss of previous ability. Quite simple points, even for you.

It's you who doesn't understand. You JUST finished saying IF Hopkins loses, it is automatically due to age. I said it is not IF Hopkins loses, it is HOW he loses that determines if age catches up! If Hopkins fights a solid fight, like the ones he has against younger fighters and wins or loses, he will not be seen as a fighter who age caught up to. That is different than if Hopkins steps into the ring listless, unable to perform the way he has and loses. Then people will say age finally caught up to him! WHICH version shows up will be how people perceive whether he still has it and performed well or no longer has it and it shows. Simple.

[Wicky]

... if Hopkins loses, it is automatically due to age...

Again, no. I never even remotely suggested "automatically" anything. I very specifically said that age is a factor. It is. He can put on a blinding performance and loose. Regardless of not appearing tarnished by age, age has still been affecting him and ultimately will play a part in his loss. You can't look at a guy's performance and choose to omit factors that aren't visible to you. Everything that affects his physical and mental state would contribute to a loss. All the psyching out, the stare downs, the hype... they all also play a part.

[richardt]

Again, no. I never even remotely suggested "automatically" anything.

Yes, you did. You said that if Hopkins loses, it is because he is old, point blank. That is an automatic assumption, a phoned in assumption, regardless of Hopkins performance, what takes place, the circumstances of the fight.

I am the one who looks at the variables of a loss, not just a loss to determine if age caught up with Hopkins or not.

[Wicky]

Yes, you did. You said that if Hopkins loses, it is because he is old, point blank. That is an automatic assumption, a phoned in assumption, regardless of Hopkins performance, what takes place, the circumstances of the fight.

I am the one who looks at the variables of a loss, not just a loss to determine if age caught up with Hopkins or not.

No. I explained, in detail, that if he looses age is a factor. It is.

[richardt]

No. I explained, in detail, that if he looses age is a factor. It is.

And I explained that it is not IF he loses that determines if age finally caught up to him but HOW he loses that determines that.

[Wicky]

And I explained that it is not IF he loses that determines if age finally caught up to him but HOW he loses that determines that.

Once again...

You can't separate out fighters attributes and shortcomings as separate unrelated factors. If there's a dis/advantage of ANY description it has a bearing, whether you perceive it or not. That dis/advantage may be speed, agility, power OR AGE. They're all related and all have a bearing on the fight.

You don't see him visibly slow down, so you assume he hasn't and that makes age irrelevant as far as your argument is concerned. But age isn't irrelevant, in the same way that speed, power & agility aren't. They are all the physical attributes that will determine the outcome. If B-Hop looses age will be a factor.

[richardt]

Once again...

You can't separate out fighters attributes and shortcomings as separate unrelated factors. If there's a dis/advantage of ANY description it has a bearing, whether you perceive it or not. That dis/advantage may be speed, agility, power OR AGE. They're all related and all have a bearing on the fight.

You don't see him visibly slow down, so you assume he hasn't and that makes age irrelevant as far as your argument is concerned. But age isn't irrelevant, in the same way that speed, power & agility aren't. They are all the physical attributes that will determine the outcome. If B-Hop looses age will be a factor.

A fighter can visibly slow down and use their tricks and experience in the ring to compensate and even do a number of things better that when they relied on youth and athleticism. Even to the point of improving their health from when they were younger through organic foods and supplements where they are taking better care of their body than they used to. Hopkins beats younger guys because he is physically and technically superior. He fights like a much younger man and beats younger men which means age has not caught up to him yet and that is why people are wonder if and when he will get old overnight.

If the Hopkins who beat younger fighters shows up, gives the same solid performance he did against younger fighters and loses, that means that age did not catch up to him, he fought a better fighter than those guys. IF that Hopkins does not show up and his performance shows that he no longer has it, then age finally caught up to him. Those are two very possible scenarios. I'm done discussing this with you.

[Wicky]

A fighter can visibly slow down and use their tricks and experience in the ring to compensate and even do a number of things better that when they relied on youth and athleticism. Even to the point of improving their health from when they were younger through organic foods and supplements where they are taking better care of their body than they used to.

If the Hopkins who beat younger fighters shows up, gives the same solid performance he did against younger fighters and loses, that means that age did not catch up to him, he fought a better fighter than those guys. IF that Hopkins does not show up and his performance shows that he no longer has it, then age finally caught up to him. Those are two very possible scenarios. I'm done discussing this with you.

Let’s try this a different way…

You think what you see is important. Right? If you see him slow down noticeably from his last fight(s), he “grown old”. If not, the loss has nothing to do with age, he just lost to a better guy. Yes or no?

[richardt]

Let***8217;s try this a different way***8230;

You think what you see is important. Right? If you see him slow down noticeably from his last fight(s), he ***8220;grown old***8221;. If not, the loss has nothing to do with age, he just lost to a better guy. Yes or no?

If he is NOTICEABLY slower against Kovalev than in his recent fights and cant pull the trigger like he used to or avoid lunches like he did, then it is obvious age caught up to him. If he performs the way he has recently then no, age has not caught up to him yet.

This is a man who considers his body a temple and buys organic food at Whole Foods just like I do and his work ethic has kept him where he is able to beat younger men. He has transformed himself on a cellular level with how he manages his body and that's why he beats younger men because he performs at or above their level physically and technically. When age catches up to him, the world will know.

[D-MiZe]

After seeing Green-Jones Jr, I never want to hear that saying again...

"peeleft: