Currently, Kovalev is already in or around the top 50 Light-Heavyweights all time

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I tend to agree with you. People will downplay Winky and Pavlik, and people will point out the losses to Calzaghe and Dawson, the "draw" with Pascal, and the fact that Shumenov and Cloud aren't world beaters. But looking at the bigger picture, I think Hopkins clearly has the better resume, too. Notwithstanding the head-to-head master class by Kovalev against Hopkins 2 months shy of 50.

I think Kovalev deserves tremendous credit, especially that I believed Hopkins would actually beat Kovalev. But at the same time, does Clay get much credit for beating The Ol' Mongoose?

:smoke

 

I don't know about that. Hopkins was a huge under dog against Tarver, moving up 2 divisions, after losing consecutive fights at middleweight, as a perceived old man. Kovalev did beat the legend in Hopkins, but he was clearly the favorite going into that one. Ergo, the magnitude of Hopkins' win over Tarver far outshines Kovalev's win over Hopkins. You could maybe make a similar case for Hopkins with Pascal, as well, although that one is far less obvious and maybe more of a stretch.

But, no doubt in my mind whatsoever....

Hopkins UD Tarver > Kovalev UD Hopkins

 

I'm not following your logic here at all.

The fact remains, Tarver was expected to beat Hopkins, and was dominated. Kovalev was expected to beat Hopkins, and won in impressively dominant fashion, with a different type of fight than most expected, but he was still favored.

What does the Hopkins who fought Kovalev vs Tarver have to do with anything?

Kovalev is also a natural 175 pounder, but at the time Hopkins beat Tarver (the relevant time in question), Hopkins was a middleweight jumping 2 divisions at the perceived ancient age of 40.

It's a no brainer for me.

 

I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but with all due respect I'm not really buying it.

That's fair play, and I eluded to that earlier as pertaining to your original post, but the topic of discussion evolved into a better win - and on your own logic, I think that weakens your case that Kovalev beat the better fighter. He beat a guy who had already lost to Dawson and Calzaghe, and also drew with Pascal.

Tarver, on the other hand, was on top of the world having bested Roy 2 of 3, notwithstanding his split with Johnson.

 

Me neither, and I honestly don't view it as even being particularly close.