80% leaning toward a win/win no matter who the victor is. Good to see the manority are unbiased. :good
"It's good for boxing no matter who wins" - as long as it's a clean win. A chintzy DQ or technical decision, or Hopkins breaking his back and writhing on the ground with Kovalev awarded the victory by TKO without having used his fists to get it - that would suck. A clean win either way, for the very different reasons listed in the OP, is great for boxing.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, there are scenarios I can envision where a win that isn't clean might actually be even more of a win for boxing if the controversy invites elevated interest (which is certainly possible, I think).
I suppose we can harken back to Hopkins' rivalry with Chad Dawson. In hindsight, was that a boon for boxing, or a stain upon it? :think The prognosis certainly wasn't good after their first meeting, with that bizarre and unsatisfactory ending and the never-popular result of the dreaded No Contest. Plus, while it lasted, it just wasn't shaping up to be a very good fight. It left a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth. That drummed up mixed emotions when it came to a rematch. People wanted to see their business settled and determine who really was the best light heavyweight at the moment, but at the same time, once bitten twice shy - nobody thought it would be a particularly enjoyable viewing experience and there was the looming specter of it again somehow going awry due to what increasingly was perceived as Hopkins' senescent frailty. Instead, we got a halfway decent boxing match with a clear winner - and for a short time all was right with the world and there was a clear #1 light heavyweight in the world in Bad Chad. So I guess it turned out alright? :conf It was hardly a barnburner, though - and paired with Hopkins vs. Dawson I it will be remembered as 24 rounds of some of the ugliest, dirtiest boxing in light heavyweight championship history.
Well, that might be a better example of a win that wasn't clean doing more harm than good. But the first Pascal fight, for instance, was a draw that most felt Bernard won despite getting twice dropped in the early going. The draw drew a little controversy in that regard, and I think that rivalry did do a good bit to boost boxing's popularity, at least across two North American nations.. I think, generally speaking, what you say typically rings true. But having an odd ending can do some good, and I think a textbook example of that would be the first Golota-Bowe fight, with it's bizarre unsatisfying ending followed by the unfortunate riot - I think Bowe-Golota boosted boxing in a good way. If nothing else it was the catalyst for me becoming a die hard fan of the sport.
Looks like you've made your mind up Hop is an ex-convict? That seems to be a fact and you think it's funny
Great for boxing hard to predict Here's to belt holders who were on different networks with different promoters Every trend today shows these 2 guys would never meet and they did in an era where the best find every way out they found a way in I feel either fighter winning is good for the sport Last hurrah for a legend or the start of a new star
A vote for "only if Hopkins wins"? Thats as ridiculous as voting only if kov wins. Theres really only one right answer to choose from, and neither of those are it if you're not just a fanboy. atsch
A win win for Sergey KRUSHER Kovalev the greatest lhw of all times. And second p4p puncher behind Julian The Hawk Jackson.