Jean Pascal v Bernard Hopkins, thoughts.

I can see the rounds :
1 (10-8 ), 2, 3 (10-8 ), 5, 10, and 12 for Pascal !

 

Heres my article.

Featured on OtG


by Greg Paterson | Sun. Dec. 19, 2010

December 18, 2010 will not go down as the day that Bernard Hopkins became the oldest fighter to ever win a world title, nor will it be remembered as the day Hopkins finally found out that he wasn’t able to cut it with the younger brood of fighters. The place in history Hopkins had his eyes on eluded him courtesy of a 12 round majority draw with Canada's reigning Ring and WBC Light Heavyweight Champion, Jean Pascal at the Pepsi Coliseum in Quebec, Canada.


This however was familiar ground for Hopkins. Some 17 years ago, a fresh faced 28-year-old Hopkins traveled to a Coliseum in Ecuador to challenge Segundo Mercado for the vacant IBF Middleweight Championship. In that fight he was dropped twice, but boxed his way back into the fight and received a draw for his efforts. Sound familiar?


In two subsequent rematches Hopkins gained his revenge on Mercado, and it signaled a new beginning in the career of "The Executioner." It was also the start of a new era in middleweight boxing.


Against Pascal, the 45-years-old Hopkins proved he is still able to handle the young bucks of today. He is definitely not the force that he once was though, as the knockdowns for Pascal attest to. Hopkins knows! With every passing fight his reflexes deteriorate, his speed is a fraction slower and his accuracy is not quite what it used to be. However, he still has that technical grounding, veteran savvy and all-round know-how to continue as a world class operator. This skill-set that Hopkins brings to the light heavyweight division, and the whole of boxing for that matter is something severely lacking in other top fighters.


Pascal is a superb athlete and a very talented fighter. The champion uses his speed and reflexes to dart in and out of range with fast, but crude, flurries. Despite this, he has a distinct lack of fundamental boxing skill: he can’t counter-punch; he lacks a good jab; his sense of distance and timing are poor, leading him to lunge in etc. These are skills that the old school technician Hopkins has down to a tee.

The other top names at light heavyweight also have similar short comings. Tarvoris Cloud the IBF World Champion is often over-eager and can lunge in leaving himself open to counters. Chad Dawson is a solid technician but he struggles mentally in close fights. The main weakness of all of them is their inability to adapt and mold their game to opponents mid-way through a fight. This is a symptom of a lack of in-ring intelligence.


The way in which Hopkins was able to outbox Pascal proves that fundamental boxing can, and usually will triumph over athletic superiority.


In the Jan. 2011 issue of The Ring Magazine's "Perfect Execution" piece Hopkins said, "You should know by now that boxing is a thinking man’s game that’s about … out-thinking your man as much as it is about out-punching him. … Sooner or later … you’ll meet an opponent who can throw as many punches as you can or who can punch as hard as you can, or who can take you punches without getting hurt. And you’re going to need something else. You’re going to need to use your brain."


As Hopkins pointed out, being able to think in the ring is key. Hopkins demonstrated this against Pascal; as he used angles to set up body attacks on Pascal, and he used unorthodox right hand leads to catch Pascal unaware, he kept Pascal occupied, and off-balance, with a jab. Pascal was dumbfounded and stumped by the style of Hopkins and could not do anything about it.


Another flaw that Hopkins exploited was Pascal’s lack of basic fundamental skills. Pascal’s hand positioning on offense is poor, which allowed Hopkins' slotted straight counters right through the middle of Pascal’s wider swings. The lack of a jab on Pascal’s part allowed Hopkins to get off first and establish the pace to set-up combinations.


Hopkins has made a career by finding weaknesses in fighters and exploiting them majorly. He does not just beat guys, he mentally wrecks them. In an article that appeared in the Jan. 2010 edition of Boxing Monthly, Lou Dibella explained Hopkins destructiveness to Ron Borges.


"If a fighter is not well schooled when he goes in against Hopkins, he won’t come out the same. … He took them from the pinnacle and mentally beat them to a pulp. … He’s not pounding the **** out of you. He’s embarrassing you," offered DiBella.


Hopkins proved just that against Pascal.


The Canadian champion was on top of the world after beating Dawson, but Hopkins brought him crashing back to the ground by showing him, and the whole world, the cracks in his arsenal. Is this another fighter that Hopkins has left an unconfident shell of themselves? At the end of the fight Pascal looked dejected and broken, a sign of his future in boxing perhaps. Despite not winning the bout, Hopkins proved himself the better fighter than Pascal; he showcased more versatility, a better skill-set and heart. He ruthlessly showed Pascal his weaknesses, and degraded his fighting skills with every passing second.


In the late 70s and early 80s there was a steady pressure-fighter from Mexico named Lupe Pintor. He used unflappable pressure and a steady grind-you-down style to outlast his opponents. Before his 1982 classic with Wilfredo Gomez, HBO analyst Larry Merchant dubbed him ‘"The Truth Machine." Merchant said that he found the truth out about his opponents.


Perhaps the name is more suitable to Bernard Hopkins. If you have any hidden imperfection in your pugilistic arsenal, Hopkins will find it out.

 

Excellent stuff, Greg. You're becoming quite the writer.:good

 

Cheers. It's not quite flowing just yet, still a bit clunky with my words and that. That's the best I have ever written though.

 

Greg, would you agree that the ability to adept comes largely from experience and the reason today´s guys aren´t as good as they used to be due to the low number of fights fighters generally have todaY?

 

Agreed

 

This was my scorecard except the last round was a draw.

 

That could definitely be the case. I haven't really thought about it though, and I'm just off to bed, I'll ponder it tomorrow and get back to you.

 

Yep, that's my card. thought the 8th was actually a closer round to score than the 10th but we agree exactly on the scoring.

 

Draws are perfectly apt. I can't remember an exact example but I remember seeing them in recent boxing.

 

Thats the american obsession:-( there's got to be a winner or loser & no sitting on the fence which defeats the whole point IMO of a fair & even sporting contest & debases not only the judges independence but the fighters efforts. Maybe it's the Las Vegas bookies who'll **** themselves the most if judges were allowed to score a round as it should be by observational conscience.

 

Let me know when that happens then, and i'll give an even round. Seriously, for me the game is so massive in its scope that you can more or less always judge one man to have boxed better than the other in a particular round. The criteria is very broad and not strictly defined. If a piece of legislation emerges saying that the round should be scored to the man who did more damage, then i would give even rounds if neither man damaged the other. But as it is, rounds can be won on many things, ring generalship being one, you can always find a way to separate two fighters, if you try hard enough. And that's quite simply the bottom line for me, no discussion needed on the matter.

 

Digging all the avatar support for Hopkins

Anyway, I had it 8-4 to Hopkins, and scored the first round 10-9 for Pascal rather than 10-8. Wasn't looking to actually score it though, more of a quick judgement of each round, so maybe another viewing is in order.

 

VERY WELL SAID. I 100% agree.

 

A knockdown is a knockdown, and the round has to be scored 10-8 whether you agree the KD was legit or not (the referee's ruling is final on that). In order to get a 10-9 the fighter that was knocked down had to be dominating the round, not just having slightly the better of it.