Worse schooling: Hopkins UD Pavlik or Kovalev UD Hopkins

hopkins pavlik by a mile, kovalev was more a case of a massive physical advantage.

 

Using punch stats as an actual part of reasoning

 

Punch stats deduced from video ****ysis of a fight is fine. CompuBox stats are fairly useless though, due to their history of being grossly off.

 

Both Pavlik and Hopkins were at the end of very one-sided defeats.

But Pavlik wasn't knocked down, then hurt and on the verge of being knocked out in the later stages.

Kovalev could have went for the kill at any stage in the fight. But he preferred to beat Bernard at his own game, and succeeded, almost casually.
And he did it while being on foreign soil, against an established legend.

 

:-( hopkins out boxed pavlik, kovalev out POINTED hopkins theres a huge difference between the 2. in short cause i dont got time to teach know it alls. pavlik would never beat hopkins because of the skill level is to far apart. kovalev beat hopkins because bhop was 49 at the time. bhop is top 5 in his division and the only reason he loses is because of his age. kovalev put the old man in his place but he did not school him
he just out worked him.

 

I'm pretty sure getting schooled by a senior citizen is worse than a 50 year old, ancient man getting beaten by a young 30 year old.

 

I was saying this but no one was listening

 

Hopkins over Pavlik for me, Kelly had the same look on his face that Jeff Lacy had against Calzaghe. He looked lost, confused and really out of his depth that night.

 

Pavlik was closer to getting stopped. Last round was tough in hop/kov but Hopkins hurt serg in that round too.

 

Throwing a bone to the old dog, i see. :rofl

 

Kovalev was clearly better than Hopkins but he didn't take him to school. He just used his skills, his power and his ability to control the distance while Hopkins never got into the fight he wanted.


Hopkins vs Pavlik was a real schooling. Pavlik didn't understood what was happening and what Hopkins was doing to/with him. Hopkins showed Pavlik something in the ring he never experienced before.

Kovalev didn't show Hopkins something he's never seen before ... Hopkins had just no means against the way Kovalev fought.

f.e. Dawson-Hopkins was neither a schooling

that's it

 

Taylor was an unsolvable puzzle for Hopkins, too.
Twice.

That why i have to wonder if Kovalev beats any Hopkins version.

I would give Kovalev a great chance of beating 40 year old Hopkins.

 

Hopkins over Pavlik for sure. Only losers would brag about Kovalev "schooling" a 50 year old.

 

Hopkins/Kov.

Kov carried him for 11 rounds, and when Hopkins stuck his tongue out in the 12th he almost got killed for it. He got battered from pillar to post for that.

Also, Pavlik still fought on after the Hopkins fight. 'Nard might just have been retired from Kov's beating.

 

Kovalev seemed scared to go for the kill, he fought a very conservative fight I think he has doubts over his ability to take a punch.

Also you do realise that Hopkins was very nearly double Pavliks age at the time of theses respective losses? You wouldn't expect a 26 yr old to retire although Kelly never seemed the same fighter after Hopkins